The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Monopsony

  • Alan Manning
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_2282

Abstract

Monopsony refers to the situation where a firm has some market power over the price it pays for its inputs, so that a higher price must be paid the more input is used. Monopsony could exist in any input market but is usually discussed in the context of the labour market. Employers will have monopsony power over their workers because of frictions in the labour market. Employers will use this monopsony power to pay workers less than their marginal product. This gap between marginal product and wage offers policy an opportunity to raise the wage of workers without necessarily jeopardizing their employment.

Keywords

Collusion Frictions Human capital Job mobility Labour markets Labour supply Law of one wage Minimum wage Monopsony Oligopsony Partial equilibrium Robinson, J. Search capital Search models Smith, A. Training Wage discrimination Wage dispersion Wage heterogeneity, sources of 

JEL Classifications

D43 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  1. Albrecht, J., and B. Axell. 1984. An equilibrium model of search unemployment. Journal of Political Economy 92: 824–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhaskar, V., and T. To. 1999. Minimum wages for Ronald McDonald monopsonies: A theory of monopsonistic competition. Economic Journal 109: 190–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blanchflower, D., A. Oswald, and P. Sanfey. 1996. Wages, profits, and rent-sharing. Quarterly Journal of Economics 111: 227–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boal, W., and M. Ransom. 1997. Monopsony in the labor market. Journal of Economic Literature 35: 86–112.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, C., and J. Medoff. 1989. The employer size–wage effect. Journal of Political Economy 97: 1027–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burdett, K., and D. Mortensen. 1998. Wage differentials, employer size, and unemployment. International Economic Review 39: 257–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Card, D., and A. Krueger. 1995. Myth and measurement: The new economics of the minimum wage. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Clotfelter, C., E. Glennie, H. Ladd, and J. Vigdor. 2006. Would higher salaries keep teachers in high-poverty schools? Evidence from a policy intervention in North Carolina. Working paper no. 12285. Cambridge, MA: NBER.Google Scholar
  9. Dickens, R., S. Machin, and A. Manning. 1999. The effects of minimum wages on employment: Theory and evidence from Britain. Journal of Labor Economics 17: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Falch, T. 2001. Estimating the elasticity of labor supply utilizing a quasi–natural experiment. Working paper, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.Google Scholar
  11. Groshen, E. 1991. Sources of intra-industry wage dispersion: How much do employers matter? Quarterly Journal of Economics 106: 869–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Just, R., and W. Chern. 1980. Tomatoes, technology, and oligopsony. Bell Journal of Economics 11: 584–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kaufman, B. 1988. How labor markets work. Lexington: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  14. Kletzer, L. 1998. Job displacement. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12(1): 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Manning, A. 1996. The equal pay act as an experiment to test theories of the labour market. Economica 63: 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Manning, A. 2003a. Monopsony in motion: Imperfect competition in labor markets. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Manning, A. 2003b. The real thin theory: Monopsony in modern labour markets. Labour Economics 10(2): 105–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Manning, A. 2006. A generalised model of monopsony. Economic Journal 116: 84–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mincer, J. 1974. Schooling, experience and earnings. New York: NBER.Google Scholar
  20. Murray, B. 1995. Measuring oligopsony power with shadow prices: U.S. markets for pulpwood and sawlogs. Review of Economics and Statistics 77: 486–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ransom, M., and R. Oaxaca. 2005. Sex differences in pay in a ‘new monopsony’ model of the labor market. Discussion paper no. 1870. Bonn: IZA.Google Scholar
  22. Robinson, J. 1933. The economics of imperfect competition. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Salop, S. 1979. A model of the natural rate of unemployment. American Economic Review 69: 117–125.Google Scholar
  24. Schroeter, J. 1988. Estimating the degree of market power in the beef packing industry. Review of Economics and Statistics 70: 158–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith, A. 1776. The wealth of nations. London: Penguin, 1986.Google Scholar
  26. Staiger, D., J. Spetz, and C. Phibbs. 1999. Is there monopsony in the labor market? Evidence from a natural experiment. Working paper no. 7258. Cambridge, MA: NBER.Google Scholar
  27. Stevens, M. 2004. Wage-tenure contracts in a frictional labour market: Strategies for recruitment and retention. Review of Economic Studies 71: 535–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thornton, R. 2004. Retrospectives: How Joan Robinson and B. L. Hallward named monopsony. Journal of Economic Perspectives 18(2): 257–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Topel, R., and M. Ward. 1992. Job mobility and the careers of young men. Quarterly Journal of Economics 107: 439–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan Manning
    • 1
  1. 1.