Discuss how far increased specialisation and low barriers to entry apply to the growth of online shopping. [15]

Internet or online shopping has grown rapidly in recent years. Low barriers to entry have allowed a wide range of small specialised retail firms to market their products on the Internet. At the same time economies of scale have led to a small number of large Internet retail companies dominating the market for other products.

Increased specialisation and low barriers to entry have an impact on consumers and existing producers.

Discuss how far the traditional analysis of these economic effects applies to the growth of online shopping. [15]

An economics student’s response to the H2 ‘A’ level Economics November 2012 Essay Question 3

Part (b) of the H2/ A level Economics N2012 Essay Question 3 is kindly contributed by WYWS

This paper argues that while increased specialisation and low barriers to entry are able to account for the growth of online shopping, there exist other equally important theories in which the online shopping industry could expand. These other ways include online shopping retailers growing internally by expanding over time, or by growing externally by integrating with other firms via mergers, acquisitions and takeovers. Besides growing, alternative theories of firms postulate that aside from maximising growth, real world firms may aim to maximise profits or revenue.

Increased specialisation refers to the division of labour, and thus economies of scale. In the long run, rational profit-maximising firms aim to produce at the minimum efficient scale (MES), the point where the long run average cost (LRAC) curve shops falling, or where economies of scale are first exhausted.

Draw relevant economics diagram here – what diagram should be drawn?

This aim allows the firms to minimise the possibility of being undercut by their competitors, while giving them the ability to undercut their competitors. By reaping economies of scale, firms are also able to obtain cost advantages unavailable to their competitors, which allows them to lower their cost of production, produce more output, and thus increase their profits. A form of division of labour could be dividing one software engineer’s job of maintaining the integrity of the website and formulating creative new ways to improve the website into a job for two people, such that each could focus more intensively on their job scopes, thereby resulting in a higher quality and quantity of output. By increasing specialisation, firms could therefore reap economies of scale and ultimately promote growth.

Besides increased specialisation, low barriers to entry could also lead to the growth of firms in the online shopping industry. Entrepreneurs are decisive risk takers, who seek to coordinate the factors of production of land, labour, and capital, to bring out an increase in output from a given input. Low barriers to entry – both artificial and natural – allow potential entrepreneurs to capitalise profitable opportunities by providing easy access into these profitable segments of the market. The entry of new competitors would therefore apply pressure on incumbent firms, lowering output prices, and improving the overall allocation of resources. Low barriers of entry and exit of the market would therefore ensure that firms which are efficient and producing in accordance to market demand would survive and prosper in the market, while firms which are inefficient and whose production are not geared to the market would face their demise.

Other than increased specialisation and low barriers to entry, firms in the online shopping industry could grow by expanding internally over time or externally by integrating with other firms. There exists three types of integration, namely horizontal, vertical and conglomerate integration. Horizontal integration occurs when two firms that are producing the same product, or are engaged in the same stage of production, combine to form one entity. Vertical integration occurs when a firm in a stage of production combines with another firm from another stage of production, and consists of forward and backward integration. Forward integration occurs when a firm integrates with another firm at the next stage of production. Backward integration occurs when a firm integrates with another firm at an earlier stage of production. E-commerce oligopoly Amazon for instance, would have undergone vertical integration, as it does not only provide the service enabling consumers to search for products online, but also handles the logistics of delivering the product to the consumer’s doorstep. Conglomerate integration occurs when a firm mergers or acquires another firm from an unrelated industry.

Aside from expanding internally or externally, there exists several alternative theories of the firm which theorise that firms maximise profit and revenue, besides maximising growth. Maximising sales revenue increases the firm’s market share, which increases the prestige of the firm’s managers. Maximising growth via maximising output incurs additional costs such as advertising, investment, and research and development, but this would pay off in the long run with an expansion of demand and capacity. The behavioural theory of the firm by Cyert and March uses Herbert Simon’s theory of bounded rationality necessitating satisficing to argue that real world firms aim for satisficing behaviour, and proved this with real world empirical data. Satisficing refers to managers aiming to achieve other objectives by maintaining a satisfactory level of output to keep shareholders happy, rather than maximising growth. The managerial theory of the firm by Baumol and Williamson argues that managers seek to maximise their own utility rather than maximising growth. Bearle and Means argued regarding the ownership and control of the firms, where ownership of the firm is often spread over a large number of shareholders, and conversely control of the firm is often in the hands of a few managers.

Draw relevant economics diagram here – what diagram should be drawn?

