IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/revpoe/v12y2000i1p73-87.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Firms' Market Power, Endogenous Preferences and the Focus of Competition Policy

Author

Listed:
  • D. P. T. Young

Abstract

Conventional neoclassical views of dominance are generally restricted to a concern for a firm's market power seen in terms of the ability to raise and maintain prices above their marginal costs of production. A prime example of this approach is the application of dominant firm price leadership models, which has led to a restricted theoretical perception of the nature of market power and to an incomplete view of the social costs of monopoly power. This paper argues that a broader conception of a firm's market power leads to a quite different perspective on its conduct. In particular, if we allow dominance to involve the ability to influence product demand patterns, then the theoretical analysis of firm behaviour changes significantly. Specifically, it implies the endogeneity of preferences which, it is argued, represents an important alternative to mainstream analysis. It is suggested that we need to consider a firm's dominance not so much in terms of its pricing in the context of a particular market structure but to focus on its ability to gain advantage over its rivals in terms of 'creating' an asymmetry in the demand for its products. This has important implications for competition policy, for it suggests a need to concentrate on the 'power' of firms and less on the effects of a change in market structure. Likewise, we need to reconsider the adequacy of defining markets in terms of product demand characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • D. P. T. Young, 2000. "Firms' Market Power, Endogenous Preferences and the Focus of Competition Policy," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 73-87.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:revpoe:v:12:y:2000:i:1:p:73-87
    DOI: 10.1080/095382500106821
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/095382500106821
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/095382500106821?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baumol, William J, 1982. "Contestable Markets: An Uprising in the Theory of Industry Structure," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Young, David P. T., 1997. "Dominant firms, price leadership and the measurement of monopoly welfare losses," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 533-533, August.
    3. Karl Aiginger & Michael Pfaffermayr, 1997. "Looking at the Cost Side of “Monopoly”," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 245-267, September.
    4. Joseph E. Stiglitz, 1993. "Post Walrasian and Post Marxian Economics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 7(1), pages 109-114, Winter.
    5. Geroski, Paul A. & Jacquemin, Alexis, 1984. "Dominant firms and their alleged decline," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-27, March.
    6. Aiginger, Karl & Pfaffermayr, Michael, 1997. "Looking at the Cost Side of "Monopoly."," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 245-267, September.
    7. Pagoulatos, Emilio & Sorensen, Robert, 1986. "What determines the elasticity of industry demand?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 237-250, September.
    8. Ono, Yoshiyasu, 1982. "Price Leadership: A Theoretical Analysis," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 49(193), pages 11-20, February.
    9. Bailey, Elizabeth E, 1981. "Contestability and the Design of Regulatory and Antitrust Policy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(2), pages 178-183, May.
    10. Gisser, Micha, 1986. "Price Leadership and Welfare Losses in U.S. Manufacturing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 756-767, September.
    11. Littlechild, S C, 1981. "Misleading Calculations of the Social Costs of Monopoly Power," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(362), pages 348-363, June.
    12. George J. Stigler, 1940. "Notes on the Theory of Duopoly," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 48, pages 521-521.
    13. Young, David, 1996. "Changing Tastes and Endogenous Preferences: Some Issues in Modelling the Demand for Agricultural Products," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 23(3), pages 281-300.
    14. Marc Lavoie, 1992. "Foundations of Post-Keynesian Economic Analysis," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 275.
    15. Cowling, Keith & Mueller, Dennis C, 1978. "The Social Costs of Monopoly Power," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 88(352), pages 727-748, December.
    16. Pollak, Robert A, 1978. "Endogenous Tastes in Demand and Welfare Analysis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 68(2), pages 374-379, May.
    17. von Weizsacker, Carl Christian, 1971. "Notes on endogenous change of tastes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 345-372, December.
    18. Samuel Bowles & Herbert Gintis, 1993. "The Revenge of Homo Economicus: Contested Exchange and the Revival of Political Economy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 7(1), pages 83-102, Winter.
    19. Michael A. Utton, 1995. "Market Dominance And Antitrust Policy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 445.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Young, David P. T., 1997. "Dominant firms, price leadership and the measurement of monopoly welfare losses," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 533-533, August.
    2. Karl Aiginger & Michael Pfaffermayr, 1999. "Product Quality, Cost Asymmetry and the Welfare Loss of Oligopoly," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(2), pages 165-180.
    3. Jean-Marc Siroën, 1993. "Marchés contestables, différenciation des produits et discrimination des prix," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 44(3), pages 569-592.
    4. Ghosal, Sayantan & Dalton, Patricio, 2013. "Characterizing Behavioral Decisions with Choice Data," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 107, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    5. Mattauch, Linus & Hepburn, Cameron & Stern, Nicholas, 2018. "Pigou pushes preferences: decarbonisation and endogenous values," INET Oxford Working Papers 2018-16, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
    6. Arye L. Hillman & Heinrich W. Ursprung, 2016. "Where are the rent seekers?," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 124-141, June.
    7. Manfred Neumann, 1999. "Monopoly Welfare Losses in the Long Run," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 26(1), pages 1-9, March.
    8. San Miguel, Fernando & Ryan, Mandy & Scott, Anthony, 2002. "Are preferences stable? The case of health care," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 1-14, May.
    9. David Starkie & Margaret Starrs, 1984. "Contestability and Sustainability in Regional Airline Markets," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 60(3), pages 274-283, September.
    10. Federico Etro, 2014. "The Theory Of Endogenous Market Structures," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 804-830, December.
    11. Dalton, Patricio & Ghosal, Sayantan, 2018. "Self-fulfilling mistakes : Characterization and welfare," Other publications TiSEM 4ea1a236-5307-4b4b-b268-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    12. Lang, Gunter & Welzel, Peter, 1999. "Mergers among German Cooperative Banks: A Panel-Based Stochastic Frontier Analysis," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 273-286, December.
    13. Gumus, Erdal, 2006. "The Social Costs of Monopoly: A Survey And An Evaluation," MPRA Paper 42107, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Russell Smyth & Dic Lo, 2000. "Theories of the Firm and the Relationship between Different Perspectives on the Division of Labour," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(3), pages 333-349.
    15. Mikko Ketokivi & Joseph T. Mahoney, 2020. "Transaction Cost Economics As a Theory of Supply Chain Efficiency," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(4), pages 1011-1031, April.
    16. Shuntian Yao & Lydia L. Gan, 2006. "The Welfare Effects of Monopoly Innovation," Economic Growth Centre Working Paper Series 0609, Nanyang Technological University, School of Social Sciences, Economic Growth Centre.
    17. Kessides, Ioannis N. & Willig, Robert D., 1995. "Restructuring regulation of the rail industry for the public interest," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1506, The World Bank.
    18. Norbert Berthold & Michael Neumann, 2005. "Europäische Regionalpolitik: Gift für rückständige Regionen?," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 74(1), pages 47-65.
    19. Mueller, Dennis C., 1997. "First-mover advantages and path dependence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 827-850, October.
    20. Vahabi,Mehrdad, 2019. "The Political Economy of Predation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107591370, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:revpoe:v:12:y:2000:i:1:p:73-87. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CRPE20 .

    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.