Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Monopoly

A monopoly is a market structure in which a single firm is the sole producer and seller of a product or service for which there are no close substitutes, enabling it to exercise significant control over price and output without facing competitive pressure./15:_Monopoly) This structure arises from barriers to entry such as high fixed costs, control of key resources, government grants, or network effects, allowing the monopolist to set prices where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, typically above competitive levels.^[1] Monopolies deviate from the efficiency of competitive markets by restricting output to elevate prices, generating deadweight loss through underproduction relative to social optimum and transferring surplus from consumers to producers via higher markups.^[2] Empirical analyses indicate that such market power correlates with reduced innovation incentives and slower economic growth, as firms lack rivalry to spur efficiency gains or product improvements.^[3] Historical instances, including 19th-century railroad trusts and John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil, which controlled up to 90% of U.S. oil refining, demonstrated these effects through price manipulation and exclusionary practices, prompting legislative responses like the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 to dismantle concentrations deemed harmful to competition.^[4] While temporary monopolies from innovation may yield short-term benefits, sustained dominance without countervailing efficiencies undermines allocative and productive efficiency, justifying regulatory scrutiny to restore competitive dynamics.^[5]

Definition and Characteristics

Core Definition and Features

A monopoly is a market structure in which a single firm supplies the entire output of a good or service that lacks close substitutes, thereby facing the whole market demand curve.^[6] This configuration arises when barriers to entry effectively prevent rival firms from competing, allowing the monopolist to operate without immediate competitive pressure.^[7] Unlike competitive markets, where multiple sellers drive prices toward marginal costs, a monopoly enables the firm to restrict output and charge prices exceeding those costs.^[8] Central features of a monopoly include the absence of close substitutes for the product, ensuring consumer demand is directed solely to the monopolist.^[9] High barriers to entry—such as patents, government licenses, control of scarce resources, or large-scale economies that make replication uneconomical—sustain this dominance by deterring new entrants.^[7] As a price maker, the firm sets output levels to maximize profits, where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, rather than accepting market-determined prices.^[10] Monopolies can persist in the long run due to these structural impediments, potentially yielding sustained economic profits unavailable in contestable markets.^[6] Empirical examples, such as utility providers with exclusive franchises or patented pharmaceuticals, illustrate how such features manifest, though durability varies with barrier strength and enforcement.^[11]

Distinction from Oligopoly and Competition

A monopoly is characterized by a single firm supplying the entire market for a good or service with no close substitutes, in contrast to perfect competition, where numerous small firms produce homogeneous products and act as price takers.^[12] In perfect competition, free entry and exit drive long-run economic profits to zero, ensuring prices equal marginal costs and achieving allocative efficiency, whereas a monopoly sustains barriers to entry that allow persistent supernormal profits and prices exceeding marginal costs.^[13] This structural difference leads to lower output and higher prices in monopolies compared to competitive markets, where supply adjusts freely to demand without individual firm influence.^[14] The table below outlines core distinctions among these market structures:

Characteristic	Perfect Competition	Oligopoly	Monopoly
Number of Firms	Many small firms	Few large firms	One firm
Product Type	Homogeneous	Homogeneous or differentiated	Unique, no close substitutes
Barriers to Entry	None or low	High	Absolute or blocked
Pricing Power	None (price taker)	Interdependent (strategic interaction)	Full (price maker)
Long-Run Profits	Zero economic profit	Possible supernormal profits	Supernormal profits possible

^[12]^[15] Relative to oligopoly, a monopoly lacks rival firms, eliminating strategic interdependence in decision-making, such as reactions to competitors' price changes or output adjustments that characterize oligopolistic behavior.^[15] In oligopolies, the few dominant firms may collude tacitly or explicitly to mimic monopoly outcomes, but mutual incentives for deviation—exacerbated by game-theoretic dynamics like the prisoner's dilemma—often result in more competitive pricing than in pure monopolies.^[15] Monopolies, by contrast, face the entire market demand curve, enabling unrestricted price-setting without fear of undercutting by rivals, though both structures feature high entry barriers like patents or economies of scale that deter new participants.^[12] Empirical observations, such as utility sectors historically treated as natural monopolies, underscore how a single provider avoids the coordination costs and instability inherent in oligopolistic markets with multiple incumbents.^[15]

