Just taught it this week so I want to boost Gerald Berk's excellent book on Brandeis. Its insights about the underlying theory of markets B. was working with are also oddly neglected in more recent historical work, imho.
Clearly expresses the key point that B. was not just seeking some sort of middle way between 'unregulated competition' & regulated monopoly, but rather had an entirely distinct theory of markets than the one that gave rise to this conventional Progressive era binary.
Competition is not only housed alongside specific forms of coordination--sort of like the intertwined muscular and fascia systems of the body--but also takes qualitatively distinct forms, about which legal & social choices present themselves.
This is not a conception of competition that fits with the uni-dimensional Marshallian idea of competition that was gaining ground at the time- but had hardly yet won the day. (It did match the labor institutionalists' idea of competition.)
B. didn't advance his ideas in an academic style so people lose sight of the quite distinctive & robust, if implicit, theory of markets in his work.
He supported trade associations as an alternative to big, dominant firms: He understood coordination is a constant--but also didn't believe coordination necessarily *eliminates* competition.
That idea is hard to grasp from the marginalist, unidimensional perspective on competition! It's either there or it isn't; institutional detail disappears.
Sanjukta Paul