1. Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly14
Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly
Pure competition and pure monopoly are the exceptions, not the rule, in the most economies. In this chapter, the two market structures that fall between the extremes are discussed. Monopolistic competition contains a considerable amount of competition mixed with a small dose of monopoly power. Oligopoly, in contrast, implies a blend of greater monopoly power and less competition.
First, monopolistic competition is defined, listing important characteristics, typical examples, and efficiency outcomes. Next we turn to oligopoly, surveying the possible courses of price, output, and advertising behavior that oligopolistic industries might follow. Finally, oligopoly is assessed as to whether it is an efficient or inefficient market structure.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
Copyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

2. Monopolistic Competition
Relatively large number of sellers
Differentiated products
Easy entry and exit
Advertising
In monopolistic competition, firms can differentiate their products by the product attributes, by service, with location, or with brand names and packaging. There is relatively easy entry and exit, just not as easy as with perfect competition. That is why the number of sellers is not as large as in perfect competition, but it is relatively large. This type of market experiences some pricing power due to the differentiated product. If a firm goes to the trouble and expense of differentiating their product they should let people know about it. They can do this through advertising.
LO1

3. Monopolistically Competitive
Industry concentration
Measured by:
Four-firm concentration ratios
Percentage of 4 largest firms
Herfindahl index
Sum of squared market shares
Output of four largest firms
Total output in the industry
4-Firm CR =
Four-firm concentration ratios are a measure of industry concentration. Four-firm concentration ratios are low in monopolistically competitive firms as in the table on the next slide. One of the cautions of using these is that they reflect national output (sales numbers) and would not be reflective of a localized monopoly.
Herfindahl index – the lower the HI, the more competitive the industry. The Herfindahl Index is another measure of industry concentration and it is the sum of the squared percentage of market shares of all firms in the industry. Generally speaking, the lower the Herfindahl, the lower the industry concentration.
HI = (%S1)2 + (%S2)2 + (%S3)2 + … (%Sn)2
LO1

4. Low Concentration Industries
(1)
Industry
(2)
4-Firm Concentration Ratio
(3)
Herfindahl
Index
Adhesives 23
235
Wood containers and pallets 11 51
Ready-mix concrete
313
Textile bags and canvas 10 68
Asphalt paving 22
188
Metal working machinery 9 33
Bolts, nuts, and rivets 21
162
Apparel 8 44
Plastic pipe
187
Plastics and rubber products 31
Sawmills 15 98
Sheet metal work 7 30
Wood trusses 14
102
Signs 28
Metal stamping 88
Stone products
Curtains and draperies 85
Quick printing 4
Metal windows and doors 13
109
Retail bakeries
This table shows some examples of U.S. manufacturing industries that are considered monopolistically competitive. The lower the 4-firm concentration ratio, the less concentration and subsequently, the more competitive the industry. Generally speaking, the lower the Herfindahl index, the lower the industry concentration.
Source: Bureau of Census, Economic Census, 2007
LO1

5. Price and Output in Monopolistic Comp
Demand is highly elastic
Short run profit or loss
Produce where MR=MC
Long run normal profit
Entry and exit
Inefficient
Product variety
The firm’s demand curve is highly, but not perfectly, elastic. It is more elastic than the monopoly’s demand curve because the seller has many rivals producing close substitutes. It is less elastic than in pure competition because the seller’s product is differentiated from its rivals, so the firm has some control over price.
In the short run situation, the firm will maximize profits or minimize losses by producing where marginal cost and marginal revenue are equal, as was true in pure competition and monopoly.
The profit maximizing situation is illustrated in the next slide and the loss minimizing situation is illustrated following that.
Much like in pure competition, in monopolistic competition the profits in the long run are equal to zero because of free entry and exit into and out of the industry. As we examine the industry, we will find that it is inefficient.
LO2

6. The Short Run: Profit or Loss
ATC MC P1 A1
Price and Costs
Economic
Profit D1
MR = MC
Firms produce the quantity where MR = MC just like in other industries. It is possible to make a profit in the short run. (Price – ATC) * Q = Economic profit.
At the profit maximizing output, price is higher than ATC and the firms enjoy an economic profit in the short run. MR Q1
Quantity
LO2

7. The Short Run: Profit or Loss
ATC MC A2 P2
Loss
Price and Costs D2
MR = MC
Firms will produce the quantity where MR = MC to maximize profits. It is possible to make a loss in the short run. (Price – ATC) * Q = Economic profit or loss. At the profit maximizing output, price is below ATC and therefore a loss is incurred. MR Q2
Quantity
LO2