Theoretical Models

Profit Maximization and Pricing

A monopolist achieves profit maximization by selecting the output quantity at which marginal revenue equals marginal cost, denoted as the condition MR = MC.^[16]^[17]^[18] This rule derives from the first-order condition of the profit function π = TR - TC, where the derivative dπ/dQ = MR - MC = 0 ensures no further gain from increasing or decreasing output.^[19] Once the optimal quantity Q* is determined, the monopolist sets the price P* by applying Q* to the market demand curve, which slopes downward due to the firm's sole control over supply.^[20]^[21] The downward-sloping demand implies that marginal revenue lies below the demand curve (or average revenue), expressed as MR = P (1 + 1/ε_d), where ε_d < 0 is the price elasticity of demand; thus, MR < P for elastic demand regions relevant to positive output.^[22] This divergence necessitates pricing above marginal cost to cover the revenue shortfall from selling additional units at reduced prices for all prior units.^[23] The extent of this markup is quantified by the Lerner Index, L = (P - MC)/P = -1/ε_d, which measures monopoly power as inversely related to demand elasticity; L approaches 1 under highly inelastic demand, allowing near-total extraction of consumer surplus, while L = 0 in perfect competition where P = MC.^[22]^[24] For a linear demand curve P = a - bQ, total revenue TR = aQ - bQ² yields MR = a - 2bQ, which intersects MC at Q* = (a - MC)/(2b); substituting into demand gives P* = (a + MC)/2, or equivalently MC + (a - MC)/2, confirming the markup equals half the demand intercept minus MC divided by the slope-adjusted term. In contrast to perfect competition's equilibrium at P = MR = MC with higher output and lower price, monopoly restricts quantity below the competitive level where P = MC, enabling positive economic profits if average total cost lies below P* at Q*.^[25] This pricing sustains only if barriers prevent entry, as imitation would erode profits toward zero in the long run absent such protections.^[14]

Price Discrimination and Market Segmentation

Price discrimination refers to the practice by which a monopolist charges different prices to different consumers for an identical good or service, with price differences stemming from variations in consumers' willingness to pay rather than differences in marginal costs. This strategy is feasible for monopolists due to their control over supply, which prevents competitive undercutting, provided they can segment markets effectively and thwart arbitrage, such as resale between buyer groups.^[26]^[27] By tailoring prices to demand elasticities across segments, the monopolist converts portions of consumer surplus into producer surplus, thereby elevating total revenue beyond what a uniform price would yield.^[28] Economists delineate three primary degrees of price discrimination. In first-degree (perfect) discrimination, the monopolist ascertains and extracts each individual's reservation price, selling units sequentially until marginal cost equals the next consumer's willingness to pay; this maximizes extraction of surplus, equating output to the efficient level where price equals marginal cost along the demand curve, though all gains accrue to the producer.^[29] Second-degree discrimination induces self-revelation through nonlinear pricing, such as quantity-based rebates or versioning (e.g., basic versus premium features), where consumers select options that signal their valuation without direct identification.^[30] Third-degree discrimination partitions the market into observable groups—via demographics, geography, or timing—and applies a single price per group, optimizing output where marginal revenue equals marginal cost in each submarket; common implementations include age-based discounts or regional pricing variances.^[31]^[32] Market segmentation underpins these practices by exploiting identifiable correlates of demand elasticity, enabling the monopolist to restrict low-price access (e.g., non-transferable tickets or usage-based metering) and avert leakage. For instance, patented pharmaceuticals often command higher prices in high-income markets versus generics-allowed regions, while utilities deploy time-of-use tariffs to differentiate peak-demand inelasticity from off-peak.^[26] Such segmentation sustains monopoly rents by aligning prices with segmented inverse elasticities, as formalized in the condition for third-degree optimality: the ratio of marginal revenues across markets equals one.^[33] The welfare implications hinge on output alterations relative to uniform pricing. First-degree discrimination achieves competitive output, nullifying deadweight loss but concentrating surplus with the monopolist, potentially incentivizing greater upfront innovation via heightened profits.^[34] Third-degree variants preserve aggregate output if submarket elasticities diverge but redistribute surplus regressively, charging inelastic groups more; total welfare rises if expanded low-price segments boost volume beyond single-price monopoly levels, though empirical cases often show mixed effects, with output gains in elastic segments offset by higher prices elsewhere.^[35]^[34] Overall, while enhancing allocative efficiency in some configurations, price discrimination amplifies inequality in surplus distribution and may deter entry less than uniform monopoly pricing, contingent on enforcement costs and market conditions.^[36]