According to the diagram above depicting a monopoly, firms can choose to maximise profit, revenue, or output, all of which would result in different levels of P and Q to be chosen, depending on the aims and objectives of the mangers. To maximise profit, managers aim to produce at marginal cost (MC) = marginal revenue (MR), at price P1 and output Q1. To maximise revenue, managers aim to produce where MR=0, at price P2 and output Q2 and still earn supernormal profits. To maximise growth, mangers aim to produce at average cost (AC) = average revenue (AR) and earn normal profits. Hence, applying this to oligopolies and monopolistic competitive firms in the online shopping industries, these firms could choose to maximise profits or revenue instead of maximising growth.

In conclusion, traditional analysis of increased specialisation and low barriers to entry are not as effective as alternative theories of the firm in analysing the growth of online shopping. The reason being is that the online shopping is a relatively new concept, since many consumers only have access to fast, reliable Internet post 20^th century. Therefore, imperfect information largely exists in such industries as compared to real world industries such as agriculture, thereby rendering traditional economic theories on the growth of the former being less accurate and reliable to alternative theories of the firm. However, these traditional analysis are still useful in certain cases, and therefore it is vital to keep them in our economic analysis toolkit.

JC Economics Essays – Special thanks to WY for his excellent contribution of a well-argued, well-written, and clearly-worded economics essay on the H2 / A level economics November 2012 examination essay question on market structure, economies of scale, barriers to entry, alternative theories of the firm, and internet retail firms.

Covering a lot of good economics material, this exemplary economics essay is an excellent model essay on how to effectively tackle examination questions. It succeeds greatly by using various economic theories and examples, and relevant economics diagrams, all targeted at making a reasoned, reasonable, and rational response to the economics essay question. This economics paper would easily achieve a grade A from an economics tutor during an examination. What else can you learn from this essay? 

Thank you for reading and cheers! 

Explain how benefits to the UK economy can arise from exchanges, arising from specialisation, to address the central problem of economics. [10]

This paper explains the benefits to the UK (United Kingdom) economy of exchanges arising from the price mechanism, arising from specialisation, that addresses the central problem of economics.

First and foremost, the central problem of economics, according to Lord Lionel Robbins of the London School of Economics, is basically about humans having unlimited wants, but because of limited resources of the factors of production of land, labour, capital, and entrepreneurship, people cannot have everything that they want. This is the situation of scarcity necessitating rational choice, given finite resources on earth to meet unlimited wants. 

There are a few keywords and core concepts that we need to address before we start on our essay. Exchanges refer to the movement of goods and services in exchange for money, in a free market economy. Specialisation refers to the division of labour that occurs in a free market economy that uses the price mechanism. Specialisation means that individuals or firms produce one good, and can thus reap economies of scale from it, where economies of scale refer to falling long run average costs (LRAC) a the scale of output increases. The central problem of economics can basically be addressed through the price mechanism in a free market economy, which refers to the intersection of demand and supply, where, as Adam Smith famously said, prices act as an “invisible hand” coordinating the factors of production to allocate goods in the economy, solving the problems of "what" to produce, "how" to produce, and "for whom" to produce those very goods. This paper now explains the benefits to the UK economy of exchanges arising from specialisation.

First and foremost, the price mechanism and the concomitant specialisation that arises from it lead to efficiency in the UK market. There are many kinds of efficiency, but according to economic theory the price mechanism in a competitive market would be productive and allocative efficient, ceteris paribus. Productive efficiency means that the market produces at the lowest possible average price, while allocative efficiency means that the market produces also where P = MC, where MC means marginal costs. Alternatively, allocative efficiency can also be defined as where the market allocation is the socially optimal level for society, under conditions of no market failure. For example, if UK farmers specialised in the production of various crops  and then exchanged to get what they need for their daily needs, then the agricultural produce market would achieve productive and allocative efficiency, because UK farmers would produce at the bottom of their LRAC and thus achieve the Minimum Efficient Scale (MES), the lowest point of the LRAC. This would ultimately benefit UK consumers because of lower prices and greater output, the greatest benefits of productive and allocative efficiency.

At the same time, beyond microeconomics, this question also asks about the UK economy. For the larger economy, specialisation would lead to an economy that could exchange goods internationally. International trade is defined as the exchange of goods and services across international boundaries. If the UK specialises, for example, in the production of capital intensive goods, such as cars and technological products, and then trades with another country, say China which specialises in the production of labour intensive goods, such as clothing, then trade can take place, which could increase UK’s actual growth, as AD  = C + I + G + (X-M). This is basically the benefit of specialisation and exchange on the international stage, called comparative advantage, where one country specialises and produces a good it has a lower opportunity cost of producing, and then exchanges it for a good in which it has a comparative disadvantage in, which leads to a higher consumption possibilities. 

