There is probably no concept in all of economics that is at once more fundamental and pervasive, yet less satisfactorily developed, than the concept of competition. Although the hesitancy and inconsistency which has characterized the history of American competitive policy is doubtless partly due, as is often emphasized, to the fact that competition is, in our system, a political and social desideratum no less than an economic one, with some possible resulting conflict between these various values, surely it is due also to the failure of economists adequately to define competition. Not the least among many achievements of economics science has been the ability to erect a rigorous analytical system on the principle of competition- a principle so basic to economic reasoning that not even such powerful yet diverse critics of orthodox theory as Marx and Keynes could avoid relying upon it – without ever clearly specifying what competition is. The purpose of this paper is to examine some of the factors which account for this curious development, and to indicate some specific inadequacies of the economics concept of competition both for analysis and for policy.
