IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/pal/intecp/978-1-349-08434-0_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Monopoly and Competition in the United Kingdom

In: Monopoly and Competition and their Regulation

Author

Listed:
  • G. C. Allen

    (University College)

Abstract

Numerous examples of the restrictive practices that are familiar today can be found in British industry from early times. When, during the nineteenth century, improvements in transport, by destroying local monopolies, extended the area of competition in many trades, it became common for manufacturers to try to offset this effect by combination or by some form of restrictive agreement. Their efforts appear to have been most successful, not in the great staple industries, but in the smaller trades or in certain specialized branches of the staple industries. For instance, in the decades before 1914 large combines which controlled a high proportion of the total sales were built up in the soap, alkali, explosives, salt-mining, tobacco, whisky, and cement industries. Some of these combines had interests outside the country, and there were a few trades in which the producers were parties to international cartels (e.g. the rail makers). But free competition was the rule over the greater part of the staple industries (coal-mining, iron and steel, cotton and wool textiles, shipbuilding and engineering), and production remained in the hands of many independent firms. The fact that arrangements for the restriction of competition had been made in certain branches of these industries (e.g. the anthracite coal trade, textile finishing, sewing thread, and in some finished metal goods) does not disturb this broad conclusion. Since the great staples were responsible for a high proportion of Great Britain’s industrial output, it is probable that British industry as a whole could claim, on the eve of the First World War, to be more highly competitive than German or American industry. Among the various reasons that are commonly put forward in explanation of this, the preoccupation of the major British industries with the export market on the one hand, and on the other, the adherence of Great Britain to a free trade policy, may be noted. Nevertheless, the Committee on Trusts of 1918 and the Committees of Enquiry under the Profiteering Acts of 1919–20 commented on the widespread nature of the arrangements for restricting competition. These Committees were, of course, reporting at the end of a period in which conditions had been very favourable for the development of monopoly.

Suggested Citation

  • G. C. Allen, 1954. "Monopoly and Competition in the United Kingdom," International Economic Association Series, in: Edward H. Chamberlin (ed.), Monopoly and Competition and their Regulation, pages 88-109, Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:intecp:978-1-349-08434-0_5
    DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-08434-0_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrea Günster & Stephen Martin, 2015. "A Holy Alliance: Collusion in the Renaissance Europe Alum Market," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 47(1), pages 1-23, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:intecp:978-1-349-08434-0_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.