Monopoly rents, institutions, and bribery

Governance ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boliang Zhu ◽  
Qing Deng
Keyword(s):  
2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petra Andersson ◽  
Sara Crone ◽  
Jesper Stage ◽  
Jorn Stage

2020 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 337-361
Author(s):  
Siân Butcher

‘Affordable housing’ for Johannesburg’s growing middle class is a developmentalist imperative and potentially lucrative market. However, few greenfield developers have found this market profitable. Fundamental to those who have, is control over land and its development. This paper puts heterodox urban land rent theory to work vis-à-vis the logics and practices of these developers. I illustrate how greenfield affordable housing developers work to (re)produce differential and monopoly rents in this context. Differential rents rely on investing in cheap land produced through the city’s racialised geography, and controlling land’s development through vertical integration, dynamic negotiations with local government and development finance institutions, and steering money and people into developments. Monopoly rents rely on the power of developers to act together as a class to secure land, give the appearance of competition and lobby the state in their interests. This power is built through racialised control over land and long personal connections. It is also consolidated by the state’s own land development bureaucracy and preference for ‘mega’ developments and recognisable developers. Together, these developer strategies to accrue differential and monopoly rents demonstrate their active role in the everyday making of land and housing markets. They also demand extensions of heterodox urban land rent theory: first, a more articulated understanding of how class monopoly power over land is built through race, and second, a more contingent analysis of capital’s relations to other actors and institutions, especially the state.


2003 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 459-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet Ågren ◽  
Carita Nyyssölä ◽  
Jesper Stage

This paper reports on a survey carried out among visitors to Etosha, Namibia, in May 2002. We use the contingent valuation method to estimate foreign tourists willingness to pay for visiting the park. We find that the Namibian government could raise park fees substantially and increase profits from foreign tourists by approximately N$ 2,3 million per year. If fees were raised in collusion with other governments, in order to avoid competition between countries in the region, profits could presumably be increased even further. However, the survey used to collect data on tourists willingness to pay also indicated dissatisfaction with current management of in-park resorts, and improved management of these resorts would probably be crucial for the success of any new tariff scheme.


2013 ◽  
Vol 57 (1-2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Schipper

Global City formation, gentrification and the appropriation of ground rent in Frankfurt am Main. Based on statistics on land values between 1984 and 2012, this paper focuses on the relations between Global City formation, gentrification and the appropriation of ground rent in the case of Frankfurt am Main. It argues that the post-fordist urban hierarchy and the power of landowners to treat their property as a pure financial asset are reflected in rising and volatile ground rent levels in Germany’s most globalized financial center compared to the national average of urban property markets. Furthermore, it interprets the increasing potential for the appropriation of monopoly rents as a driving force behind recent gentrification processes in inner-city neighborhoods.


2008 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 1059-1097 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOHN L. NEUFELD

Was the adoption of state utility regulation the result of a negative-sum competition among special interest groups vying for the monopoly rents created by regulation or a positive-sum elimination of corruption arising from appropriable quasi-rents? Previous empirical studies of the adoption of regulation have assumed the former. Using discrete hazard analysis, this study considers the latter and finds the data more consistent with the positive-sum protection of quasi-rents than the negative-sum creation and appropriation of monopoly rents.


2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 169-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheilagh Ogilvie

Occupational guilds in medieval and early modern Europe offered an effective institutional mechanism whereby two powerful groups, guild members and political elites, could collaborate in capturing a larger slice of the economic pie and redistributing it to themselves at the expense of the rest of the economy. Guilds provided an organizational mechanism for groups of businessmen to negotiate with political elites for exclusive legal privileges that allowed them to reap monopoly rents. Guild members then used their guilds to redirect a share of these rents to political elites in return for support and enforcement. In short, guilds enabled their members and political elites to negotiate a way of extracting rents in the manufacturing and commercial sectors, rents that neither party could have extracted on its own. First, I provide an overview of where and when European guilds arose, what occupations they encompassed, how large they were, and how they varied across time and space. I then examine how guild activities affected market competition, commercial security, contract enforcement, product quality, human capital, and technological innovation. The historical findings on guilds provide strong support for the view that institutions arise and survive for centuries not because they are efficient but because they serve the distributional interests of powerful groups.


1978 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn K. Mytelka

In the metalworking and chemical industries of Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia, the ownership structure of firms, their product sector, and propensity to obtain technology through licensing are closely associated. Foreign firms cluster in industrial sectors with complex and volatile technologies, in which their technological advantages permit the exaction of monopoly rents. Ownership structure and product sector, as well as firm size, are related to the firm's decision to obtain technology by licensing rather than by generating it autonomously or obtaining it through other means. Ownership structure, product sector, and licensing appear to interact with choice of machinery imports and research and development activities in such a way as to produce a “technological dependence syndrome” in which opportunities for “learning by doing” are consistently missed.


Author(s):  
Nicolas Petit ◽  
David J Teece

Abstract This paper gives a fresh account of competition in the digital economy. Economic analysis in the field of industrial organization remains largely focused on a sophisticated version of the Schumpeter–Arrow debate, which is unresolved and largely irrelevant. We posit the need to look at competition anew. Static models of monopoly firms and markets in equilibrium are often used to characterize Big Tech firms’ size and scope. We suggest that this characterization is inappropriate because the growth and diversification of many digital firms lead to a situation of broad-spectrum competition that cuts across markets. Current market positions do not reflect entrenched monopoly power but are vulnerable to competitive pressure of disequilibrating forces arising from the use of data-driven operating models, astute resource orchestration, and the exercise of dynamic capabilities. A few strategic errors by management in the handling of internal transitions and/or external challenges and they could be competitively impaired. The implications of a more dynamic understanding of the competition process in the tech sector are explored. We consider how big data and entrepreneurial management impacts firm performance. We also explore the nature of different types of rents (Schumpeterian, Ricardian, and monopoly rents) and suggest a modified long-term consumer welfare standard for competition policy. We formulate preliminary tests and predictors to assess dynamic competition. Our perspective advances a policy stance that favors innovation.


Author(s):  
Nicolas Petit

To date, world antitrust and regulatory agencies have invariably described large technology companies—such as Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, and Facebook—as dominant, bottleneck or gatekeeping companies comparable to the textbook monopolists of the early twentieth century. They have proceeded on this basis to discipline their business activities with unprecedented financial penalties and other regulatory obligations. This “techlash” is the subject of this book. Proceeding from the observation that big tech firms engage in both monopoly and oligopoly competition across digital markets, the book introduces a theory of moligopoly competition. It suggests that rivalry-spirited antitrust and regulatory laws are both conceptually and methodologically impervious to the competitive pressure that bears on big tech firms, resulting in a risk of well-intended but irrelevant policy intervention. The book proposes a refocusing of competition policy towards certain types of tipped markets where digital firms extract monopoly rents, and careful adoption of regulation toward other social harms generated by big tech’s business models.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document