Discuss, using examples from the United Kingdom, whether high levels of research and innovation are best achieved in competitive compared to monopolistic markets. (25 marks)

This Economics paper argues that high levels of research and innovation are best achieved in monopolistic markets, compared to competitive markets, because dynamic efficiency is best achieved when companies have the willingness and ability to conduct costly research and development (R & D).

First, what is dynamic efficiency? Dynamic efficiency means that companies can invest in education, research, innovation, and other creative processes that help them increase their efficiency over time, and in the long run will help them earn supernormal profits above opportunity costs and explicit costs. Competitive markets are markets with low barriers to entry, and can be idealised using the model of perfect competition.

What is perfect competition? Perfect competition is the market structure where there are many buyers and sellers of a single homogeneous product with perfect substitutes, low barriers to entry, suggesting that they earn normal profits in the long run, and where there is perfect information.

This is in contrast with monopoly, which in theory is a firm that sells a product with few close substitutes, with high barriers to entry, and which thus earns supernormal profits in the long run.

It can be argued that competition might not lead to research and development. Taking perfect competition to benchmark competitive firms in the UK, because they earn normal profits in the long run, they have neither the incentive nor the willingness to invest in research and innovation. For instance, small shops along the streets of London, especially monopolistic competitive firms, will not engage in research. 

However, having said that, if these firms are able to borrow from capital markets or get funding, or perhaps even due to external events causing temporary supernormal profits due to changes in demand and supply, they could have the willingness to invest in innovation so that they can because more “monopolistic”, when they produce a highly differentiated product.

It can be argued that monopolistic markets have firms that earn supernormal profit, because of their high barriers to entry. They therefore have both the ability and willingness to innovate to keep their monopolistic position. First, they have the ability because they earn supernormal profits, and can allocate massive funds to R&D. Second, they have the willingness because if they are in monopolistic markets that could potentially be contested by more efficient firms that could displace them to take over their market, they need to innovate to maintain their long term dynamic efficiency. 

For instance, Rolls Royce which manufacturers engines and aeroplane systems is a dynamic company probably because it has incentive and ability to innovate. BAE Systems plc is also another such company, and in fact both Rolls Royce and BAE are multinational companies, companies that span international borders with their unique product chains that require high levels of research and development. In fact, it can be said that some monopolies are monopolies because they have developed a product that is unique, differentiated, and wanted by consumers.

However, having said that, on the other hand contestable markets are usually perfectly competitive or competitive in nature, and as such competitive markets could help dynamic efficiency better in that respect. Thus competition might also lead to research and innovation, but the level could be lower than that of monopolies that have incentive and ability to do research and innovation.

Also, there are problems with monopolies. It can be argued that monopolies sometimes have x-inefficiency, where they do not act energetically to curb costs, and they could therefore become slothful and inefficient firms. This is because they may preserve their position through the use of patents, laws, legislation, and other legal means that have nothing to do with their level of technology or the sophistication of their product.

In the final analysis, this paper argued that high levels of research and innovation are best achieved in monopolistic markets, compared to competitive markets, because dynamic efficiency is best achieved when companies have the willingness and ability to conduct costly research and development, even though there are indeed some limitations to monopolies such as x-inefficiency. Competitive markets may have the incentive to conduct some research, but their levels are lower, and most of the time they neither have willingness nor ability due to the lack of barriers to entry which ensure supernormal profit. 

JC Economics Essays (H2, H3 A levels): Economics Tutor's Comments - This Economics paper on research and development and comparison of monopolistic and competitive firms was crafted under model examination conditions and has a few good points that one can learn from, but also some problematic areas, such as simplistic analysis and lack of many other relevant examples from UK manufacturing or service industries. Do think: if you were an Economics tutor, what advice would you give this student to help him make the Economics essay better? Perhaps you could focus on an area of improvement, such as the structure or organisation of this essay. Think of how this Economics paper could be made better. Thanks for reading and cheers!

