Introduction
In this paper the effects of firms with market power on economic welfare will be briefly examined. The first part outlines some of the negative effects of market power; the second exemplifies some of the benefits of market power and the case of Microsoft is used to support these arguments. In conclusion, an overview of the role of competition authorities and competition policy is carried out.
Why is market power detrimental to economic welfare?
Firms with market power or monopolies are often seen as detrimental for customers and economic welfare. According to the neoclassical theory, the market power of monopolies and oligopolies is potentially higher than that of firms in monopolistic or perfect competition since they have to face very limited competition, if any (Ferguson and Ferguson 1994). In monopolistic or perfect competition can make supernormal profits in the short term but eventually other firms will enter the market and offer alternative products that reduce the demand for the established firm’s products (Sloman et al., 2013 p. 177). Dissimilarly, this is not the case for dominant firms or monopolies; the lack of competition allows them to set prices and make supernormal profits increasing the perception that big companies are “bad” for consumers. As shown by the graphs in Figure 1 and 2, there are substantial differences in the competitive and monopoly markets. In a competitive environment, the equilibrium is reached where demand meets supply. In a monopolistic market, thanks to the establishment of higher prices and the production of lower quantities, monopolies or dominant firms make supernormal profits; additionally, there is a deadweight loss and some consumers who were willing to pay lower prices wil...
... middle of paper ...
...ur; in such cases, competition authorities must act to fight unlawful practices that are detrimental for the economic welfare.
References
ECIS (2009) Microsoft: A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf
European Union Competition Law http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/legislation/handbook_vol_1_en.pdf Ferguson, P. R., Ferguson, G. J. (1994) Industrial Economics: Issues and Perspectives, 2nd ed., Macmillan
Posner, R.A., (1975) The Social Costs of Monopoly and Regulation, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 83, No. 4, pp. 807-828, The University of Chicago Press
Sloman, J., Hinde, K. and Garratt D. (2013) Economics for Business, 6th ed., Prentice Hall / Pearson,
Veljanovski, C. (2006) Economics of Cartels. Finnish Competition Law Association, Konkurrenstrattslig Arsbok
Since this debate still rages on, many people argue both sides of the story of the pros and cons. Many would argue that not breaking up monopolies actually increase the competition of companies that are attempting to break into some of the market share that the monopoly already has, more so than the free market that exists now. Proponents of the Sherman Anti-Trust act argue that “absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Martin, 1996) as originally quoted by Baron Acton. The idea that no competition within the business world establishes no risk and reward that is all part of the entrepreneur spirit of the U.S. spirit.
[6] Turley Mings and Matthew Marlin, [The Study of Economics: Principles, Concepts & Applications] (Dushkin McGraw-Hill, 2000) 413-414.
Monopoly, means that a firm is sole seller of a product without any close substitutes, controls over the prices the firms charge. Government sometime grants a monopoly because doing so is viewed not only to be in the public interest, but also to encourage it with price incentives. However, monopolies fail to meet their resource allocation efficiently, producing less than the socially desirable quantities of output and charging prices above marginal cost. Thus, this inefficiency of monopoly causes the quantity sold to fall short of social needs. In order to handle the problems, policymakers in the government regulate the behavior of monopolies and try to make monopolized industries more competitive
America's century-old antitrust law is increasingly irrelevant to our current worldwide information technology market. This law is outdated, in accordance to the modern Microsoft situation, because in the past there wasn't technology as there is now. Recently the government has been accusing Microsoft as being a monopoly. "Techno-Optimists" claim that "efforts by government to promote competition by restraining high-tech firms that acquire market power will only stifle competition." Some analysts disagree. They concede that dynamic technology makes it tough to sustain market power. Still, consumers will want compatible equipment, which will lead them to buy whatever product other consumers are using, even if the product is inferior.
Smith, F. (1993), Why not abolish Antitrust? Journal on Government and Society, 7, 1 (Jan/Feb).
According to Neill (1992), “It’s time to stop sacrificing the economic wellbeing of the vast majority of Americans and our children’s future in order to underwrite the conspicuous consumption of the very rich” (p. 114). Monopolies are the only ones that can produce certain merchandises in a specific market. With no alternative product to buy, monopolies often brand their products as luxurious items and in return driving prices up. The insights of the monopoly model suggest some of the problems that arise from monopoly power are restricting output, artificially higher prices, lower quality, and persistent profits.
Governments regulate businesses when market failure seems to arise and occur and to control natural monopolies, control negative externalities, and to achieve social goals among other reasons. Setting government regulations on natural monopolies is important because if not regulated, then these natural monopolies could restrict output and raise prices for consumers. It is important to regulate natural monopolies because they don’t have any competition to drive down the price of the product they are selling. Therefore, with no competition, they can control the output and the price of the product at whatever they deem necessary. With regulations the government keeps it fair both for the consumer and producer. It’s also important for government
This article, America’s Monopoly Problem, was composed by Derek Thompson and published on the Atlantic Newsletter: For much of the 20th century, small businesses thrived and there was a steady control over big businesses, but in the more recent years, our economy is seeing more large, monopolistic firms popping up in all types of industries. Political power also comes into play under the issue of monopolies.
Antitrust law attempts to ensure that market competition is protected from an organization or cartel with a monopoly on a given product. Much of antitrust enforcement tries to create a balance between the benefits of coordination and consolidation, such as efficiencies that reduce price or improve quality, and the detriments of market power that can lead to higher prices or reduced innovation.
Hubbard, R. G., & O'Brien, A. P. (2010). Economics (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Hall.
Sloman, J; Jones, E (2005). Economics and the Business Environment. 3rd ed.: Pearson Education Limited. 35, 48, 53.
Monopolies have a tendency to be bad for the economy. Granted, there are some that are a necessity of life such as natural and legal monopolies. However, the article I have chosen to review is “America’s Monopolies are Holding Back the Economy (Lynn, 2017)” and the name speaks for itself.
Chapman, S, Devenish, N 2011, Business Studies in Action, 3rd ed, John Wiley & Sons Australia, Milton, Qld.
McAdams, T., Neslund, N. & Neslund, K., 2004, Law, Business and Society, 7th Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Sullivan, A., & Steven M., (2003). Economics: Principles in action. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey : Pearson Prentice Hal