Monopoly

In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to
sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular
product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have
access to it.[1][clarification needed] Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition
for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.[2] The verb
"monopolize" refers to the process by which a firm gains persistently greater market share than
what is expected under perfect competition.

A monopoly must be distinguished from monopsony, in which there is only one buyer of a
product or service ; a monopoly may also have monopsony control of a sector of a market.
Likewise, a monopoly should be distinguished from a cartel (a form of oligopoly), in which
several providers act together to coordinate services, prices or sale of goods. Monopolies can
form naturally or through vertical or horizontal mergers. A monopoly is said to be coercive when
the monopoly firm actively prohibits competitors from entering the field.

In many jurisdictions, competition laws place specific restrictions on monopolies. Holding a

dominant position or a monopoly in the market is not illegal in itself, however certain categories
of behavior can, when a business is dominant, be considered abusive and therefore be met with
legal sanctions. A government-granted monopoly or legal monopoly, by contrast, is sanctioned
by the state, often to provide an incentive to invest in a risky venture or enrich a domestic
constituency. The government may also reserve the venture for itself, thus forming a government
monopoly.

Monopoly and the economic analysis of market structures

In economics, monopoly is a pivotal area to the study of market structures, which directly
concerns normative aspects of economic competition, and sets the foundations for fields such as
industrial organization and economics of regulation. There are four basic types of market
structures under traditional economic analysis: perfect competition, monopolistic competition,
oligopoly and monopoly. A monopoly is a market structure in which a single supplier produces
and sells the product. If there is a single seller in a certain industry and there are no close
substitutes for the goods being produced, then the market structure is that of a "pure monopoly".
Sometimes, there are many sellers in an industry and/or there exist many close substitutes for the
goods being produced, but nevertheless firms retain some market power. This is called
monopolistic competition, whereas in oligopoly the main theoretical framework revolves around
firm's strategic interactions.

In general, the main results from this theory refer to compare price-fixing methods across market
structures, analyze the impact of a certain structure on welfare, and play with different variations
of technological/demand assumptions in order to asses its consequences on the abstract model of
society. Most economic textbooks follow the practice of carefully explaining the perfect
competition model, only because of its usefulness to understand "departures" from it (the so
called imperfect competition models).

The definition of what constitutes a market and what doesn't, is considered relevant for the
purpose of economic analysis. In a general equilibrium context, a good is a specific concept
entangling geographical and time-related characteristics (grapes sold in october of 2009 in
moscow is a different good from grapes sold in october of 2009 in New York). Most studies of
market structure relax a little their definition of a good, allowing for more flexibility at the
identification of substitute-goods. Therefore, one can find an economic analysis of the market of
grapes in Russia, for example, which is not a market in the strict sense of general equilibrium
theory.

[edit] Characteristics of a monopoly

 Single Seller: In a monopoly there is one seller of the monopolized good who produces
all the output.[3] Therefore, the whole market is being served by a single firm, and for
practical purposes, the firm is the same as the industry. In a competitive market (that is, a
market with perfect competition) there are an infinite number of sellers each producing
an infinitesimally small quantity of output.
 Market Power: Market Power is the ability to affect the terms and conditions of
exchange.[4] It is the ability to set your own price.[5] Although a monopoly's market power
is high it is not absolute. A monopoly faces a negatively sloped demand curve not a
perfectly inelastic curve. Consequently, any price increase will result in the loss of some
customers. The monopoly's objective is to maximize profits.
 High Barriers to Entry and Competition: Monopolies derive their market power from
barriers to entry - circumstances that prevent or greatly impede a potential competitor's
entry into the market or ability to compete in the market. There are three major types of
barriers to entry; economic, legal and deliberate.[6]

Economic Barriers:Economic barriers include economies of scale, capital requirements,