8. The Long Run: Only a Normal ProfitMC
ATC
P3= A3
Price and Costs D3
MR = MC
In the long run firms still produce the quantity where MR = MC. In the long run firms will enter the industry if economic profits were enjoyed, shifting demand left and profits fall. In the long run firms will exit the industry if there are economic losses, shifting demand to the right and losses shrink. This will continue until the price settles where it just equals ATC at the MR=MC output. At this price, the monopolistically competitive firm earns a normal profit. MR Q3
Quantity
LO2

9. Monopolistic Competition: Efficiency
Inefficient
Productive inefficiency
P > ATC
Allocative inefficiency
P > MC
Productive Efficiency means that the firm is producing in the least costly way and is evidenced when P = min ATC.
Allocative Efficiency means that the firm is producing the right amount of output and is evidenced when P = MC.
LO2

10. Monopolistic Competition: Efficiency
P=MC=Min ATC for pure competition (recall)
Quantity
Price and Costs
MR = MC MC MR D3
ATC Q3
P3= A3 P4
Price is Lower
We can see the inefficiency of monopolistic competition. In long-run equilibrium a monopolistic competitor achieves neither productive nor allocative efficiency. Productive efficiency is not realized because production occurs where the average total cost A3 exceeds the minimum average total cost A4. Allocative efficiency is not achieved because the product price P3 exceeds the marginal cost. The results are an underallocation of resources as well as an efficiency loss and excess production capacity for every firm in the industry. This firm’s excess production capacity is Q4 - Q3.
Excess Capacity at
Minimum ATC Q4
Monopolistic competition is not efficient
LO2

11. The firm constantly manages price, product, and advertising.
Product Variety
The firm constantly manages price, product, and advertising.
Better product differentiation
Better advertising
The consumer benefits by greater array of choices and better products.
Types and styles
Brands and quality
Monopolistically competitive producers may be able to postpone the long-run outcome of just normal profits through product development, improvement, and advertising. Compared with pure competition, this suggests possible advantages for the consumer. Development, or improved products, can provide the consumer with a diversity of choices.
Product differentiation is at the heart of the trade-off between consumer choice and productive efficiency. The greater number of choices the consumer has, the greater the excess capacity problem.
LO2

12. Homogeneous or differentiated products Limited control over price
Oligopoly
A few large producers
Homogeneous or differentiated products
Limited control over price
Mutual interdependence
Strategic behavior
Entry barriers
Mergers
The entry barriers in oligopoly are not as great as in monopoly, thus we have a few producers. There may be homogeneous or standardized oligopolies like the steel and oil markets. There may also be differentiated oligopolies like the markets for breakfast cereal, beverages, and automobiles. Control over price is limited because there is just a few sellers in the market and rivals may respond in a way that would be detrimental to the firm that just changed the price. Entry barriers are more substantial than in monopolistic competition which is why there are just a few producers in the market. Although some firms have become dominant as a result of internal growth, others have gained dominance through mergers.
LO3

13. Oligopolistic Industries
Four-firm concentration ratio
40% or more to be oligopoly
Shortcomings
Localized markets
Inter-industry competition
World price
Dominant firms
To be an oligopoly, the 4-firm concentration ratio must be at least 40%. Based on this rule of thumb, about 50% of U.S. manufacturing is oligopolistic. Localized markets may have just one producer which is a monopoly, while a low 4-firm concentration ratio indicates a lot of competition in the national industry. Inter-industry competition occurs when industries like glass and plastic compete with each other. This competition is not reflected in their high 4-firm concentration ratios. World Trade is not taken into account when calculating concentration ratios. Dominant Firms in the industry exhibit dominance that may be disguised and not reflected in the 4-firm concentration ratio.
LO3

14. High Concentration Industries
(1)
Industry
(2)
4-Firm Concentration Ratio
(3)
Herfindahl
Index
Primary copper 99 ND
Phosphate fertilizers 83
Household laundry equipment 98
Aircraft 81
Cigarettes
Breakfast cereals 80
2426
Cane sugar refining 95
Petrochemicals
2535
Household refrigerators/freezers 92
Small-arms ammunition 79
2447
Beer 90
Primary aluminum 77
2250
Glass containers 87
2507
Metal cans
1786
Electronic computers
Burial caskets 74
1979
Women’s handbags and purses 86
Tires 73
1540
Light trucks and utility vehicles 84
2680
Household vacuum cleaners 71
1519
This table displays a few high-concentration U.S. manufacturing industries. A 4-firm concentration ratio of 40% or more is indicative of an oligopolist.
ND = not disclosed.
Source: Bureau of Census, Economic Census, 2007.
LO1

15. Oligopolies display strategic pricing behavior Mutual interdependence
Game Theory Overview
Oligopolies display strategic pricing behavior
Mutual interdependence
Collusion
Incentive to cheat
Prisoner’s dilemma
Strategic pricing behavior refers to how a firm’s decisions are based on the actions and reactions of rivals.
Mutual Interdependence – each firm’s profit depends on its own pricing strategy and that of its rivals.
Collusion – Cooperation with rivals can benefit the firm.
Incentive to Cheat – cheating can result in more revenues for the cheater.
LO4