In conclusion, it can be argued that exchange and specialisation to solve the central problem of economics can benefit the UK economy in terms of promoting productive, allocative efficiencies, as well as international trade because of comparative advantage for the benefit of the UK's economic growth. 

JC Economics Essays - This excellent economics essay, written under examination conditions, was kindly contributed by S. S., who achieved an grade A for H2 Economics at the A level examinations and also a Merit for H3 Economics. He achieved a university place at the London School of Economics and received good recommendations and testimonials from his economics and civics tutors. Special thanks for the kind and useful contribution. What can we learn about writing good economics essays from this sharing? Thank you for reading, and cheers. 

Discuss whether economic analysis favours large firms over smaller ones.

This paper argues that economic analysis, on the one hand, favours large firms because they are able to reap economies of scale, with all its implications on costs, prices, and profitability, but on the other hand diseconomies of scale might pose an issue and other economic reasons might also favour small firms over larger ones.

First, it can be argued that traditionally economic analysis favours large firms. This is because of the fact that they can reap internal economies of scale. Internal economies of scale are cost savings that accrue directly to the firm from the expansion of the firm's output, independent of what is happening to other firms. As the firm increases its scale of production by producing more output, the LRAC falls accordingly. On an economics diagram, the falling portion of the firm’s LRAC reflects internal economies of scale. A large firm producing at a larger level of output will be able to benefit in the form of enjoying a lower average cost as compared to a small firm producing at a lower level of output with an average cost higher than the large firm. 

What economics diagram could/should be drawn here?

The lower average cost that a large firm enjoys can be derived from various sources. For instance, when a large firm is able to reap more internal economies of scale, consumers may benefit in the form of lower prices if firms pass on their cost savings. Many oligopolies pass on the benefits of lower costs onto their consumers. Firms may also use the cost savings to carry out research and development (R&D) to improve on their production processes, which can bring down the cost of production and eventually be passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices, or improve on the quality of the goods sold, improving the welfare of consumers.

Large firms are able to earn supernormal profits in the long run as compared to small firms like that of a monopolistically competitive firm. The large firms’ supernormal profits are protected by high barriers to entry, making it difficult for potential firms to enter the industry. This means that large firms will have a higher financial ability to carry out R&D that can benefit consumers as explained previously. This often results in dynamic efficiency, the willingness and ability to innovate and improve processes over time, and as Joseph Schumpeter once said results in "creative destruction", the creation of new, novel, and disruptive technologies and products, just like the iPhone came to dominate the market and displace many other cellphone models, like Nokia. And in contrast, small firms may not have the financial ability to do so since they can only earn normal profits in the long run, which means that they have neither willingness nor ability to conduct R&D. In business terms, these small firms may therefore be forced out of business. 

On the other hand, economic analysis does not always favour large firms, and in fact sometimes may favour small firms. One reason could be due to internal diseconomies of scale. This happens when a firm expands beyond its optimum size. In theory, a firm that expands beyond its MES (minimum efficient scale) will start to face diseconomies. There are many reasons for this. First, this could be due to managerial diseconomies. As the size of the firm increases, it becomes increasingly difficult to carry out the management functions of co-ordination, control, and the maintenance of morale. Large firms may then pass on this higher average cost in the form of higher prices, and this would not be advantageous to consumers. In some industries, diseconomies of scale set in early, meaning that the MES is low and internal economies of scale is exhausted quickly. As such, costs rise sharply as output increases. Any advantage to large-scale production is more than offset by the disadvantage. The optimum size of firms in such industries is small. Therefore it can be convincingly argued that there are many reasons for diseconomies of scale - but in this paper's opinion, the most important factors are managerial diseconomies, or the nature of the industry is such that small firms are favoured in a particular industry. 

Furthermore, economists should consider demand-side or revenue-side factors, not just cost-side factors. The demand for a particular firm's output may be low, thus leading to the situation where the firm has to be small by its nature. The total demand, both domestic and foreign, for the firm’s output may be small because the firm is selling a niche product. Such a market may be limited by price. This is true for distinctive products like luxury sports cars such as Lamborghini, exclusive clothing such as Gucci and Prada fashion, and high quality jewellery, where only a small group of customers are willing and able to pay for the element of uniqueness and prestige.

Furthermore, if the product has great bulk in relation to its value or requires special transport arrangement, the transport cost will be high relative to the unit price. Under such circumstances, the market for such products is likely to be local rather than national.  