Origins of Monopoly Power

Barriers to Entry and Sustainability

Barriers to entry encompass legal, economic, and strategic factors that raise the costs or risks for potential competitors, thereby enabling a monopolist to maintain dominant market position and extract sustained economic rents.^[7] These impediments prevent the influx of rivals that would otherwise erode monopoly profits through increased supply and downward pressure on prices, as predicted by basic supply-demand dynamics where positive economic profits signal entry opportunities in contestable markets.^[37] Legal barriers, often government-imposed, include patents, copyrights, and exclusive licenses that grant temporary or indefinite exclusionary rights. In the United States, utility patents confer exclusivity for 20 years from the filing date, allowing innovators in sectors like pharmaceuticals to monopolize production and pricing during the term to recover substantial research and development investments, which can exceed billions per drug.^[38] ^[39] Government franchises, such as those for postal services or broadcasting spectrum allocation, further sustain monopolies by prohibiting unlicensed entry, as seen in historical U.S. Postal Service dominance over first-class mail until partial deregulation in the 1970s.^[40] Such barriers are intentionally designed to incentivize innovation or ensure public service reliability but can extend monopoly power beyond what market forces alone would permit. Economic barriers arise from inherent industry structures, particularly economies of scale and control over scarce resources, which make replication by entrants prohibitively inefficient or impossible. In natural monopolies, high fixed costs combined with declining average costs—such as infrastructure for electricity transmission or water distribution—render multi-firm operation wasteful, as duplicating networks would inflate per-unit expenses without proportional demand gains.^[41] ^[42] Regional electric utilities exemplify this, where a single provider serves demand at lower average cost than fragmented competitors, sustaining market control absent regulatory intervention; for instance, investor-owned utilities in states like California maintain exclusivity over grid operations due to these scale efficiencies.^[41] Resource ownership, like historical control of diamond mines by De Beers, similarly deters entry by denying rivals access to vital inputs.^[40] Strategic barriers involve incumbent actions to fortify position, including limit pricing—setting output prices just below entrant break-even levels—or exclusive supplier contracts that lock in customers.^[37] Brand loyalty cultivated through advertising and reputation further raises rivals' customer acquisition costs. While these can temporarily sustain power, their long-term efficacy is constrained by legal risks under antitrust laws and the potential for entrants to innovate around them, as empirical cases of alleged predatory pricing have rarely proven sustainable without underlying cost advantages.^[43] The sustainability of monopoly power hinges on barrier durability: temporary legal protections like patents erode upon expiration, inviting generic competition that halves prices in pharmaceuticals within years post-patent cliff, whereas natural or regulatory barriers in utilities can persist indefinitely if unchallenged, preserving high markups but often under price regulation to mitigate consumer harm.^[44] Without robust barriers, theoretical and historical patterns show monopolies vulnerable to erosion via technological disruption or parallel entry, underscoring that enduring dominance typically requires structural or institutional reinforcement rather than mere market superiority.^[45]