cost advantages and technological superiority.[7]
Economies of scale: Monopolies are characterized by declining costs over a relatively
large range of production.[8] Declining costs coupled with large start up costs give
monopolies an advantage over would be competitors. Monopolies are often in a position
to cut prices below a new entrant's operating costs and drive them out of the industry.[8]
Further the size of the industry relative to the minimum efficient scale may limit the
number of firms that can effectively compete within the industry. If for example the
industry is large enough to support one firm of minimum efficient scale then other firms
entering the industry will operate at a size that is less than MES meaning that these firms
cannot produce at an average cost that is competitive with the dominant industry.
Capital requirements: Production processes that require large investments of capital, or
large research and development costs or substantial sunk costs limit the number of firms
in an industry.[9] Large fixed costs also make it difficult for a small firm to enter an
industry and expand.[10]
Technological Superiority: A monopoly may be better able to acquire, integrate and use
the best possible technology in producing its goods while entrants do not have the size or
 fiscal muscle to use the best available technology.[8] In plain English one large firm can
sometimes produce goods cheaper than several small firms.[11]
No Substitute Goods:A monopoly sells a good for which there is no close substitutes.
The absence of substitutes makes the demand for the good relatively inelastic enabling
monopolies to extract positive profits.
Control of Natural Resources: A prime source of monopoly power is the control of
resources that are critical to the production of a final good.
Legal Barriers: Legal rights can provide opportunity to monopolize the market in a
good. Intellectual property rights, including patents and copyrights, give a monopolist
exclusive control over the production and selling of certain goods. Property rights may
give a firm the exclusive control over the materials necessary to produce a good.
Deliberate Actions: A firm wanting to monopolize a market may engage in various
types of deliberate action to exclude competitors or eliminate competition. Such actions
include collusion, lobbying governmental authorities, and force.

In addition to barriers to entry and competition, barriers to exit may be a source of market power.
Barriers to exit are market conditions that make it difficult or expensive for a firm to leave the
market. High liquidation costs are a primary barrier to exit.[12] Market exit and shutdown are
separate events. The decision whether to shut down or operate is not affected by exit barriers. A
firm will shut down if price falls below minimum average variable costs.

[edit] Monopoly versus competitive markets

While monopoly and perfect competition mark the extremes of market structures[13] there are
many point of similarity. The cost functions are the same.[14] Both monopolies and perfectly
competitive firms minimize cost and maximize profit. The shutdown decisions are the same.
Both are assumed to face perfectly competitive factors markets. There are distinctions, some of
the more important of which are as follows:

Market Power - market power is the ability to control the terms and condition of exchange.
Specifically market power is the ability to raise prices without losing all one's customers to
competitors. Perfectly competitive (PC) firms have zero market power when it comes to setting
prices. All firms in a PC market are price takers. The price is set by the interaction of demand
and supply at the market or aggregate level. Individual firms simply take the price determined by
the market and produce that quantity of output that maximize the firm's profits. If a PC firm
attempted to raise prices above the market level all its "customers" would abandon the firm and
purchase at the market price from other firms. A monopoly has considerable although not
unlimited market power. A monopoly has the power to set prices or quantities although not both.
[15]
A monopoly is a price maker.[16] The monopoly is the market[17] and prices are set by the
monopolist based on his circumstances and not the interaction of demand and supply. The two
primary factors determining monopoly market power are the firm's demand curve and its cost
structure.[18]

Product differentiation: There is zero product differentiation in a perfectly competitive market.

Every product is perfectly homogeneous and a perfect substitute. With a monopoly there is high
to absolute product differentiation in the sense that there is no available substitute for a
monopolized good. The monopolist is the sole supplier of the good in question.[19] A customer
either buys from the monopolist on her terms or does without.

Number of competitors: PC markets are populated by an infinite number of buyers and sellers.
Monopoly involves a single seller.[19]

Barriers to Entry - Barriers to entry are factors and circumstances that prevent entry into
market by would be competitors and impediments to competition that limit new firm’s from
operating and expanding within the market. PC markets have free entry and exit. There are no
barriers to entry, exit or competition. Monopolies have relatively high barriers to entry. The
barriers must be strong enough to prevent or discourage any potential competitor from entering
the market.

PED; the price elasticity of demand is the percentage change in demand caused by a one percent
change in relative price. A successful monopoly would face a relatively inelastic demand curve.
A high coefficient of elasticity is indicative of effective barriers to entry. A PC firm faces what it
perceives to be perfectly elastic demand curve. The coefficient of elasticity for a perfectly
competitive demand curve is infinite.

Excess Profits- Excess or positive profits are profit above the normal expected return on
investment. A PC firm can make excess profits in the short run but excess profits attract
competitors who can freely enter the market and drive down prices eventually reducing excess
profits to zero.[20] A monopoly can preserve excess profits because barriers to entry prevent
competitors from entering the market.

Profit Maximization - A PC firm maximizes profits by producing where price equals marginal
costs. A monopoly maximizes profits by producing where marginal revenue equals marginal
costs.[21] The rules are equivalent. The demand curve for a PC firm is perfectly elastic - flat. The
demand curve is identical to the average revenue curve and the price line. Since the average
revenue curve is constant the marginal revenue curve is also constant and equals the demand
curve, Average revenue is the same as price (AR = TR/Q = P x Q/Q = P). Thus the price line is
also identical to the demand curve. In sum, D = AR = MR = P.

P-Max quantity, price and profit: if a monopolist took over a perfectly competitive industry he
would raise prices cut production and realize positive economic profits.[22]

The most significant distinction between a PC firm and a monopoly is that the monopoly faces a
downward sloping demand curve rather than the "perceived" perfectly elastic curve of the PC
firm.[23] Practically all the variations above mentioned relate to this fact. If there is a downward
sloping demand curve then by necessity there is a distinct marginal revenue curve. The
implications of this fact are best made manifest with a linear demand curve, Assume that the
inverse demand curve is of the form x = a - by. Then the total revenue curve is TR = ay - by2 and
the marginal revenue curve is thus MR = a - 2by. From this several things are evident. First the
marginal revenue curve has the same y intercept as the inverse demand curve. Second the slope
of the marginal revenue curve is twice that of the inverse demand curve. Third the x intercept of
the marginal revenue curve is half that of the inverse demand curve. What is not quite so evident
is that the marginal revenue curve lies below the inverse demand curve at all points.[23] Since all
firms maximize profits by equating MR and MC it must be the case that at the profit maximizing
quantity MR and MC are less than price which further implies that a monopoly produces less
quantity at a higher price than if the market were perfectly competitive.

A company with a monopoly does not undergo price pressure from competitors, although it may
face pricing pressure from potential competition. If a company raises prices too high, then others
may enter the market if they are able to provide the same good, or a substitute, at a lower price.
[24]
The idea that monopolies in markets with easy entry need not be regulated against is known
as the "revolution in monopoly theory".[25]

A monopolist can extract only one premium,[clarification needed] and getting into complementary
markets does not pay. That is, the total profits a monopolist could earn if it sought to leverage its
monopoly in one market by monopolizing a complementary market are equal to the extra profits
it could earn anyway by charging more for the monopoly product itself. However, the one
monopoly profit theorem does not hold true if customers in the monopoly good are stranded or
poorly informed, or if the tied good has high fixed costs.

A pure monopoly follows the same economic rationality of firms under perfect competition, i.e.
to optimize a profit function given some constraints. Under the assumptions of increasing
marginal costs, exogenous inputs' prices, and control concentrated on a single agent or
entrepreneur, the optimal decision is to equate the marginal cost and marginal revenue of
production. Nonetheless, a pure monopoly can -unlike a competitive firm- alter the market price
for her own convenience: a decrease in the level of production results in a higher price. In the
economics' jargon, it is said that pure monopolies "face a downward-sloping demand". An
important consequence of such behavior is worth noticing: typically a monopoly selects a higher
price and lower quantity of output than a price-taking firm; again, less is available at a higher
price.[26]

There are important points for one to remember when considering the monopoly model diagram
(and its associated conclusions) displayed here. The result that monopoly prices are higher, and
production output lower, than a competitive firm follow from a requirement that the monopoly
not charge different prices for different customers. That is, the monopoly is restricted from
engaging in price discrimination (this is called first degree price discrimination, where all
customers are charged the same amount). If the monopoly were permitted to charge
individualized prices (this is called third degree price discrimination), the quantity produced, and
the price charged to the marginal customer, would be identical to a competitive firm, thus
eliminating the deadweight loss; however, all gains from trade (social welfare) would accrue to
the monopolist and none to the consumer. In essence, every consumer would be just indifferent
between (1) going completely without the product or service and (2) being able to purchase it
from the monopolist.

As long as the price elasticity of demand for most customers is less than one in absolute value, it
is advantageous for a firm to increase its prices: it then receives more money for fewer goods.
With a price increase, price elasticity tends to rise, and in the optimum case above it will be
greater than one for most customers.
Monopoly and efficiency

Surpluses and deadweight loss created by monopoly price setting

According to the standard model,[citation needed] in which a monopolist sets a single price for all
consumers, the monopolist will sell a lower quantity of goods at a higher price than would firms
under perfect competition. Because the monopolist ultimately forgoes transactions with
consumers who value the product or service more than its cost, monopoly pricing creates a
deadweight loss referring to potential gains that went neither to the monopolist or to consumers.
Given the presence of this deadweight loss, the combined surplus (or wealth) for the monopolist
and consumers is necessarily less than the total surplus obtained by consumers under perfect
competition. Where efficiency is defined by the total gains from trade, the monopoly setting is
less efficient than perfect competition.