Another reason for firms remaining small could be the need to cater to consumer’s specific or individual requests. In this case, due to the varying nature of such requests, the size of production unit tends to be small. Thus, firms providing services in the area of law or repair services tend to be small. For instance, as cars do not break down in exactly the same way, the ‘non-standardised’ services make mass production of repair services impossible.

In the final analysis, since large firms’ supernormal profits are protected by high barriers to entry, this lowers the firm’s incentive to engage in R&D and become dynamic efficient since there is little chance for new firms to enter the industry to erode away its supernormal profits earned. This will in turn have implications on consumers as there will be little improvements to the quality of goods. As such, large firms may not always be favoured. On the contrary, small firms like a monopolistically competitive firm may have the incentive to engage in R&D since firms making subnormal profits will be the first to leave the industry. Hence, in order to ensure long-term survival and the possibility to earn supernormal profits in the short run, they will have the incentive to innovate. Therefore, it can be argued that while the argument for internal economies of scale seems to favour large firms, small firms can and often do coexist with large firms.

JC Economics Essays - This economics essay is on the traditional economics debate on the size of firms - does size matter? Does analysis favour large firms over small firms, or does it really depend - and what does it depend on? On the one hand, what are the good points of having firms large? On the other, are there situations where it would be better to have small firms? Why is this the case? Do think through your approach after reading this suggested essay. Special thanks to B for his contribution to this economics blog. Thanks for reading and cheers. 

“A monopolistic firm has market power whereas a perfectly competitive firm has no market power. Perfect competition is, therefore, clearly preferable to monopoly, say economists. Discuss this statement. [25]

Monopoly is a firm which is the only seller of a unique product which has no close substitutes. In a market of perfect competition, the level of competition is very high, and each firm is a small entity, a price taker. There are four assumptions for a monopoly to exist: there is only one seller but many buyers, high barriers to entry (both natural and artificial), a highly differentiated product such that it is difficult or impractical to copy the product, and imperfect information. There are four main assumptions for a perfectly competitive market, which are: there are many sellers and buyers, low barriers to entry, homogenous product and perfect information. This essay attempts to explain the reasons for the high market power of a monopoly, low market power for a perfectly competitive firm, and the limitations of monopoly and the choice between a monopoly and a perfectly competitive market. 

Yes, it is true that monopoly has very high barriers to entry while a perfectly competitive market has very low barriers to entry. Barriers to entry refer to the reasons which deter potential entrants from entering the market. There are two types of barriers, which are natural barriers and artificial barriers. Monopoly often has high barriers due to various reasons. Firstly, when there is very high economies of scale of the existing monopoly firm, the starting cost of potential entrants will be very high as a result, and this is often because of high fixed costs, such as massive initial capital outlay followed by declining LRAC. 

Secondly, when there is limited and small market size, localized monopoly might arguably be present because the demand from the consumers is very low due to say a small population, which cannot support more suppliers. For example, there will be only one hairdressing shop in a small town because of its small population. 

Thirdly, when there are network economies, it is very hard for potential entrants to enter the market because of existing networks among users. For instance, after Facebook, it is difficult to have any more of the same type of online social network websites because users have built up broad network on Facebook already. 

These are main natural barriers. There are also artificial barriers to entry set up by governments and the existing firms as well. For example, patents, licenses, and regulations restrict potential entrants from entering. Existing will have limit pricing and predatory pricing to deter potential entrants from entering. Firms also can control retailers and suppliers to prevent potential firms. For example, deBeers controls the diamond resources of the world and can restrict diamond production. Therefore, a monopoly has very high barriers to entry to limit the number of existing firms to a very low number, i.e. one firm. The monopoly has very significant market share hence strong market power to control the price while a perfectly competitive firm has many competitors in the market and therefore their market share is insignificant as a result of this very low market power. Hence, a perfectly competitive firm is a price taker, whereas a monopoly can set output and accept a price, or set the price and accept the resulting output. 

[Insert diagram on PC Industry and PC firm]

The perfectly competitive firm takes the price from the intersection of market demand and supply. To maximize profit, the firm will produce at MC = MR at price P. In the long run, a perfectly competitive firm will gain normal profits when LRAC = P at minimum efficient scale (MES). 

Therefore, a perfectly competitive firm is productive efficient because it always produces along LRAC curve and every firm in the industry tries to produce at MES for maximized profits and minimized costs for survival. A perfectly competitive firm is also allocative efficient because P = AC. It gains maximum social welfare. 

