The societal and economic dangers of monopolies are clear. To combat the effects of these large corporations, the government has tried, through both legislation and court cases, to regulate monopolistic businesses. Though the strategies that the US has followed have varied, the aim of curbing market hegemony has been relatively constant. Though examples of attempts at government regulation are widespread, three stand out from the rest: railroads of the 19th Century, Microsoft, and IBM.

Most regulation in its early history revolved around the railroad industry. At first, the responsibility of control of public industries fell on the individual states. However, the ineffectual legislation that was passed and the inability to control railroad monopolies made the need for federal regulation painfully apparent. The passage of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887 created the first interstate regulatory committee. Though this group was not extremely effective in curbing the practices of the railroad, the precedent for federal regulation had been set. Later legislation, such as the Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust Acts had more of an effect on large businesses. The latter bill created the Federal Trade Commission, which is the major regulatory body of monopolies today.

The important question that arises from regulation is: Why does the government feel that it must control big businesses? Does this not violate the principles of freedom outlined in the Constitution? Indeed, the government never tried to stifle a corporation simply because it was strong. Instead, regulation exists to preserve competition and the freedom for smaller companies to enter the market. If one company controls the market share, smaller groups will never be able to flourish. For example, the dominance of Microsoft in recent years has raised the question of whether its practices are monopolistic. Because the corporation controls the majority of the market in nearly all of its markets, there is an overwhelming social pressure for regulation.

The earliest regulatory measures were not as focused on competition, however. The goal was to protect the consumer. For example, the Grangers (19th Century farmers) felt that they were being oppressed by unfair practices of the railroads. There was great social unrest in this population because of the practices of large corporations. To avoid revolt and turmoil, the state government passed the Granger Laws. This group of legislation was essentially an attempt to appease the troubled farmers. It was not until the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th that regulation made the turn toward preserving competition.

Another trend in regulation is the unfortunate tendency of legislation to have little effect. Most of the laws created to control railroads were simply ignored by the large corporations. Similarly, the action of the Federal Trade Commission against Microsoft is often viewed as a trifle. Judge Stanley Sporkin rejected the June 1995 decision regarding the Microsoft monopoly, saying that the ruling was a mockery and that stricter control must be taken. Most attempts at federal regulation have been mediated, modulated, or amended until they lose much of their original bite.

Clearly social and governmental history has shown an ever-present desire to curb the growth of corporations. The dangers of allowing one company to assume supremacy over a market have frightened the government into regulation. Though, in many instances, the legislation fails to achieve its original goal, governmental regulation has become a standard in interstate and international commerce. America was founded on the principle of free trade and freedom of competition. Therefore, the government has assumed the responsibility of preventing the formation of monopolies and curbing unfair practices of large corporations.

Case studies:

Back to Danger of Corporate Monopolies Main Page