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. repec:bla:jindec:v:45:y:1997:i:3:p:245-67 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. repec:bla:econom:v:49:y:1982:i:193:p:11-20 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. S. C. Littlechild, 2008. "Misleading Calculations of The Social Costs of Monopoly Power," Springer Books, in: Roger D. Congleton & Kai A. Konrad & Arye L. Hillman (ed.), 40 Years of Research on Rent Seeking 2, pages 89-104, Springer.
    12. George J. Stigler, 1940. "Notes on the Theory of Duopoly," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 48(4), 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. Ghosal, Sayantan & Dalton, Patricio, 2013. "Characterizing Behavioral Decisions with Choice Data," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 107, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    3. 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.
    4. Arye L. Hillman & Heinrich W. Ursprung, 2016. "Where are the rent seekers?," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 124-141, June.
    5. Federico Etro, 2014. "The Theory Of Endogenous Market Structures," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 804-830, December.
    6. Gumus, Erdal, 2006. "The Social Costs of Monopoly: A Survey And An Evaluation," MPRA Paper 42107, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Vahabi,Mehrdad, 2019. "The Political Economy of Predation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107591370.
    12. Yahya Madra & Fikret Adaman, 2013. "Neoliberal reason and its forms:Depoliticization through economization," Working Papers 2013/07, Bogazici University, Department of Economics.
    13. Riechmann, Thomas & Weimann, Joachim, 2008. "Competition as a coordination device: Experimental evidence from a minimum effort coordination game," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 437-454, June.
    14. Tahiru Azaaviele Liedong, 2022. "The Liability of Tribe in Corporate Political Activity: Ethical Implications for Political Contestability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(3), pages 623-644, December.
    15. Paz Estrella Tolentino, 2000. "The Conduct of Industrial Policy in an Integrated Europe," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 391-401.
    16. Patricio S. Dalton & Sayantan Ghosal, 2011. "Behavioral Decisions and Policy," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 57(4), pages 560-580, December.
    17. Ross C. Singleton, 1997. "Competition Policy For Developing Countries: A Long‐Run, Entry‐Based Approach," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 15(2), pages 1-11, April.
    18. Jerome Ellig & Jack High, 1992. "Social Contracts And Pipe Dreams," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 10(1), pages 39-51, January.
    19. Pitelis, Christos N & Tomlinson, Philip R, 2017. "Industrial organisation, the degree of monopoly and macroeconomic performance – A perspective on the contribution of Keith Cowling (1936–2016)," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 182-189.
    20. Sigrid Stagl, 2004. "Valuation for Sustainable Development: The Role of Multicriteria Evaluation," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 73(1), pages 53-62.

    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.