A perfectly competitive firm is also equitable because it gains normal profits in the long run. There are therefore good and solid reasons for the preference of a perfectly competitive firm than a monopoly. A monopoly is productive inefficient , allocative inefficient, and inequitable as explained below. 

[Insert diagram on Monopoly Firm showing Supernormal profit and Deadweight loss]

A monopoly is productive inefficient because the firm has great market power and it can be X-inefficient, which means that it does not act energetically to curb its costs, for instance costs from lobbying for government intervention. It can produce above the LRAC curve due to overpaying for workers, building ostentatious buildings, or unnecessary perks. 

A monopoly is allocative inefficient because of the deadweight loss resulting from monopoly power. At the profit maximizing point, MC = MR, and P > AC. Hence, there is a positive welfare to be achieved by promoting perfectly competitive firms.

A monopoly is not equitable to consumers because of its supernormal profits gained in the long run. 

However, a monopoly can be preferred to a perfectly competitive firm because it is dynamic efficient. It has the willingness and ability to innovate and create to do research and development (R&D) and to improve its product variety through product proliferation. This is because of its supernormal profits in the long run, leading to its ability to conduct R&D. It also aims to utilise product proliferation to fill the product gap, and thereby prevent potential entrants from finding a niche to exploit in its market that it dominates. A perfectly competitive firm is also not willing to innovate because of perfect information in its market, so other firms can easily copy from it, so a monopoly does have some strengths. 

[Insert diagram to compare PC firm and Monopoly]

A monopoly firm usually restricts output and set high price at maximized profit level, while a perfectly competitive firm has lower price and more output at the intersection point of its demand and supply. At this point in time, a perfectly competitive firm is preferred to a monopoly. However, in the long run, when a monopoly grows and exploits its economies of scale, it moves its (LR)MC curve downwards. It can then produce more output at a lower price. At this time, a monopoly is preferred to a perfectly competitive firm due to its dynamic efficiency. 

In conclusion, it is not always preferable to have a perfect competition than a monopoly. Ostensibly there are many good points that perfectly competitive firms have, such as productive efficiency and allocative efficiency, among other ideal points, whereas monopoly does appear or seem not ideal, due to its lack of productive and allocative efficiency. However, a monopoly has more dynamic efficiency than a perfectly competitive firm and has the potential to have lower prices than a perfectly competitive firm. In addition, a perfectly competitive market is ideal but does not exist in the real world. Hence, monopoly is sometimes preferable to a perfectly competitive firm. 

JC Economics Essays - H2 Economics essay on monopoly and perfect competition. Normally I would give detailed comments for essays and make some commentary or remarks on how good the essay is, or how it can be further improved by identifying particular points, arguments, or even sometimes, rarely, mistakes. Sometimes, I even ask difficult thinking questions about how the essay can be improved. However, for this particular essay done under timed examination conditions, I rather like its style and content, and so instead of giving my comments I will let you do most of the thinking: one simple question is - what can you learn from this economics essay? Thanks for reading and cheers. 

Explain the concept of comparative advantage and, using relevant examples from the USA, explain the likely factors that determine the comparative advantage of the United States. (15 marks)

Introduction - International Trade

This Economics essay is about international trade, and discusses the likely factors that determine the comparative advantage in trade for the USA. 

Comparative Advantage

What is "comparative advantage"? Comparative advantage is the idea that a country should trade in a good in which it has the lowest opportunity costs in producing that good. Even if a country has absolute advantage in the production of all goods than another country, the idea of comparative advantage is that the opportunity costs matter and that hence both countries can still trade, and gain from trade.

Generally, trade models built upon the theory of comparative advantage have the following assumptions: Perfect mobility of the FOP (factors of production), which means that resources used in one industry can be substituted for another perfectly; constant returns to scale, which means that doubling the inputs in each country leads to a doubling of total output; there are no externalities arising from production and/or consumption (and by extension there are no other associated market failures); and transportation and other transaction costs are negligible.

Factors Affecting Comparative Advantage

What determines comparative advantage, and in this particular context the comparative advantage of the USA?

Dynamic Concept - Dynamic Comparative Advantage

First, it should be noted that comparative advantage is a dynamic concept, which means that it can and does change over time. Some companies enjoy a comparative advantage in a product they have produced for several years, only to find that eventually they face increasing competition as rival producers from other countries enter the market. For instance, Ford used to be able to sell their cars competitively overseas, but with the rise of Korean cars and Japanese cars - predominantly Japanese cars - now, many people worldwide perceive Japanese and Korean cars as good as, if not better, than American cars.