It is often argued that monopolies tend to become less efficient and innovative over time,
becoming "complacent giants", because they do not have to be efficient or innovative to compete
in the marketplace. Sometimes this very loss of psychological efficiency can raise a potential
competitor's value enough to overcome market entry barriers, or provide incentive for research
and investment into new alternatives. The theory of contestable markets argues that in some
circumstances (private) monopolies are forced to behave as if there were competition because of
the risk of losing their monopoly to new entrants. This is likely to happen where a market's
barriers to entry are low. It might also be because of the availability in the longer term of
substitutes in other markets. For example, a canal monopoly, while worth a great deal in the late
eighteenth century United Kingdom, was worth much less in the late nineteenth century because
of the introduction of railways as a substitute.

[edit] Natural monopoly

A natural monopoly is a firm which experiences increasing returns to scale over the relevant
range of output.[27] A natural monopoly occurs where the average cost of production “declines
throughout the relevant range of product demand.” The relevant range of product demand is
where the average cost curve is below the demand curve.[28] When this situation occurs it is
always cheaper for one large firm to supply the market than multiple smaller firms, in fact,
absent government intervention in such markets will naturally evolve into a monopoly. An early
market entrant who takes advantage of the cost structure and can expand rapidly can exclude
smaller firms from entering and can drive or buy out other firms. A natural monopoly suffers
from the same inefficiencies as any other monopoly. Left to its own devices a profit seeking
natural monopoly will produce where marginal revenue equals marginal costs. Regulation of
natural monopolies is problematic. Breaking up such monopolies is counter productive[citation needed].
The most frequently used methods dealing with natural monopolies is government regulations
and public ownership. Government regulation generally consists of regulatory commissions
charged with the principal duty of setting prices.[29] To reduce prices and increase output
regulators often use average cost pricing. Under average cost pricing the price and quantity are
determined by the intersection of the average cost curve and the demand curve.[30] This pricing
scheme eliminates any positive economic profits since price equals average cost. Average cost
pricing is not perfect. Regulators must estimate average costs. Firms have a reduced incentive to
lower costs. And regulation of this type has not been limited to natural monopolies.[30]

[edit] Government-granted monopoly

A government-granted monopoly (also called a "de jure monopoly") is a form of coercive

monopoly by which a government grants exclusive privilege to a private individual or firm to be
the sole provider of a good or service; potential competitors are excluded from the market by
law, regulation, or other mechanisms of government enforcement. Copyright, patents and
trademarks are examples of government-granted monopolies.

[edit] Breaking up monopolies

When monopolies are not broken through the open market, sometimes a government will step in,
either to regulate the monopoly, turn it into a publicly owned monopoly environment, or forcibly
break it up (see Antitrust law). Public utilities, often being naturally efficient with only one
operator and therefore less susceptible to efficient breakup, are often strongly regulated or
publicly owned. AT&T and Standard Oil are debatable examples of the breakup of a private
monopoly: When AT&T was broken up into the "Baby Bell" components, MCI, Sprint, and
other companies were able to compete effectively in the long distance phone market.

[edit] Law
Main article: Competition law

The existence of a very high market share does not always mean consumers are paying excessive
prices since the threat of new entrants to the market can restrain a high-market-share firm's price
increases. Competition law does not make merely having a monopoly illegal, but rather abusing
the power a monopoly may confer, for instance through exclusionary practices.

First it is necessary to determine whether a firm is dominant, or whether it behaves "to an

appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately of its
consumer."[31] As with collusive conduct, market shares are determined with reference to the
particular market in which the firm and product in question is sold.

Under EU law, very large market shares raises a presumption that a firm is dominant,[32] which
may be rebuttable.[33] If a firm has a dominant position, then there is "a special responsibility not
to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market".[34] The lowest yet market
share of a firm considered "dominant" in the EU was 39.7%.[35]

Certain categories of abusive conduct are usually prohibited under the country's legislation,
though the lists are seldom closed.[36] The main recognized categories are:

 Limiting supply
 Predatory pricing
 Price discrimination
 Refusal to deal and exclusive dealing
 Tying (commerce) and product bundling

Despite wide agreement that the above constitute abusive practices, there is some debate about
whether there needs to be a causal connection between the dominant position of a company and
its actual abusive conduct. Furthermore, there has been some consideration of what happens
when a firm merely attempts to abuse its dominant position.