Compare and contrast the various types of economic efficiencies. [10]

Compare and contrast the various types of economic efficiencies. [10]

The fundamental economic problem is a problem of scarcity, necessitating choice. This is because human wants are potentially unlimited, but resources are limited, and hence choices have to be made, “efficiently”, between competing uses for the same resources. The scarce resources, or factors of production, are land, labour, capital, and entrepreneurship. Land refers to resources, gifts of nature, and other natural factors. Labour refers to human effort and work. Capital refers to any good that can be used to produced another good. Entrepreneurship refers to risk-taking, organisation, and business acumen, among other things. It can be said that efficiency is concerned with the optimal production and distribution of society’s scarce resources. This economics essay compares and contrasts the various main types of economic efficiencies – productive efficiency, allocative efficiency, dynamic and static efficiency, X-inefficiency, social efficiency, and Pareto efficiency.

Productive Efficiency

First, productive efficiency occurs when the maximum number of goods and services are produced with a given amount of inputs. This will occur on the production possibilities curve or production possibilities frontier (PPC or PPF), meaning that any point along the PPC will be productively efficient. On the PPC, it is impossible to produce more goods without producing fewer services. Productive efficiency will also occur at the lowest point on individual firms’ average cost curves (AC curves). This is because productive efficiency can be thought of as the method of least cost production, which means that production costs are minimised. Productive efficiency is not the same as the other types of efficiencies.

Think: how would you draw the PPC?

Allocative Efficiency

Second, allocative efficiency occurs when goods and services are distributed according to society’s preferences or when they are allocated in accordance with maximising society’s welfare. An economy could be productively efficient but produce goods that people that do not need, and this would be allocatively inefficient. In other words, allocative efficiency is a subset of productive efficiency, where productive efficiency is a necessary condition of allocative efficiency. (A necessary condition is a condition for some state of affairs that must be satisfied before the state of affairs can be obtained.) It should be noted that allocative efficiency occurs when the price of the good produced by a firm equals the marginal costs of production.

Dynamic Efficiency

Third, dynamic efficiency refers to efficiency over time, whereas static efficiency refers to efficiency at a particular point in time. The first concept has the element of time taken into consideration whereas the other does not consider time. Dynamic efficiency involves the introduction of new technology and working practices to reduce costs over time, whereas static means “at a fixed point in time”. Basically, this concept of dynamic means that there are changes over time whereas static means that time is held, as it were, frozen.

X-inefficiency

Fourth, X-inefficiency occurs when firms do not have incentives to cut costs. This is usually associated with monopolies, which usually pursue rent-seeking behaviour rather than think of how to lower costs. For instance, a monopoly which makes supernormal profits may have little incentive to get rid of surplus labour. Therefore, a monopolistic firm’s average costs may be higher than necessary.

Social Efficiency

Social efficiency occurs when externalities are taken into consideration and occurs at an output where the social cost of production (SMC) = the social benefit (SMB), or alternatively, the marginal social costs (MSC) = the marginal social benefits (MSB). This is closely related to both the concepts of allocative and Pareto efficiency, also known as Pareto optimality. Pareto efficiency or optimality is defined as a situation where it is not possible to make one party better off without making another party worse off. Hence, Pareto efficiency is socially efficient and also allocatively efficient, at society’s level.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there are many efficiency concepts in Economics and it is important to understand economic efficiency. Many of the concepts are related and can be understood in relation to each other.

JC Economics Essays – Tutor’s Commentary: This is a good introduction to the various “efficiencies” that Economics has to offer, not just at ‘A’ levels, but also at O, AS levels and introductory undergraduate Economics as well. ‘A’ level Economics can be quite esoteric, it is true, and this Economics material might seem difficult. Think positively instead: how could you make this Economics essay comprehensible and easily understood by you? Let’s do some counterfactual experiments here. Put yourself in the role of the Economic tutor, the examiner, or the lecturer, and you were marking this essay paper. If you were an Economics tutor, how would you judge this essay? What were its strengths and weaknesses, and why do you think – as a professional Economics tutor – those parts of the Economics essay were strengths or weaknesses? Thanks for reading, all the best and good luck!