Factors of Production - Quality and Quantity

Also, the quantity and quality of the factors of production available would definitely affect the comparative advantage of the USA (in particular, the natural resources that a country possesses, the size and efficiency of the available labour force, the productivity of the existing stock of capital inputs, and the skill and organisational talent of its entrepreneurs and risk-taking businessmen). Focusing narrowly instead on labour and capital, to focus this Economics paper, any economy can improve the quality of its labour force and increase the stock of capital available to therefore expand the productive potential in industries in which it has a comparative advantage. In the case of the USA, this means that the US government can focus on improving the productivity of its labour force and raising employment, as well as focusing on their current capital-intensive approach to production.

Industrial Policy and R&D?

In Singapore, in contradistinction to the USA, there has been industrial policy that aims to direct comparative advantage, since after all comparative advantage is indeed a dynamic concept. Investment in research and development can lead to dominance in certain industries, and industrial policy helps to keep this keen and targeted (R&D is very important in industries where patents give some firms significant market advantage, and hence market dominance). In the case of the USA, military firms (once termed the military-industrial complex) can be seen as an area in which R&D served to keep the comparative advantage of the USA in military weaponry and high technological areas.

Yet Other Factors - Inflation, Protectionism, and Non-price Competitiveness

There are also other factors affecting the comparative advantage of countries, which may be important or relevant in the case of the USA. These other factors are inflation rates, protectionist measures, and nonprice competitiveness of producers in terms of product design and other such preference-related measures.

First, long-term rates of inflation compared to other countries would worsen competitiveness and hence cause a decline in the comparative advantage of that particular good. This would affect all producers not just the USA per se.

Secondly, in terms of protectionism, import controls such as tariffs and quotas can be used to create an artificial comparative advantage for domestic producers. In the case of the USA, protectionist measures are sometimes used (as Ha Joon Chang once mockingly said, this was akin to "kicking away the ladder").

Lastly, the nonprice competitiveness of producers, such as the product design, reliability, and the quality of after-sales support also affects comparative advantage. In this area, the USA has a lot of fans and some of its products are quite popular worldwide, for instance the infamous or for that matter famous iPhone and other Apple products.

JC Economics Essays: Economics Tutor's comments - This Economics essay on international trade in the context of the USA is short, sharp, and to the point - and it does make an attempt at addressing the requirements of the Economics question. There are many good elements in this writing and analysis that are worthy of learning and study. However, the usual tutor's questions are: how can this paper be made better? For instance, think about the conclusion - this Economics paper does not have a conclusion that brings in the relevant real world context of the USA. How would you craft an evaluative, nuanced, and clear conclusion for this Economics paper? Also, what other economic ideas or real-world arguments can you think of? Finally, think about the alternative approaches and methods in which you could approach this Economics question. Think through the process of writing, especially for examinations, tests, and term projects. Thanks for reading and cheers!

Explain with relevant examples the main differences between oligopolistic and monopolistic competition. [10]

Explain with relevant examples the main differences between oligopolistic and monopolistic competition. [10] 

Tutor's Note: This is an Economics question modified and simplified from an actual “A” levels Economics examination.

This paper explains with relevant examples the main differences between oligopolistic and monopolistic competition. 

What is Oligopoly?

What is oligopoly? Oligopoly refers to a market where the barriers to entry are high, such that there exist only a few large firms in that particular industry, each with a significant market share, selling either homogeneous or differentiated products. Homogenous products are products that are perfectly substitutable for each other and have little or no product differentiation, unlike differentiated products. 

What is Monopolistic Competition?

What is monopolistic competition? Monopolistic competition, on the other hand, refers to a market where the barriers to entry are low, such that there exist many firms, each with insignificant market share, selling somewhat differentiated products. This paper deals with the characteristics first and then the nature of the products sold, and then finally the performance of the two market structures. 

Barriers to Entry for Oligopoly and MC Firms

Let us examine the characteristics of the two market structures of oligopoly and monopolistic competition. First let us deal with the barriers to entry. There are high barriers for oligopoly, for instance large economies of scale (internal EOS) in the provision of telecommunications services, whereas there are low barriers for monopolistic competition, for instance low economies of scale (internal EOS) in the clothes retails.   

Homogeneous vs Differentiated Products

Next, let us deal with the nature of the product. A product is homogenous when, for instance, every seller sells exactly the same item, for instance, petrol for cars of a certain particular grade such as 95 or 98 octane, whereas on the other hand a product is differentiated when the product sold by a firm is similar, but not exactly identical to that of its competitor’s product, be it "psychologically" or physically different, for instance, branded cars or cars of different makes and styles. 

