However, Levi would come to maintain the contrary proposition. [contrarian]
To curtail concentration and monopolization, Levi put forward some policy recommendations, one of which included cracking down on vertical integration. “Usually in an integration case, however, the effort is made to use ownership of one part of an industry to dominate another part—at least that is what separates the integration case from the straight monopolization case” (Levi 1947, 180). Levi recommended: “Here an intent to monopolize may have to be found, and may well be only in a plan recognized as such because of restrictive arrangements, price cutting, or fraud—earmarks of the abuse category” (p. 180). In short, Levi maintained that vertical integration coupled with “abuses,” such as price-cutting, provided sufficient evidence of intent to monopolize, and hence constituted grounds for illegality. After the birth of neoliberalism, however, Levi would come to maintain the contrary proposition.
Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, loc. 1105