Expresswala Academy Mathematics Tuition

Managerial Economics

The Types of Monopoly

Twelve kinds of monopoly, from pure and natural monopolies to cartels, franchises and patents, with how each arises and how governments keep them in check.

By 10 min read

1. Pure Monop­oly

The word pure is used because many monop­o­lies in prac­tice fall short of one firm hav­ing 100% con­trol of a mar­ket.

Pure monop­o­lies refer to sit­u­a­tions when there is just a sin­gle sup­plier or pro­ducer of a good or ser­vice who has com­plete con­trol over the mar­ket.

This means that con­sumers have no choice but to pur­chase from this sole pro­ducer, thereby giv­ing the pro­ducer the power to set high prices with­out fear of com­pe­ti­tion.

An exam­ple would be a coun­try where health­care is pro­vided only by the gov­ern­ment and patients have no other provider to turn to, whether or not they are happy with the ser­vice.

In a pure monop­oly, the monop­o­list can also dic­tate the qual­ity of goods and ser­vices since there’s no com­pe­ti­tion dri­ving inno­va­tion or improve­ment.

The lack of com­pe­ti­tion might lead to sub­stan­dard prod­ucts and cus­tomer ser­vice which can be frus­trat­ing for con­sumers.

2. Nat­ural Monop­oly

Nat­ural Monop­oly occurs when a sin­gle com­pany can pro­vide goods or ser­vices to the entire mar­ket at a lower cost than two or more com­pet­ing firms.

These types of monop­o­lies usu­ally exist in util­ity sec­tors such as water, nat­ural gas, and elec­tric­ity because they require large ini­tial invest­ments in infra­struc­ture and main­te­nance, mak­ing it dif­fi­cult for new com­pa­nies to enter the mar­ket.

A nat­ural monop­oly also often ben­e­fits con­sumers since hav­ing mul­ti­ple com­pa­nies per­form­ing sim­i­lar ser­vices could lead to dupli­ca­tion of resources. Here, too many com­peti­tors can lead to inef­fi­cien­cies that would result in increased costs being passed on to con­sumers.

How­ever, due to the nat­ural monop­oly’s dom­i­nant posi­tion, it is often sub­ject to gov­ern­ment reg­u­la­tions such as price con­trols or per­for­mance stan­dards to pre­vent them from exploit­ing their monop­oly power.

3. Pri­vate Monop­oly

Pri­vate Monop­oly occurs when a sin­gle com­pany dom­i­nates the mar­ket due to fac­tors such as intel­lec­tual prop­erty rights, patents, or economies of scale. It is opposed to a pub­lic monop­oly, where the gov­ern­ment monop­o­lizes an indus­try.

In con­trast to a nat­ural monop­oly, which is gen­er­ally sus­tained by high cap­i­tal costs, a pri­vate monop­oly tends to have indus­try insider advan­tages. For exam­ple, a com­pany could have devel­oped a unique prod­uct or ser­vice that no other busi­ness can repli­cate which gives it an advan­tage over rivals.

Fur­ther­more, com­pa­nies can estab­lish pri­vate monop­o­lies through merg­ers and acqui­si­tions of smaller enti­ties within the same indus­try to elim­i­nate com­pe­ti­tion.

While these efforts may lead to short-term prof­its for com­pa­nies, pri­vate monop­o­lies are detri­men­tal for con­sumers since they could lead to higher prices or sub-stan­dard prod­uct qual­ity.

Gov­ern­ments reg­u­late such enti­ties by impos­ing price con­trols and forc­ing the com­pany to split into mul­ti­ple smaller com­peti­tors. This is in order to gen­er­ate more com­pe­ti­tion and pre­vent the neg­a­tive con­se­quences asso­ci­ated with exces­sive monop­o­liza­tion.

4. Pub­lic Monop­oly

Pub­lic Monop­oly occurs when the gov­ern­ment is the sole provider of goods and ser­vices in a given area.

It hap­pens when the gov­ern­ment assumes exclu­sive con­trol over an indus­try or ser­vice to pro­vide cit­i­zens with essen­tial goods and ser­vices that are nec­es­sary for the pub­lic good.

This type of monop­oly is usu­ally formed in strate­gic sec­tors such as pub­lic trans­porta­tion, defense, postal ser­vices, and health­care.

The aim of estab­lish­ing a pub­lic monop­oly is to ensure the fair and uni­ver­sal pro­vi­sion of pub­lic goods and ser­vices, often free at the point of use.

A pub­lic monop­oly may also be estab­lished if com­pe­ti­tion is not pos­si­ble (i.e. in build­ing cross-coun­try rail­way infra­struc­ture).

A note on dead­weight loss

Monop­o­lies are often crit­i­cised for caus­ing a dead­weight loss. A dead­weight loss occurs when sup­ply and demand are not in equi­lib­rium, which leads to mar­ket inef­fi­ciency. Mar­ket inef­fi­ciency occurs when goods within the mar­ket are either over­val­ued or under­val­ued. While cer­tain mem­bers of soci­ety may ben­e­fit from the imbal­ance, oth­ers will be neg­a­tively impacted by a shift from equi­lib­rium.