Monopolistic competitive firms sell differentiated products, and hence as such derive their pricing power from their product differentiation, whether it is merely psychologically perceived or actually substantially differentiated. 

Oligopolies, on the other hand, can sell either differentiated or homogenous products, and their source of market power comes instead from their large market share arising from the few players that exist within that industry, and their huge economies of scale.

Profits

Let us now examine the performance of the market structures. What kind of profits would these firms earn? In the long run, only normal profits exist in monopolistic competition, while supernormal profits exist for oligopolies, so monopolistic competition is likely to be more equitable compared to oligopoly, which seems more inequitable.

Efficiencies

In terms of efficiency, there are many arguments to make to show the differences. 

First, an oligopoly may be X-inefficient – meaning that it does not work energetically to cut costs – but monopolistic competition is X-efficient as well. 

Both market structures are allocatively inefficient, where allocative efficiency refers here to P = MC, but the extent is likely much greater for oligopoly, because the price will be much higher than marginal cost for an oligopoly compared to monopolistic competition, which also has P > MC, but not by that much. 

In terms of dynamic efficiency, oligopoly generates more research and development (R&D) than monopolistic competition, and as such is more dynamic efficient because it has the willingness and ability to innovate.   

JC Economics Essays: Tutor's Comments - This Economics paper is short, sharp, sweet, and to the point, and was contributed by a hardworking, dedicated student who composed it under model examination conditions. This Economics essay is also quite well organised and structured, and structured essays are very well received by Economics examiners and teachers. Certainly, we can all learn from it, not just content knowledge but also how to craft to-the-point essays. However, there are a few possible criticisms/ issues: one, the student has not consistently used examples throughout the Economics paper (in particular, "relevant examples") to illustrate his points; two, the student could be more accurate and specific in his introduction by telling the reader, examiner, or Economics tutor reading his paper EXACTLY what he is going to do and say in the paper; three, there is no conclusion, probably because he ran out of time writing; four, he could have defined his terms better and clearer, and more consistently too. Maybe the paragraphing could be slightly better as well, and arguments could be grouped together. Having said that, this Economics essay is still good and in fact the criticisms made would not hurt it very much, because overall it is well written and in examination conditions this precision and clear economic analysis is recognised, valued, and appreciated - although it could have been further improved. Thanks for reading and cheers. 

Since large firms enjoy EOS, they are therefore more efficient and should be welcomed by society. Do you agree? [25]

Since large firms enjoy EOS, they are therefore more efficient and should be welcomed by society. Do you agree? [25]

Economies of scale (EOS) refers to the cost savings derived from large scale production of the firm. EOS can be generated internally or externally. If the average costs decrease due to the increase in the scale of production of the firm itself, we say that the firm experiences internal EOS. EOS allows efficiency to be achieved. To be economically efficient a firm has to achieve productive and allocative efficiency. Productive efficiency refers to the least cost method of production. Allocative efficiency on the other hand, occurs when the right amount of the right kind of goods are being produced. This occurs when the marginal social benefit is equal to the marginal social cost, society welfare is thus maximized. On top of that, Pareto efficiency also has to be achieved. Pareto efficiency is when it is no longer possible to change the allocation of resources such that it makes at least one individual better off without making any other individual worse off.

Large firms are firms usually classified as oligopolistic or monopolistic firms. An oligopolistic market occurs where the industry is dominated by a few large firms which control a large proportion of the industry’s output. These firms have a large share of market power. Similarly, in a monopolistic market, there is market dominance because a single firm controls the whole supply of a product which has no close substitutes. As a result of the large market share, profits gained from production will allow these large firms to achieve efficiency through EOS. As long as these EOS can be filtered down to consumers in terms of lower prices and higher output, I agree that because large firms enjoy EOS, they are therefore more efficient and should be welcomed by society.

A firm enjoys internal economies of scale if its average cost of production falls as its scale of production increases. This is represented by a movement along the downward sloping portion of the Long Run Average Cost (LRAC) curve. Average cost refers to cost per unit of output. This is illustrated in the figure below.

Insert Economics diagram - thinking question: what will this economics diagram look like?

