Monopoly

Author(s):  
David M. Kreps

This chapter describes the theory of monopoly. In a monopoly market, there are many buyers and a single vendor of a good. The single vendor is called the monopoly. Buyers are assumed to be price takers, and their demand as a function of price is given, as in the case of perfect competition, by an aggregate demand function. One reason one might find a monopoly industry is because, while other companies can enter this industry, the monopoly acts in a way that forestalls potential competitors. If substitute products are produced and sold, they restrain the monopoly's market power by flattening and shifting-in the monopoly's demand curve. The idea of substitutes for a monopoly product comes up in another context — that of multigood monopolies. The chapter then looks at nonlinear pricing.

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiaxin Li

In market economy, there are four types of markets: perfect competition, monopolistic competition, oligopoly, monopoly. The main differences among them are the ability to set price, barrier to enter and exit the market, numbers of companies. To study innovation’s efficiency in these markets, it is necessary to understand their special characteristics. To simplify the problem, when patent is employed, only the innovation company has the access to this new technology. When it does not exist, every company in the market can use the new technology. In perfect competition market, there are no barrier to enter or exit and lots of companies producing identical products, so no company can set the price. Because there is no barrier, companies that can earn profit will enter the market, which decreases the price. Eventually, all companies’ marginal cost, average cost and marginal benefit is equal to the price, average benefit. In other words, companies in perfect competition market earn zero economic profit. Social welfare is always maximum in this type of markets. In this case, when one company discovers new production technology, other companies will follow immediately. Lower cost causes higher supply, which makes the price decrease and equal to the average cost eventually, leaving every company having zero economic profit, including the first company discovered the new technology, so there is no incentive for any company to spend resource on innovation. However, consumers’ welfare would increase because of lower price. When patent is employed, one company can produce products in a lower price and earn certain economic profit, but can hardly make an influence on the market because there are too many suppliers. Thus, in perfect competition market, patent is a good way to provide incentives for innovations. In monopolistic competition market, there are lots of companies selling slightly different products. The difference among products enables one company to increase the price over in a limited range, so monopolistic competition market is inefficient. In this type of markets, there are two types of innovations: technology and product. The former one reduces the cost and has the same consequence as that in perfect competition market. The latter one, product innovation, makes the product more special, giving the company more market power. However, without patent, product innovation will be copied easily, making the original product less special and canceling out the market power gained by the original company. Since there is no economic benefit, there is no incentive for any company in the market to innovate. When patent is employed, products’ difference is kept and gives the company more market power since there is consumer preference in monopolistic competition market. This increase of market power is not as negligible as that in perfect competition market, so the market becomes less efficient when the company with patent increases the price. In oligopoly market, there are only a few companies with great market power, so all of them can set the price. In this market, companies make decision based on both output and price effects. Output effect means when price is higher than marginal cost, companies can increase profit by increase its output. Price effect means when a company increases its output, the market price goes down, causing less profit for the company. When output effect is more impactful than price effect, companies will increase sales. When price effect is more impactful than output effect, companies will decrease sales. Oligopoly market can be inefficient without restrictions. Regarding innovations, there is still no incentives without the presence of patents. With patent, innovation company will gain market power that is huge enough to cause inefficiency and even to force other companies to exit the market. Thus, patent in oligopoly market will cause negative impact on society, which should be limited. The last type of markets if monopoly. In monopoly market, there is only one company, so patent is necessary. When this company innovates and decreases its production cost, it will tend to increase its output to maximize profit, which enlarges consumers’ welfare. However, this increase is not as much as that in perfect competition market, so innovation in monopoly market is still inefficient.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 1228-1245
Author(s):  
V.I. Tsurikov ◽  

The mathematical model of the Giffen effect proposed in the article clearly demonstrates both the effect itself and the reasons for its manifestation. The main advantages of the model include its extreme simplicity, which opens up access to the widest circle of readers, the use of standard methods for solving the consumer choice problem, and the most important fundamental agreement with the results of the field experiment of Jensen and Miller. The model shows that any good for which there is a more expensive substitute can be of little value. This or that good is endowed with the appropriate property by a particular consumer due to his or her own preferences, income level and prevailing prices. Any good of little value, including those that can only be consumed by a high-income individual, may turn out to be Giffen’s goods. Therefore, the consumption of Giffen’s product cannot be considered as evidence of the low standard of living of the consumer. According to the model, an increase in demand for an increasingly expensive low-value good, which is the essence of the Giffen paradox, is the result of optimizing a set of goods, i.e. the result of rational consumer behavior. It is shown that for the manifestation of the Giffen effect, it is necessary that the amount of funds allocated by the consumer for the purchase of a low-value good and its more expensive substitute falls into a certain rather narrow range of values. The failures of numerous and long-term studies aimed at detecting empirical manifestations of Giffen behavior in various historical events are explained by the fact that the corresponding analysis was carried out on the basis of averaged rather than individual values of demand for all categories of consumers. As a result, the negative slope of the aggregate demand curve turned out to be dominant over the positive sections of certain individual demand curves.


2020 ◽  
pp. 97-112
Author(s):  
Maria Hazel Bellezas ◽  
Jose Yorobe ◽  
lsabelita Paduayon ◽  
Prudenciano Gordoncillo ◽  
Antonio Alcantara

Rice, as a staple food for the Filipinos, is widely studied from production to consumption. However, observations of the National Food Authority domestic procurement and price stabilization policy, as well as results of the marketing and market-related studies, still reveal some gaps which call forth for an in-depth investigation and analysis. One ofthese is the possible presence ofmarket power, a market inefficiency in rice. Hence, this study aimed to ascertain the presence of market power in the Philippine rice industry. Secondary data published by the Philippine Statistics Authority from 1990 to 2015 were utilized. A structural econometric model using a time series approach was used in estimating the presence of market power. Results revealed the presence of market power in non-major rice-producing regions for well-milled and regular-milled rice in major rice-producing areas. The more the demand curve becomes inelastic the more the market power becomes apparent. The price elasticity of demand in the non-major rice-producing regions is -0.63 for both well-milled and regular-milled rice and -0.83 and -0.59, respectively, in the major rice producing areas. To minimize, if not solve market power, a substitute staple for rice may be introduced, programs/policies that will encourage more palay traders may be implemented, and farmers may be trained to operate like industry clusters.


1987 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-50
Author(s):  
Richard B. Hansen ◽  
Ken McCormick ◽  
Janet M. Rives

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 509-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tania Babina ◽  
Chotibhak Jotikasthira ◽  
Christian Lundblad ◽  
Tarun Ramadorai

Abstract We evaluate the impacts of tax policy on asset returns using the U.S. municipal bond market. In theory, tax-induced ownership segmentation limits risk sharing, creating downward-sloping regions of the aggregate demand curve for the asset. In the data, cross-state variation in tax privilege policies predicts differences in in-state ownership of local municipal bonds; the policies create incentives for concentrated local ownership. High tax privilege states have muni bond yields that are more sensitive to variations in supply and local idiosyncratic risk. The effects are stronger when local investors face correlated background risk and/or diminishing marginal nonpecuniary benefits from holding local assets.


1987 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 47
Author(s):  
Richard B. Hansen ◽  
Ken McCormick ◽  
Janet M. Rives

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document