The mar­ket can regain sta­ble foot­ing when demand and sup­ply fall into bet­ter align­ment through inter­ven­tions or con­sumer actions.

For exam­ple, over­val­ued prices may lead to higher profit mar­gins for a com­pany, but it neg­a­tively affects con­sumers of the prod­uct. For inelas­tic goods, where demand changes lit­tle when the price goes up or down, the increased cost may pre­vent con­sumers from mak­ing pur­chases in other mar­ket sec­tors. In addi­tion, some con­sumers may pur­chase a lower quan­tity of the item when pos­si­ble.

For elas­tic goods, where buy­ers quickly adjust how much they buy when the price changes, con­sumers may reduce spend­ing in that mar­ket sec­tor to com­pen­sate or be priced out of the mar­ket entirely.

Under­val­ued prod­ucts may be desir­able for con­sumers but may pre­vent a pro­ducer from recu­per­at­ing their pro­duc­tion costs. If the prod­uct remains under­val­ued for a sub­stan­tial period, pro­duc­ers will either choose to no longer sell that prod­uct, up the price to equi­lib­rium, or may be forced out of the mar­ket entirely.

Legal Monop­oly arises due to gov­ern­ment reg­u­la­tions that give exclu­sive rights and priv­i­leges to one firm.

For instance, some coun­tries offer legal monop­o­lies to com­pa­nies involved in pro­vid­ing essen­tial goods such as phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals, health­care, and defense.

These enter­prises receive favor­able treat­ment from the gov­ern­ment since they play crit­i­cal roles in address­ing pub­lic health prob­lems, meet defense needs dur­ing wars, and so on.

Ide­ally, a gov­ern­ment will run an open ten­der for work before estab­lish­ing a legal monop­oly in order to iden­tify the most suit­able firm to pro­vide the goods or ser­vices.

While Legal Monop­o­lies are autho­rized by the gov­ern­ment and usu­ally serve a sig­nif­i­cant pub­lic inter­est, it is vital to keep them under check. Their sig­nif­i­cant power means they need sig­nif­i­cant over­sight and trans­parency.

There­fore, gov­ern­ments con­tin­u­ously mon­i­tor these monop­o­lis­tic enti­ties through review boards to ensure pru­dent busi­ness prac­tices.

6. Monop­oly by Merger

Monop­oly by Merger occurs when dif­fer­ent com­pa­nies in a par­tic­u­lar indus­try merge or acquire one another, pro­duc­ing a sin­gle com­pany that has com­plete con­trol of the mar­ket.

Monop­oly by merger often hap­pens due to strate­gic deci­sions made by com­pa­nies that want total con­trol over their indus­tries.

For instance, if a com­pany man­ages to acquire all the sig­nif­i­cant play­ers in its indus­try, it can cre­ate an effec­tive monop­oly with increased pric­ing power.

Gov­ern­ment reg­u­la­tors keep a close watch on merg­ers and acqui­si­tions to try to pre­vent monop­oly by merger. They enforce laws against anti-com­pet­i­tive merg­ers and also encour­age alter­na­tive firm’s growth and entry into such indus­tries.

7. Tech­no­log­i­cal Monop­oly

Tech­no­log­i­cal Monop­oly arises from com­pa­nies that develop and own unique tech­no­log­i­cal advance­ments or pro­pri­etary knowl­edge. These mar­ket advan­tages give them exclu­sive con­trol over their indus­try.

This type of monop­oly is gen­er­ally cre­ated based on the own­er­ship of an intel­lec­tual prop­erty right over an impor­tant tech­nol­ogy.

For instance, com­pa­nies involved in devel­op­ing soft­ware such as oper­at­ing sys­tems, video encod­ing, and pro­fes­sional edit­ing tools could estab­lish monop­oly power by cre­at­ing niche solu­tions with unique fea­tures that con­sumers can’t find any­where else.

These monop­o­lies could last for a long time because other com­peti­tors would need to invest sub­stan­tial resources into research and devel­op­ment before they can pro­duce some­thing com­pa­ra­ble.

Often, any upstarts who try to com­pete will be instantly bought-out so the com­pany can main­tain their monop­oly, like when Face­book pur­chased Insta­gram.

Gov­ern­ments attempt to con­trol tech­no­log­i­cal monop­o­lies through patent laws that reg­u­late how long a com­pany can hold its legal rights to prod­uct devel­op­ment insights.

This ensures that the inven­tor or cre­ators receive ade­quate com­pen­sa­tion for their work while also allow­ing fur­ther mar­ket inno­va­tion, improve­ments in qual­ity and com­pe­ti­tion among busi­nesses.

8. Geo­graphic Monop­oly

Geo­graphic Monop­oly occurs pri­mar­ily in small com­mu­ni­ties where a sin­gle enter­prise dom­i­nates the mar­ket due to unique local con­di­tions such as loca­tion, demo­graph­ics, and cli­mate.