A large firm can enjoy internal economies of scale through marketing economies. This occurs when a firm gets bigger and it buys inputs such as raw materials in bulk. Suppliers of these inputs, in their eagerness to secure the firm’s orders, will often offer a discount on its purchase. This lowers the firm’s unit cost of production. A firm can also enjoy marketing economies when it enjoys the ability to spread its advertising costs. Since a bigger firm produces more output, its total advertising cost is spread over a large output, thus unit cost is reduced. Such large firms can also enjoy EOS through financial economies whereby larger firms may be able to obtain financial loans at lower interest rates due to more credit worthiness. It can also raise funds in the capital market by issuing shares to member of the public. Moreover when a firm expands, it is also able to hire professionals to specialize in different areas of work. Different departments can be set up, each led by an expert in the field. With these expertises, a firm’s output can be increased, thus lowering its unit cost of production. This may not be worthwhile or economical for a smaller firm. This is known as managerial economies of scale. As such EOS allows for large firms to be more efficient as they get to reduce costs of production, achieve a minimum efficient scale (MES) and be more productively efficient. This will eventually result in costs savings passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices for the goods and services provided.

However, in the case of a natural monopoly, society has no choice but to welcome it into the market. A natural monopoly occurs when a tremendous amount of capital is required to produce a product or service. This leads to very large economies of scale and the firm’s MES occurs at a very high level of output, such that there will only be one firm in the market. This huge capital requirement means that total fixed costs make up a very large part of the total cost. Such examples of a natural monopoly would include producers for utilities such as gas, water and telecommunications. In the case of Singapore, the telecommunication lines are monopolized by Singtel. Although a natural monopoly is allocatively inefficient in P=MC pricing, where the cost of the good is equal to the marginal cost of producing a good, it is definitely more efficient than trying to duplicate the number of firm through liberalization. This is because the new entrant will eventually collapse to form a monopoly again because the duplicity of firms would cause the new entrant to incur large losses. As such, society would still accept such natural monopolists in the industry. This can be depicted by the existence of Singtel.

However, society should not welcome such large firms because there are disadvantages of EOS when it is being reaped beyond MES. These are internal diseconomies of scale (disEOS). Internal diseconomies of scale are the cost disadvantages a firm experiences as it increases its scale of production. When a firm becomes too large, its average cost of production rises as its scale of production increases. This is represented by a movement along the upward sloping portion of the LRAC curve. Internal disEOS are largely managerial inefficiencies. This can arise from the increase in complexity in management and greater difficulty in co-ordination in a large organization. A firm grows so large that it becomes more cumbersome to manage. It becomes more bureaucratic and decision-can also making process slows down. Work efficiency can be reduced by excessive paper work which results in low productivity and higher unit cost. Management problems of co-ordination may also appear as the organisation of the firm becomes too big. It becomes increasingly more difficult for top management to co-ordinate and monitor all operations, thus inefficiency may creep in. This increases unit cost.

Insert diagram - how will this economics diagram look like? Remember now that it is about disEOS rather than EOS.

Society should also not welcome such large firms because these firms tend to be monopolies. Monopolists experiences static inefficiency, or a lack of dynamic efficiency. Static efficiency is attained when there are both productive and allocative efficiency. The monopolist is productive efficient as long as it maximises profits. However, a profit maximising monopolist produces output up to the level where P>MC. Since consumers value the last unit of the good more than it costs to produce, the good is underproduced and increasing the output can increase the welfare of the consumers. The underproduction of the good has led to the loss in welfare for the society. This can be illustrated in the diagram below.

Insert economics diagram. Apply usual thinking!

As such, under similar cost conditions, the output produced by a single monopolist is lower and the price charged higher than the perfectly competitive industry. The perfectly competitive industry will produce where demand equals to supply, at output Qpc, and charge a price Ppc. However, the monopolist would produce at Qm, and charge a price equal to Pm.

Moreover, society should not accept large firms because there will be an unequal income distribution. This is because the monopolist can earn supernormal profits even in the long run due to barriers to entry. If a monopolist makes supernormal profits, these profits will go to shareholders who may be mainly upper income earners, This may worsen the income distribution in the economy. The existence of supernormal profit suggests that producers receive greater income than is needed to induce them to undertake their operations. The lack of competition enables them to receive higher profits than is economically justified. Thus income is more unequal than it needs to be.

In conclusion, large firms who enjoy EOS are accepted in the economy but too much of it will be non-beneficial for the industry. Hence, to ensure that society benefits equally, government intervention is needed where policies such as AC-pricing and taxation of profits are carried out.

JC ECONOMICS ESSAYS: Tutor's Comments: A very good attempt! Covers the majority of the points needed to tackle this exam question. This model Economics essay was written under "A" level Economics examination conditions. Economics tutor's suggested grade: 20/25. How would you improve this essay, and how would you approach the task of crafting a well argued, nuanced, balanced, and evaluative Economics answer? Perhaps the evaluation in the conclusion could be better, more argumentative, and more justified with relevant examples. Thanks for reading and cheers. Stay here for more Economics essays and materials.