16. Game Theory Overview RareAir’s Price Strategy 2 competitors
2 price strategies
Each strategy has a payoff matrix
Greatest combined
profit
Independent actions
stimulate a response
High
Low A B
$12
$15
High
$12 $6
Uptown’s Price Strategy C D $6 $8
This graph is a payoff matrix for a two-firm oligopoly and is used to show the payoff to each firm that would result from each combination of strategies. Each firm has two possible pricing strategies. RareAir’s strategies are shown in the top margin, and Uptown’s in the left margin. Each lettered cell of this four-cell payoff matrix represents one combination of a RareAir strategy and an Uptown strategy and shows the profit that combination would earn for each.
Low
$15 $8
LO4

17. Game Theory Overview RareAir’s Price Strategy
Independently lowered prices in expectation of greater profit leads to worst combined outcome
Eventually low outcomes make firms return to higher prices.
High
Low A B
$12
$15
High
$12 $6
Uptown’s Price Strategy C D $6 $8
Assuming no collusion, the outcome of this game is cell D, with both parties using low price strategies and earning $8 million in profits. However, this inferior profit level will eventually lead firms to higher prices.
Low
$15 $8
LO4

18. Diversity of oligopolies Complications of interdependence
3 Oligopoly Models
Kinked Demand Curve
Collusive Pricing
Price Leadership
Reasons for 3 models
Diversity of oligopolies
Complications of interdependence
There are two reasons that we don’t have just a single model to explain this type of market. Oligopoly encompasses a great range and diversity of market structures. The decisions depend on the actions of the rivals, making it more difficult to explain the behaviors without several models. Each of these models are described on the following slides.
LO5

19. Noncollusive oligopoly Uncertainty about rivals reactions
Kinked-Demand Theory
Noncollusive oligopoly
Uncertainty about rivals reactions
Rivals match any price change
Rivals ignore any price change
Assume combined strategy
Match price reductions
Ignore price increases
The kinked demand model is used for noncollusive oligopolies to explain their behaviors and pricing strategies. Since the firms do not collude, none of the firms know with certainty what their rivals are going to do. However, the firms assume that their rivals will match any price reductions in an effort to maintain their customers. On the other hand, it is reasonable to assume that if a firm raises its price, its rivals will ignore the price change in an effort to steal customers from the firm raising its price.
LO5

20. Kinked Demand Curve Rivals Ignore Price Increase MC1 D2 e e
Price and Costs
Quantity
Rivals Ignore
Price Increase D2
MC1 e e P0 P0
MR2 f f D2
MC2
MR2
Rivals Match
Price Decrease g g D1 D1
This graph shows the kinked-demand curve. (a) The slope of a noncollusive oligopolist’s demand and marginal-revenue curves depends on whether its rivals match (straight lines D1 and MR1) or ignore (straight lines D2 and MR2) any price changes that it may initiate from the current price P0.
(b) In all likelihood an oligopolist’s rivals will ignore a price increase but follow a price cut. This causes the oligopolist’s demand curve to be kinked (D2eD1) and the marginal-revenue curve to have a vertical break, or gap (fg). Because any shift in marginal costs between MC1 and MC2 will cut the vertical (dashed) segment of the marginal-revenue curve, no change in either price, P0, or output, Q0, will result from such a shift. In other words, competitors and rivals strategize against each other, consumers effectively have 2 partial demand curves and each part has its own marginal revenue resulting in a kinked-demand curve to the consumer – price and output are optimized at the kink. Q0
MR1 Q0
MR1
LO5

21. Explains inflexibility, not price Prices are not that rigid Price wars
Kinked Demand Curve
Criticisms
Explains inflexibility, not price
Prices are not that rigid
Price wars
There are a few criticisms of the kinked demand curve. First, the demand curve was created around the current price that was already being charged, but it never actually explained how the current price was determined. This is very similar to putting the cart before the horse. We have seen that prices are rigid for reasons on the demand and cost side, but prices in oligopolies are not nearly as rigid as this model implies. Lastly, there is always a chance that changing prices could result in a price war.
LO6

22. Cartels and Other Collusion
Price and Costs
Quantity MC P0
ATC A0
MR=MC
Economic
Profit D MR
Oligopolies tend to collude and this model shows how collusive oligopolists behave. Oligopolies are conducive to collusion and the tendency toward joint profit maximization. If oligopolistic firms face identical or highly similar demand and cost conditions, they may collude to limit their joint output and to set a single, common price. Thus, each firm acts as if it were a pure monopolist, setting output at Q0 and charging price P0. This price and output combination maximizes each oligopolist’s profit (green area) and thus, the combined or joint profit of the colluding firms. Collusion is most likely to occur when the good that is being produced is homogeneous. Q0
LO6

