Skip to main content

The Restoration of Pure Monopoly and the Concept of the Industry

  • Chapter
  • 36 Accesses

Abstract

This paper is designed to show that the concept of ‘pure monopoly’ and the concept of ‘industry’ can be given precise theoretical definitions, and to argue that these concepts, which some modern economists reject, deserve prominent places in the theory of market structure. These concepts have been wrongly rejected, this article argues, because an excessive reliance on elasticity and cross-elasticity of demand has obscured important aspects of market structure theory.

The authors are indebted to several of their colleagues at Princeton University and at the U.S. Air Force Academy for helpful criticism, especially Professors Jesse Markham, Richard Quandt, Lee Baldwin, Aldrich Finegan, Colonel Wayne Yeoman and Captain Edward Claiborn. None of the critics is responsible for any errors. Both authors are on the faculty of economics at Princeton University, but Lt. Olson is on military leave, stationed at the Department of Economics at the Air Force Academy, which he thanks for generous encouragement of this project. The authors also thank the Princeton University Research Fund for support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Nicholas Kaldor, ‘Professor Chamberlin on Monopolistic and Imperfect Competition’, Quarterly Journal of Economics LII (May 1938) 526–7.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Robert Triffin, Monopolistic Competition and General Equilibrium Theory (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1940) p. 132.

    Google Scholar 

  3. P. W. S. Andrews, ‘Industrial Analysis in Economics — With Especial Reference to Marshallian Doctrine’, in Oxford Studies in the Price Mechanism, ed. T. Wilson and P. W. S. Andrews (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951) pp. 139 40.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. M. Clark, The Economics of Overhead Costs (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1923) p. 417.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Frank H. Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1921) p. 193.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See William Baucool, Welfare Economics and the Theory of the State (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1952) pp. 108–18.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics, 8th ed. (London: Macmillan, 1920) p. 100.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Piero Sraffa, ‘The Laws of Diminishing Returns under Competitive Conditions’, Economic Journal xxxvi (Dec 1926) 545.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fritz Machlup, ‘Monopoly and Competition: A Classification of Market Positions’, American Economic Review xxvli (Sep 1937) 448.

    Google Scholar 

  10. For example: K. W. Rothschild, ‘The Degree of Monopoly’, Economica, xx (Feb 1942),

    Google Scholar 

  11. and Abba P. Lerner, ‘The Concept of Monopoly and the Measurement of Monopoly Power’, Review of Economic Studies, x (1934).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Joan Robinson, ‘What is Perfect Competition?’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, xlix (Nov 1934) 116.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ralph W. Pfouts and C. E. Ferguson, ‘Market Classification Systems in Theory and Policy’, Southern Economic Journal, xxvi (Oct 1959) 118. These authors state that ‘a satisfactory theoretical system cannot be constructed on the basis of demand elasticity coefficients alone’. We would add that neither elasticity nor cross-elasticity is necessary.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. R. Hicks, Value and Capital (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953) chaps. ii and iii, esp. p. 48.

    Google Scholar 

  15. For example, E. F. Beach, ‘Triffin’s Classification of Market Positions’, Canadian Journal of Economics and Politics, IX (Feb 1943) 69–74;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. William Fellner, Competition Among the Few (New York: Knopf, 1949) pp. 50–4;

    Google Scholar 

  17. A. G. Papandreou, ‘Market Structure and Monopoly Power’, American Economic Review xxxix (Sep 1949) 883–97, esp. 889; Chamberlin, More General Theory pp. 79–81;

    Google Scholar 

  18. and William Fellner, ‘Comment’, American Economic Review xlii (Dec 1953) 898–910.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 1972 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Olson, M., McFarland, D. (1972). The Restoration of Pure Monopoly and the Concept of the Industry. In: Rowley, C.K. (eds) Readings in Industrial Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-15484-5_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics