IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/tuiedp/296473.html

Perfect competition, market power, and contestability

Author

Listed:
  • Budzinski, Oliver
  • Stöhr, Annika

Abstract

The model of perfect competition is one of the most famous, most important, and most misunderstood concepts in economics. Rather than aiming to be a full-blown model of real-world competitive markets, the perfect competition model isolates the decentralized coordination mechanism inherent in all competitive markets. Coordinating supply and demand is not the only feature of market competition, but it plays a central role regarding to its virtues, and understanding the working mechanism of this coordination is valuable for economic thinking and economic theory. However, the implications of the perfect competition model for competition law and policy are limited. Market power is a multifaceted phenomenon that consists of several distinguishable types. This contribution explains absolute market power (single-firm monopoly and dominance), collective market power, relative market power, and systemic market power. Due to the possibility of merit-driven paths to market power positions (especially disruptive innovations), market power is difficult to prohibit - despite its welfare-reducing effects within the affected markets (anticompetitive effects) and in other parts of the economy and society (rent-seeking, lobbying, distributional issues). Therefore, competition policy usually focuses on preventing non-merit paths to market power (merger control) and on combating the (anticompetitive) abuse of market power. Contestability refers to the openness of markets. More specifically, it is the ability of companies to overcome barriers to entry and exit as well as to expansion on markets. While the original economic theory of contestability defines very strict conditions for perfectly contestable markets, antitrust has employed the term contestability in broader and in varying ways, emphasizing the role of potential competition and potential market entries to discipline the behavior of powerful incumbents on monopoly or dominance markets. Recently, contestability is rising to new prominence as a major goal of the European regulation of digital ecosystems.

