• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

This essay compares examples of real world economics found in three studies written in 1996 with examples of commonly taught 'textbook' economics to come to the conclusion that some monopolies have displayed lower prices, an

Extracts from this document...


Introduction. Throughout economics, it is a time honoured assumption that monopolies are theoretically less efficient than competitive counterparts. I will show, through the comparison of examples of theory and through examples of real world economic conditions how it is that in some particular cases monopoly can be shown to be more efficient than competitive behaviour. This essay compares examples of real world economics found in three studies written in 1996 with examples of commonly taught 'textbook' economics to come to the conclusion that some monopolies have displayed lower prices, an absence of adverse selection, and other beneficial characteristics than competitive firms could possibly do, given that these firms operate in the same type of markets. Background: competition and price. To begin with, a definition of 'competition' is required in order to approach the answer from the correct angle. Competition: The situation when anybody who wants to buy or sell has a choice of possible suppliers or customers. With perfect competition there are so many suppliers and customers, with such good contact between them, that all traders ignore the effects of their own supplies or purchases on the market, and act as price-takers, able to buy or sell any quantity at a price which they [alone] cannot influence. Such intense competition is rather unusual in real life. The more usual condition is monopolistic or imperfect competition, with a limited number of buyers or sellers. In this case buyers or, more usually, sellers realize that the amount they can trade is affected by the price they offer. ...read more.


and partially as a competitive market (in other areas). The main arguments that von Ungern-Sternberg has are that the state monopolies charged lower 'premia' (essentially prices) for similar products to the competitive companies' products. His reasons here are that the state run monopolies do not need to spend as much money on advertising and administration as the competitively run companies. The conclusion is that the state monopolies 'outperform'12 the private sector firms. von Ungern-Sternberg's paper, whilst suggesting that "the state run monopolies are considerably cheaper than the private insurance companies"13, also shows that there is a lack of choice for the consumer. Whilst there are overall lower premia on the state side, there also exists a lack of choice due to the state companies being "single product companies".14 This lack of choice is not necessarily a bad thing. In the paper, von Ungern-Sternberg shows how less competition may benefit consumers through the removal of all competition in order to provide these low price levels. Where innovation is concerned, we should be aware that of all markets, housing insurance markets have a level of innovation that is surprisingly low. So low that we can call such markets "static markets" - and this is apparent from over the past 100 years.15 Lastly, what would letting the private companies compete against the state run monopolies mean for the consumer? Firstly, this would only work in a 'situation of complete information'16 As we have seen, it would mean a raising of premia prices and, due to the static situation of insurance markets it would not mean any increase in the quality or range of products available. ...read more.


Overall then, we have shown that competition is not necessarily beneficial for the consumers. Bibliography. Begg, D., Fischer, S., & Dornbusch, R., Economics, (British Edit.), McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, England (UK), 1984 Frank, R., Microeconomics and Behaviour, (International Edit.), McGraw-Hill, New York (USA), 2003. Frank, R., and Bernanke, B., Principles of Economics, (Second Edit.), McGraw-Hill, New York (USA), 2004 Frech III, H.E., & J.C. Samprane, Jr., 1980, "The welfare loss of excess non-price competition: The case of property-liability insurance regulation." The Journal of Law and Economics, vol.23, pp.429-440. Finsinger, J., The performance of property-liability insurance firms under the German regulatory system, Zeitschrift fur die gesamte Staatswirtschaft, The Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, vol. 139, pp.473-489, 1983. Varian, H., Intermediate Microeconomics, A Modern Approach, Fifth Edit., W.W. Norton & Co., London, New York, 1999. Online Bibliography. Epple, K., & Sch�fer, R., The transition from monopoly to competition: The case of housing insurance in Baden-Wtirttemberg, European Economic Review, pp.1123-1131, 1996. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V64-3VW8NC3-29-1&_cdi=5804&_user=1026342&_orig=browse&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1996&_sk=999599996&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkzV&md5=3186e7326828b554e15af278a1f1c569&ie=/sdarticle.pdf Saturday, November 26, 2005 Peltzman, S., The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 83, No. 4., 1975, pp. 677-726. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3808%28197508%2983%3A4%3C677%3ATEOASR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U, Saturday, November 26, 2005 Felder, S., Fire insurance in Germany: A comparison of price-performance between state monopolies and competitive regions, European Economic Review, vol.40, pp.1133-1141, 1996. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V64-3VW8NC3-2B-1&_cdi=5804&_user=1026342&_orig=browse&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1996&_sk=999599996&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkzV&md5=c7912380824fdba223cb4fdc0029d8ad&ie=/sdarticle.pdf Saturday, November 26, 2005 von Ungern-Sternberg, T., The limits of competition: Housing insurance in Switzerland, European Economic Review, vol.40, pp.1111-21, 1996. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V64-3VW8NC3-28-1&_cdi=5804&_user=1026342&_orig=browse&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1996&_sk=999599996&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkzV&md5=34dc6c8149c1da83eb7d4edfd25243ae&ie=/sdarticle.pdf Saturday, November 26, 2005 John Black, "Competition", A Dictionary of Economics, Oxford University Press, 2002, Oxford Reference Online, Oxford University Press, http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t19.e486 16 November 2005 The Wall Street Journal, December 23, 1974, in Schenk, R., Insurance, Saint Joseph's College, Indiana, http://ingrimayne.saintjoe.edu/econ/RiskExclusion/Risk. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Markets & Managing the Economy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Markets & Managing the Economy essays

  1. "Discuss and evaluate the proposition that perfect competition is a more efficient market structure ...

    It is argued that perfect competition is economically efficient as a result of the right balance between consumer utility and costs of production. The competitive price would reflect this balance. Customers will be able to buy at the lowest price that is possible because firms are only able to make a normal profit in the longer term (Fig.

  2. What are the implications for economic welfare of a market structure changing from perfect ...

    In this situation, the deadweight loss of monopoly is increased which includes original deadweight loss plus the lost producer surplus. From the standpoint of society, the additional costs of monopoly are wasteful because rent seeking uses resources that do not produce any wealth.

  1. What is a Monopoly?

    within its regional area; therefore they are likely to charge higher prices. This is seen at service stations in the UK along the motorways where petrol prices are considerably higher than in towns and cities, where competition is far higher.

  2. what is economics

    any changes in the quantity demanded are due to the price of the product alone. o This is referred to as ceteris paribus * As defined, the quantity demanded must be time related in the sense that it needs to be specified over a day, week, etc.

  1. In this essay, I would like to take a view at the implications for ...

    (Sloman, 2001, p129) The water supply industry is a good example because it is very expensive to build up a pipeline. Therefore, it is very difficult for a new firm to enter on a large scale, and the established

  2. Is the Government to Blame for Higher Petrol Prices?

    This means less of the harmful good is consumed. An alternative to this would be to subsidise a more environmentally friendly good persuading more people to buy it. Monopolists/Cartels (OPEC) Middle East Producers who form the bulk of OPEC held 75% of the proven reserves of Oil and supplied 41% of the oil in 2000.

  1. What Are The Effects Of Tescos Oligopolistic Market Structure, On Both Consumers And Producers?

    No communication is permitted between the two suspects - in other words, each must make an independent decision, but clearly they will take into account the likely behaviour of the other when under interrogation. An optimal strategy for each prisoner must be reached (Figure 7 right).

  2. Explain three reasons why labour markets may be imperfectly competitive

    A final reason may due to the use of monopsony power by firms which is where a firm has power in an industry as it is a single dominant buyer of labour. This can be due to geographic reasons for example, in rural areas, if there is one main firm,

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work