[edit] Historical monopolies

This section requires expansion.

The term "monopoly" first appears in Aristotle's Politics, wherein Aristotle describes Thales of
Miletus' cornering of the market in olive presses as a monopoly (μονοπωλίαν).[37][38]

Common salt (sodium chloride) historically gave rise to natural monopolies. Until recently, a
combination of strong sunshine and low humidity or an extension of peat marshes was necessary
for winning salt from the sea, the most plentiful source. Changing sea levels periodically caused
salt "famines" and communities were forced to depend upon those who controlled the scarce
inland mines and salt springs, which were often in hostile areas (the Sahara desert) requiring
well-organized security for transport, storage, and distribution. The "Gabelle", a notoriously high
tax levied upon salt, played a role in the start of the French Revolution, when strict legal controls
were in place over who was allowed to sell and distribute salt.

Robin Gollan argues in The Coalminers of New South Wales that anti-competitive practices
developed in the Newcastle coal industry as a result of the business cycle. The monopoly was
generated by formal meetings of the local management of coal companies agreeing to fix a
minimum price for sale at dock. This collusion was known as "The Vend." The Vend collapsed
and was reformed repeatedly throughout the late nineteenth century, cracking under recession in
the business cycle. "The Vend" was able to maintain its monopoly due to trade union support,
and material advantages (primarily coal geography). In the early twentieth century as a result of
comparable monopolistic practices in the Australian coastal shipping business, the vend took on
a new form as an informal and illegal collusion between the steamship owners and the coal
industry, eventually going to the High Court as Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd v. R. & AG.[39]

[edit] Examples of legal (and or) illegal monopolies

 The salt commission, a legal monopoly in China formed in 758.

 British East India Company; created as a legal trading monopoly in 1600.
 Dutch East India Company; created as a legal trading monopoly in 1602.
 Western Union was criticized as a price gouging monopoly in the late 19th century.[40]
 Standard Oil; broken up in 1911, two of its surviving "baby companies" are ExxonMobil
and the Chevron Corporation.
 U.S. Steel; anti-trust prosecution failed in 1911.
 Major League Baseball; survived U.S. anti-trust litigation in 1922, though its special
status is still in dispute as of 2009.
 United Aircraft and Transport Corporation; aircraft manufacturer holding company
forced to divest itself of airlines in 1934.
 National Football League; survived anti-trust lawsuit in the 1960s, convicted of being an
illegal monopoly in the 1980s.
 American Telephone & Telegraph; telecommunications giant broken up in 1982.
 De Beers; settled charges of price fixing in the diamond trade in the 2000s.
 Microsoft; settled anti-trust litigation in the U.S. in 2001; fined by the European
Commission in 2004 for 497 million Euros,[41] which was upheld for the most part by the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in 2007. The fine was 1.35 Billion
USD in 2008 for noncompliance with the 2004 rule.[42][43]
 Joint Commission; has a monopoly over whether or not US hospitals are able to
participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
 Telecom New Zealand; local loop unbundling enforced by central government.
 Deutsche Telekom; former state monopoly, still partially state owned, currently
monopolizes high-speed VDSL broadband network.[44]
 Monsanto has been sued by competitors for anti-trust and monopolistic practices. They
hold between 70% and 100% of the commercial seed market.
 AAFES has a monopoly on retail sales at overseas military installations.
 GameStop has a near exclusive control over the sale of used games, and frequently buys
out competing companies.
 SAQ is a monopoly.

[edit] How to counter monopolies?

According to professor Milton Friedman, laws against monopolies cause more harm than good,
but unnecessary monopolies should be countered by removing tariffs and other regulation that
upholds monopolies.

A monopoly can seldom be established within a country without overt and covert government
assistance in the form of a tariff or some other device. It is close to impossible to do so on a
world scale. The De Beers diamond monopoly is the only one we know of that appears to have
succeeded. - - In a world of free trade, international cartels would disappear even more quickly.
[45]

On the other hand, professor Steve H. Hanke believes that although private monopolies are more
efficient than public ones, often by factor two, sometimes private natural monopolies, such as
local water distribution, should be regulated (not prohibited) through, e.g., price auctions[46].