Suggested Citation

  • Budzinski, Oliver & Stöhr, Annika, 2024. "Perfect competition, market power, and contestability," Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 189, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:tuiedp:296473
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/296473/1/1890093793.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    2. David Autor & David Dorn & Lawrence F. Katz & Christina Patterson & John Van Reenen, 2017. "Concentrating on the Fall of the Labor Share," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 180-185, May.
    3. Paul Klemperer, 1987. "Markets with Consumer Switching Costs," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 102(2), pages 375-394.
    4. Carl Shapiro, 2019. "Protecting Competition in the American Economy: Merger Control, Tech Titans, Labor Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(3), pages 69-93, Summer.
    5. Pauline Affeldt & Tomaso Duso & Klaus Gugler & Joanna Piechucka, 2021. "Market Concentration in Europe: Evidence from Antitrust Markets," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1930, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    6. Nicolas Petit & David J Teece, 2021. "Innovating Big Tech firms and competition policy: favoring dynamic over static competition [Patterns of industrial innovation]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(5), pages 1168-1198.
    7. Oliver Budzinski, 2010. "An Institutional Analysis of the Enforcement Problems in Merger Control," Working Papers 101/10, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.
    8. William J. Baumol & Robert D. Willig, 1981. "Fixed Costs, Sunk Costs, Entry Barriers, and Sustainability of Monopoly," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 96(3), pages 405-431.
    9. Budzinski Oliver & Mendelsohn Juliane, 2023. "Regulating Big Tech: From Competition Policy to Sector Regulation?," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 72(1), pages 215-255, December.
    10. Belle Beems, 2023. "The DMA in the broader regulatory landscape of the EU: an institutional perspective," European Competition Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(1), pages 1-29, January.
    11. Audretsch, David B. & Baumol, William J. & Burke, Andrew E., 2001. "Competition policy in dynamic markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 613-634, April.
    12. Ibáñez Colomo, Pablo, 2021. "The draft digital markets act: a legal and institutional analysis," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112214, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Dixit, Avinash, 1982. "Recent Developments in Oligopoly Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(2), pages 12-17, May.
    14. Louis Kaplow, 2015. "Market Definition, Market Power," NBER Working Papers 21167, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Jan De Loecker & Jan Eeckhout & Gabriel Unger, 2020. "The Rise of Market Power and the Macroeconomic Implications [“Econometric Tools for Analyzing Market Outcomes”]," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(2), pages 561-644.
    16. David Autor & David Dorn & Lawrence F Katz & Christina Patterson & John Van Reenen, 2020. "The Fall of the Labor Share and the Rise of Superstar Firms [“Automation and New Tasks: How Technology Displaces and Reinstates Labor”]," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(2), pages 645-709.
    17. Patrice Bougette & Oliver Budzinski & Frédéric Marty, 2019. "Exploitative Abuse and Abuse of Economic Dependence: What Can We Learn From an Industrial Organization Approach?," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 129(2), pages 261-286.
    18. Spence, Michael, 1983. "Contestable Markets and the Theory of Industry Structure: A Review Article," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 981-990, September.
    19. Baumol, William J & Willig, Robert D, 1986. "Contestability: Developments since the Book," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(0), pages 9-36, Suppl. No.
    20. Viktor Vanberg, 1999. "Markets and Regulation: On the Contrast Between Free-Market Liberalism and Constitutional Liberalism," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 219-243, October.
    21. Kenneth G. Elzinga & David E. Mills, 2011. "The Lerner Index of Monopoly Power: Origins and Uses," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(3), pages 558-564, May.
    22. A. P. Lerner, 1934. "The Concept of Monopoly and the Measurement of Monopoly Power," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 1(3), pages 157-175.
    23. Klemperer, Paul D, 1987. "Entry Deterrence in Markets with Consumer Switching Costs," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 97(388a), pages 99-117, Supplemen.
    24. Lindenberg, Eric B & Ross, Stephen A, 1981. "Tobin's q Ratio and Industrial Organization," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(1), pages 1-32, January.
    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. Javier D. Donna & Pedro Pereira, 2024. "Structural Presumptions for Non-horizontal Mergers in the 2023 Merger Guidelines: A Primer and a Path Forward," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 65(1), pages 303-345, August.
    2. Budzinski, Oliver & Gänßle, Sophia & Stöhr, Annika, 2020. "The draft for the 10th amendment of German competition law: Towards a new concept of "Outstanding relevance across markets"?," Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 142, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.
    3. Kadner-Graziano, Alessandro S., 2023. "Mergers of Complements: On the Absence of Consumer Benefits," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    4. Peter J. Stauvermann & Jin Hu & Ronald R. Kumar, 2025. "The effects of imperfect competition and antitrust measures in a three-sector OLG model," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 146(2), pages 145-186, October.
    5. Ronald R. Kumar & Peter J. Stauvermann, 2020. "Economic and Social Sustainability: The Influence of Oligopolies on Inequality and Growth," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-23, November.
    6. Krämer, Jan & Wohlfarth, Michael, 2018. "Market power, regulatory convergence, and the role of data in digital markets," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 154-171.
    7. Budzinski, Oliver & Stöhr, Annika, 2025. "Competitiveness, competition, and competition policy," Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 206, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.
    8. Patrice Bougette & Oliver Budzinski & Frédéric Marty, 2025. "Revisiting Behavioral Merger Remedies in Dynamic Markets," GREDEG Working Papers 2025-22, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France, revised Jan 2026.
    9. Vaziri, M., 2022. "Antitrust Law and Business Dynamism," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2243, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    10. repec:cam:camjip:2219 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Budzinski, Oliver & Stöhr, Annika, 2023. "Energieversorgungssicherheit als Gemeinwohl: Auswirkungen des Instrumentes Ministererlaubnis," Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 177, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.
    12. Peter Josef Stauvermann & Ronald Ravinesh Kumar, 2023. "Production Efficiency and Income Distribution with Competition Induced by Antitrust Measures," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-23, September.
    13. Ronald R. Kumar & Peter J. Stauvermann, 2022. "Imperfect Competition, Real Estate Prices and New Stylized Facts," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, February.
    14. Brianna Alderman & Roger Blair & Javier Donna, 2025. "The Microsoft Acquisition of Activision: Neither Horizontal nor Vertical," Working Papers 359, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    15. Stöhr, Annika, 2021. "Price effects of horizontal mergers: A retrospective on retrospectives," Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 151, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.
    16. Steven Berry & Martin Gaynor & Fiona Scott Morton, 2019. "Do Increasing Markups Matter? Lessons from Empirical Industrial Organization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(3), pages 44-68, Summer.
    17. Daan Freeman & Leon Bettendorf & Harro van Heuvelen & Gerdien Meijerink, 2021. "The contribution of business dynamics to productivity growth in the Netherlands," CPB Discussion Paper 427, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    18. Germeshausen, Robert & Panke, Timo & Wetzel, Heike, 2014. "Investigating the influence of firm characteristics on the ability to exercise market power: A stochastic frontier analysis approach with an application to the iron ore market," ZEW Discussion Papers 14-105, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    19. Terranova, Roberta & Turco, Enrico M., 2022. "Concentration, stagnation and inequality: An agent-based approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 569-595.
    20. Cauvel, Michael & Pacitti, Aaron, 2022. "Bargaining power, structural change, and the falling U.S. labor share," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 512-530.
    21. Babina, Tania & Barkai, Simcha & Jeffers, Jessica & Karger, Ezra & Volkova, Ekaterina, 2023. "Antitrust Enforcement Increases Economic Activity," HEC Research Papers Series 1488, HEC Paris.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • A10 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - General
    • A20 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics - - - General
    • B10 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought through 1925 - - - General
    • B20 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought since 1925 - - - General
    • D00 - Microeconomics - - General - - - General
    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:zbw:tuiedp:296473. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ivtuide.html .

    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.