Mr. Zingales started a podcast with Kate Waldock, an assistant professor of finance at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business, in 2018 called “Capitalisn’t” about what works well in the current economy and what does not.

Their first episode called for more antitrust enforcement of Facebook and Google, centered on the idea of how dangerous it would be if Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, decided to run for president — which didn’t seem so far-fetched at the time.

The Chicago School started to gain prominence in the 1970s in response to concerns about overly aggressive enforcement of antitrust laws. It argued that it was not enough for companies to possess significant market power; regulators and judges had to prove through economic analysis that consumers were harmed through higher prices.

The ideology has influenced a generation of judges and regulators, who have taken a restrained approach to antitrust enforcement in the United States based, in part, on the belief that market forces would correct imbalances better.

The Chicago School has greased the wheels for the megamergers that have reshaped many industries while providing the intellectual justification for why today’s tech giants are not dangerous monopolies. It’s hard to argue that Google’s or Facebook’s market power is hurting prices when their products do not cost money and Amazon — while not free — is celebrated for its convenience and prices.

Kevin Murphy, who teaches at the Booth School of Business with Mr. Zingales, said he still didn’t see a serious alternative to the Chicago School for formulating antitrust policy. He also said there was little evidence that more regulation led to better outcomes for consumers.

“Most of what I see from companies like Amazon, Google and Apple is that they are successful because they do well in the competitive battle,” Mr. Murphy said. “The difference between him and I is that he sees a failure of competition, whereas I see the success of the companies.”