23. Global Perspective
This Global Perspective reflects the 12 OPEC Nations, Daily Oil Production, January 2011.
The OPEC nations produce and supply about 34 percent of the oil sold in world markets.
LO6

24. Cartels - a group of firms or nations that collude
Overt Collusion
Cartels - a group of firms or nations that collude
Formally agreeing to the price
Sets output levels for members
Collusion is illegal in the United States
OPEC
A cartel is defined as a group of firms or nations joining together and formally agreeing as to the price they will charge and the output levels of each member. It is illegal here; however, business with the OPEC cartel is conducted every day. In the past, OPEC has been successful in increasing the price of the oil they sell by restricting supply.
LO6

25. Obstacles to Collusion
Demand and cost differences
Number of firms
Cheating
Recession
New entrants
Legal obstacles
Demand and cost differences – because cost and demand differences exist between the members, it will be difficult for all members to charge the same price.
Number of firms – the more firms who are part of the agreement, the harder it is to maintain.
Cheating – there is always a tendency for members to cheat and this erodes the cartel’s power over time. See the Prisoner’s dilemma.
Recession – overall demand declines during recessions making cheating more attractive.
New entrants – new producers will be drawn to the industry because of the greater prices and profits which will increase market supply and decrease prices.
Legal obstacles – laws prohibit cartels and price collusion.
LO6

26. Price Leadership Model
Dominant firm initiates price changes
Other firms follow the leader
Use limit pricing to block entry of new firms
Possible price war
Price Leadership is an economic model where a dominant firm initiates price changes and the others in the industry follow the leader. The leader communicates price changes through speeches, press releases, or articles in trade journals. One result is infrequent price changes since the leader is never certain that the other firms will follow and there is always the threat of a price war.
LO6

27. Oligopoly and Advertising
Prevalent to compete with product development and advertising
Less easily duplicated than a price change
Financially able to advertise
Advertising is prevalent in oligopolies since there are differentiated goods and advertising is the best way to communicate product differences. Product improvements and advertising can be successful because they are less easily duplicated than a price change. Oligopolists are financially able to advertise due to economic profits earned in the past.
LO7

28. Positive Effects of Advertising
Low-cost way of providing information to consumers
Enhances competition
Speeds up technological progress
Can help firms obtain economies of scale
Advertising is a low-cost way of providing information to consumers about different options and it reduces the consumer’s search time for products. Advertising also enhances competition between firms and thus aids in economic efficiency. It speeds up technological progress by introducing new products. It can help firms obtain economies of scale by reducing long run average costs.
LO7

29. Oligopoly and Advertising
The Largest U.S. Advertisers, 2010
Company
Advertising Spending Millions of $
Procter & Gamble
$3124
General Motors
$2131
AT&T
$2093
Verizon
$1823
News Corp
$1368
Pfizer
$1229
Time Warner
$1194
Johnson & Johnson
$1140
Ford Motor
$1132
L’Oreal
$1112
Oligopolists have substantial financial resources with which to support advertising.
Source: Kantar Media,
LO7

30. Negative Effects of Advertising
Can be manipulative
Contains misleading claims that confuse consumers
Consumers pay high prices for a good while forgoing a better, lower priced, unadvertised version of the product.
When advertising either leads to increased monopoly power, or is self-canceling, economic inefficiency results.
LO7

31. Global Perspective
The brands identified here were based on four criteria: brand’s market share, world appeal across age groups and nationalities, customer loyalty, and the ability to stretch beyond the original product.
LO7

32. Oligopoly and Efficiency
Oligopolies are inefficient
Productively inefficient P > min ATC
Allocatively inefficient P > MC
Qualifications
Increased foreign competition
Limit pricing
Technological advance
Productive Efficiency is achieved by producing in the least costly way and is evidenced by P = min ATC. Allocative Efficiency is achieved by producing the right amount of output and is evidenced by P = MC. Foreign competition has increased rivalry in oligopolistic industries. If the oligopolist leader practices limit pricing, we may get lower prices. Oligopolies may foster more rapid product development because of the competition in the industry and with the firm’s profits they have a means to invest in new technologies.
LO7

33. Oligopoly in the U.S. Beer Industry
The U.S. beer industry is now an oligopoly
Changes in demand
Change in tastes
Consumed at home and mass produced
Changes in supply
Technological advance
Economies of scale
In 1947 there were 400 independent brewers in the U.S.; by 1967 the number had declined to 124; by 1987 the number was 33.
In 1947, the five largest U.S. brewers sold 19 percent of the nation’s beer; currently, the big four brewers sell 87 percent of the total. Anheuser-Busch and Miller alone sell 69 percent. This oligopoly has developed out of demand and supply changes.