[edit] See also

Look up monopoly in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

 Bilateral monopoly
 Complementary monopoly
 Demonopolization
 Duopoly
 Flag carrier
 History of monopoly
 Monopolistic competition
 Monopsony
 Oligopoly
 Ramsey problem, a policy rule concerning what price a monopolist should set
 Simulations and games in economics education that model monopolistic markets

[edit] Notes and references

1. ^ Milton Friedman (2002). "VIII: Monopoly and the Social Responsibility of Business
and Labor" (paperback). Capitalism and Freedom (40th anniversary edition ed.). The
University of Chicago Press. pp. 208. ISBN 0-226-26421-1.
2. ^ Blinder, Alan S; William J Baumol and Colton L Gale (June 2001). "11: Monopoly"
(paperback). Microeconomics: Principles and Policy. Thomson South-Western. pp. 212.
ISBN 0-324-22115-0. "A pure monopoly is an industry in which there is only one
supplier of a product for which there are no close substitutes and in which is very difficult
or impossible for another firm to coexist"
3. ^ Binger, B & Hoffman, E.: Microeconomics with Calculus, 2nd ed. p 391 Addison-
Wesley 1998.
4. ^ Png, Managerial Economics (Blackwell 1999)
5. ^ Krugman & Wells: Microeconomics 2d ed. Worth 2009
6. ^ Goodwin, Nelson, Ackerman, & Weissskopf, Microeconomics in Context 2d ed.
(Sharpe 2009) at 307&08.
7. ^ Samuelson & Marks, Managerial Economics 4th ed. (Wiley 2003) at 365-66.
8. ^ a b c Nicholson & Snyder, Intermediate Microeconomics (Thomson 2007) at 379.
9. ^ Samuelson & Marks, Managerial Economics 4th ed. (Wiley 2003) at 365.
10. ^ Goodwin, Nelson, Ackerman, & Weissskopf, Microeconomics in Context 2d ed.
(Sharpe 2009) at 307.
11. ^ Ayers & Collinge, Microeconomics (Pearson 2003) at 238.
12. ^ Png, I: Managerial Economics p. 271 Blackwell 1999 ISBN 1-55786-927-8
13. ^ Png, I: Managerial Economics p. 268 Blackwell 1999 ISBN 1-55786-927-8
14. ^ Negbennebor, A: Microeconomics, The Freedom to Choose CAT 2001
15. ^ Hirschey, M, Managerial Economics. p. 412 Dreyden 2000.
16. ^ Melvin & Boyes, Microeconomics 5th ed. (Houghton Mifflin 2002) 239
17. ^ Pindyck, R & Rubinfeld, D: Microeconomics 5th ed. p.328 Prentice-Hall 2001
18. ^ Varian, H.: Microeconomic Analysis 3rd ed. p. 233. Norton 1992.
19. ^ a b Hirschey, M, Managerial Economics. p. 426 Dreyden 2000.
20. ^ Pindyck, R & Rubinfeld, D: Microeconomics 5th ed. p. 333 Prentice-Hall 2001.
21. ^ Varian, H: Microeconomic Analysis 3rd ed. p. 235 Norton 1992.
22. ^ Pindyck, R & Rubinfeld, D: Microeconomics 5th ed. p. 370 Prentice-Hall 2001.
23. ^ a b Binger, B & Hoffman, E.: Microeconomics with Calculus, 2nd ed. Addison-Wesley
1998.
24. ^ Depken, Craig (November 23, 2005). "10". Microeconomics Demystified. McGraw
Hill. pp. 170. ISBN 0071459111.
25. ^ The revolution in monopoly theory, by Glyn Davies and John Davies. Lloyds Bank
Review, July 1984, no. 153, p. 38-52.
26. ^ Levine, David; Michele Boldrin (2008-09-07). Against intellectual monopoly.
Cambridge University Press. pp. 312. ISBN 978-0521879286.
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm.
27. ^ Binger, B & Hoffman, E.: Microeconomics with Calculus, 2nd ed. 406 Addison-
Wesley 1998.
28. ^ Samuelson, P. & Nordhaus, W.: Microeconomics, 17th ed. McGraw-Hill 2001
29. ^ Samuelson, W & Marks, S: p. 376. Managerial Economics 4th ed. Wiley 2005
30. ^ a b Samuelson, W & Marks, S: 100. Managerial Economics 4th ed. Wiley 2003
31. ^ C-27/76 United Brands Continental BV v. Commission [1978] ECR 207
32. ^ C-85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AG v. Commission [1979] ECR 461
33. ^ AKZO [1991]
34. ^ Michelin [1983]
35. ^ BA/Virgin [2000] OJ L30/1
36. ^ Continental Can [1973]
37. ^ Aristotle: Politics: Book 1
38. ^ Aristotle, Politics
39. ^ Robin Gollan, The Coalminers of New South Wales: a history of the union, 1860-1960,
Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1963, 45-134.
40. ^ Ars technica The Victorian Internet
41. ^ EU competition policy and the consumer
 42. ^ Leo Cendrowicz. "Microsoft Gets Mother Of All EU Fines". Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/home/markets/2008/02/27/microsoft-eu-fines-markets-equity-
cx_po_0227markets08.html. Retrieved 2008-03-10.
43. ^ "EU fines Microsoft record $1.3 billion". Time Warner.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/27/technology/eu_microsoft.ap/. Retrieved 2008-03-10.
44. ^ Kevin J. O'Brien, IHT.com, Regulators in Europe fight for independence, International
Herald Tribune, November 9, 2008, Accessed November 14, 2008.
45. ^ Milton Friedman, Free to Choose, p. 53-54
46. ^ In Praise of Private Infrastructure, Globe Asia, April 2008

[edit] Further reading

 Guy Ankerl, Beyond Monopoly Capitalism and Monopoly Socialism. Cambridge, Mass.:
Schenkman Pbl., 1978. ISBN0870739387
 Impact of Antitrust Laws on American Professional Team Sports

[edit] External links

 Monopoly: A Brief Introduction by The Linux Information Project
 Monopoly by Elmer G. Wiens: Online Interactive Models of Monopoly (Public or
Private) and Oligopoly
 Monopoly Profit and Loss by Fiona Maclachlan and Monopoly and Natural Monopoly by
Seth J. Chandler, Wolfram Demonstrations Project.

[edit] Criticism

 Natural Monopoly and Its Regulation

 The Myth of the Natural Monopoly
 Natural Monopoly and Its Regulation
 From rulers' monopolies to users' choices A critical survey of monopolistic practices
 Body of Knowledge on Infrastructure Regulation Monopoly and Market Power

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly"

Categories: Market structure and pricing | Economic problems | Monopoly (economics)
Hidden categories: Articles needing additional references from August 2009 | All articles
needing additional references | All pages needing cleanup | Wikipedia articles needing
clarification from August 2009 | Wikipedia articles needing clarification from April 2009 |
Articles needing additional references from October 2009 | All articles with unsourced
statements | Articles with unsourced statements from August 2009 | Articles with unsourced
statements from December 2009 | Articles to be expanded from June 2008 | All articles to be
expanded

Views

 Article
  Discussion
 Edit this page
 History

Personal tools

 Try Beta
 Log in / create account

Navigation

 Main page
 Contents
 Featured content
 Current events
 Random article

Search

Special:Search Go Search
 

Interaction

 About Wikipedia
 Community portal
 Recent changes
 Contact Wikipedia
 Donate to Wikipedia
 Help

Toolbox

 What links here

 Related changes
 Upload file
 Special pages
 Printable version
 Permanent link
 Cite this page

Languages

 ‫العربية‬
 বাংলা
 Беларуская
 Bosanski
 Български
 Català
 Česky
 Cymraeg
 Dansk
 Deutsch
 Eesti
 Ελληνικά
 Español
 Esperanto
 Euskara
 Français
 Galego
 한국어
 हिन्दी
 Hrvatski
 Bahasa Indonesia
 Íslenska
 Italiano
 ‫עברית‬
 Latina
 Latviešu
 Lëtzebuergesch
 Lietuvių
 Magyar
 Македонски
 Bahasa Melayu
 Nederlands
 日本語
 Norsk (bokmål)
 Norsk (nynorsk)
 Polski
 Português
 Română
 Русский
 Simple English
 Slovenčina
 Slovenščina
 Српски / Srpski
 Srpskohrvatski / Српскохрватски
 Suomi
 Svenska
 Türkçe
 Українська
 Tiếng Việt
 ‫יי ִדיש‬
 中文

 This page was last modified on 11 January 2010 at 22:58.

 Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit
organization.
 Contact us
 Privacy policy
 About Wikipedia
 Disclaimers