Because of these con­di­tions, res­i­dents have lim­ited alter­na­tive options result­ing in the busi­ness being free from direct com­pe­ti­tion, lead­ing to higher prof­its for the firm.

For instance, if a town has only one gas sta­tion or gro­cery store, they will pos­sess a Geo­graphic Monop­oly over those mar­kets. This pro­vides them the oppor­tu­nity to exploit this posi­tion by hav­ing com­plete con­trol over prod­uct pric­ing and sup­ply which could sig­nif­i­cantly affect their con­sumers.

Gov­ern­ments often inter­vene to ensure ade­quate com­pe­ti­tion is allowed to pro­tect con­sumers from poten­tial exploita­tion. Poli­cies such as zon­ing reg­u­la­tions and tax incen­tives could encour­age new busi­nesses entry into such areas while pro­vid­ing afford­able solu­tions that ben­e­fit both cus­tomers and pri­vate busi­nesses alike.

9. Preda­tory Monop­oly

Preda­tory Monop­oly hap­pens when a com­pany uses its mar­ket dom­i­nance to elim­i­nate com­pe­ti­tion through var­i­ous anti­com­pet­i­tive strate­gies.

These strate­gies could include exclu­sive agree­ments or dis­counts that make it impos­si­ble for other busi­nesses to sur­vive, and monop­oly by merger.

Once the com­peti­tors are dri­ven out of the mar­ket­place, these com­pa­nies are free to raise prices and enjoy higher prof­its.

For instance, if a dom­i­nat­ing busi­ness uses exclu­sive incen­tives such as offer­ing cash backs, rewards and loy­alty pro­grams, it can coerce cus­tomers to shift from smaller firms towards itself and induce undue pres­sure on its rivals.

10. Car­tel or Col­lu­sive Monop­oly

In this type of monop­oly, sev­eral firms col­lab­o­rate to form a car­tel that con­trols the entire mar­ket for a par­tic­u­lar good or ser­vice.

They do this by agree­ing to fix prices, limit pro­duc­tion, and con­trol the sup­ply of their prod­uct. By work­ing in uni­son, they can exert com­plete monop­oly power over the mar­ket.

The most famous exam­ple of a car­tel is OPEC (Orga­ni­za­tion of Petro­leum Export­ing Coun­tries) whose mem­bers include oil-pro­duc­ing nations such as Saudi Ara­bia, Iran and Venezuela.

These coun­tries came together to con­trol the price and out­put of oil on the world mar­ket. The aim was to reduce com­pe­ti­tion among them­selves thereby dri­ving up prices and mak­ing more profit avail­able for all mem­ber coun­tries.

Car­tels some­times claim that they bring sta­bil­ity to volatile com­mod­ity mar­kets, but the sta­ble prices are usu­ally higher ones, and econ­o­mists argue that car­tels restrict choice and should be viewed scep­ti­cally.

11. Fran­chise Monop­oly

In a fran­chise monop­oly, a fran­chisor, which is usu­ally a larger com­pany with a well-estab­lished brand name and rep­u­ta­tion, allows a fran­chisee to open their own ver­sion of that com­pany’s busi­ness in exchange for pay­ment and ongo­ing roy­al­ties.

These fran­chisees are required to fol­low strict guide­lines set by the fran­chisor which lock the fran­chises into pur­chas­ing prod­ucts from the cor­po­ra­tion.

Fran­chisees can trade under an estab­lished brand with­out tak­ing on too much risk, but they pay sig­nif­i­cant roy­al­ties, that is, fees.

They also have lim­ited free­dom, because they must fol­low the par­ent com­pa­ny's rules closely. They usu­ally can­not change their prod­ucts or mar­ket­ing to stand out from other sell­ers.

The fran­chisors do ben­e­fit from economies of scale that come with expan­sion with lower risk since it’s typ­i­cally borne by the fran­chisee.

12. Patent Monop­oly

Patent monop­oly is granted to inven­tors of new prod­ucts or tech­nolo­gies. Patents give inven­tors a legal monop­oly over the use, pro­duc­tion, and sale of their inven­tions for a cer­tain period, usu­ally 20 years.

This means that no other entity can pro­duce or exploit the inven­tion with­out per­mis­sion, giv­ing the patent holder total con­trol over the mar­ket.

A great exam­ple in this con­text is Apple’s iPhone which has mul­ti­ple patents reg­is­tered on dif­fer­ent aspects of its design & func­tion­al­ity.

As such, other man­u­fac­tur­ers who wish to pro­duce some­thing sim­i­lar often find them­selves in vio­la­tion of these patents.

Patents pro­mote inno­va­tion by encour­ag­ing entre­pre­neurs and inven­tors to invest in research and devel­op­ment with­out hav­ing to worry about oth­ers copy­ing and prof­it­ing from their ideas (dur­ing that time period).

How­ever, they can lead to monop­oly pric­ing and inhibit com­pe­ti­tion – ulti­mately lead­ing to sub-opti­mal resource allo­ca­tion as oppor­tu­ni­ties aren’t lever­aged opti­mally because patents have cre­ated bar­ri­ers that might inhibit mar­ket entry.