Natural Monopolies and Economies of Scale

A natural monopoly arises in industries where a single firm can meet total market demand more efficiently than multiple firms, primarily due to substantial economies of scale that result in declining average costs over the relevant output range. These economies stem from high fixed costs, such as infrastructure investments in pipelines, grids, or tracks, paired with low marginal costs for additional units, making it uneconomical for competitors to replicate the network without wasteful duplication. In such markets, the long-run average cost curve slopes downward, allowing the incumbent to serve the entire market at lower per-unit costs than fragmented production would entail.^[41]^[46] The theoretical foundation for natural monopoly hinges on cost subadditivity, where the total cost of producing a given output level by one firm is less than or equal to the sum of costs if split among multiple firms: C(Q) \leq C(Q_1) + C(Q_2) for Q_1 + Q_2 = Q. Strict subadditivity, with inequality holding broadly across output combinations, indicates that single-firm production minimizes costs, often driven by indivisibilities in capital and spreading fixed expenses over larger volumes. This condition contrasts with constant or increasing returns, where competition could thrive, and holds particularly in network-based sectors where interconnection amplifies scale benefits. Empirical tests of subadditivity in regulated industries confirm its relevance for output levels matching market demand, though it may not persist indefinitely as technology evolves.^[47]^[48] Classic examples include public utilities like electricity distribution and water supply, where laying duplicate pipes or wires for competing providers would inflate costs without proportional benefits; for instance, U.S. electric utilities exhibit economies of scale in grid operations, with studies showing franchised monopolies outperforming hypothetical competition in cost efficiency. Railroads represent another case, as the immense expense of track construction—historically exceeding millions per mile in the 19th century—combined with operational scale advantages deters rivals, rendering parallel lines inefficient for low-density routes. In both, the natural monopoly emerges causally from physical and engineering constraints on cost-sharing, not artificial barriers.^[41]^[49]^[50] While economies of scale underpin natural monopolies, empirical evidence reveals variability; surveys of scale effects across industries find strong support in utilities but weaker persistence in others like airlines, where deregulation has eroded prior monopoly traits through technological advances and demand growth. This suggests natural monopolies are context-specific, tied to fixed-cost dominance, and may invite regulatory scrutiny to curb pricing power while preserving efficiency gains from scale.^[51]^[52]

Government-Created and Legal Monopolies

Governments establish legal monopolies by granting exclusive privileges through statutes, licenses, or charters, thereby barring competitors from entering specific markets. These arrangements typically aim to incentivize innovation, ensure universal access to essential services, or coordinate infrastructure-intensive activities where duplication would be inefficient. Unlike market-driven monopolies, legal ones derive their power directly from state authority, often with regulatory oversight to mitigate abuses such as price gouging.^[53]^[54] Intellectual property protections form a core category of government-created monopolies. Patents confer temporary exclusive rights to inventors for novel, non-obvious inventions, allowing them to exclude others from making, using, or selling the patented technology. In the United States, utility patents endure for 20 years from the filing date, as specified under 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2), following the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 which harmonized terms internationally. This framework, traceable to the Patent Act of 1790 and constitutionally empowered by Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, seeks to stimulate research by enabling cost recovery amid high upfront development expenses.^[55] Copyrights similarly grant creators monopolistic control over reproduction, distribution, and adaptation of original expressive works, such as literature, music, and software. For post-1977 works, protection lasts the author's life plus 70 years, per the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 amending the 1976 Copyright Act, extending prior durations to balance creator incentives against public access.^[56] Government franchises and exclusive licenses create monopolies by allocating sole operational rights within defined territories, commonly for utilities or transportation. Local water utilities, for example, often receive municipal charters granting exclusive supply rights to residents, preventing parallel infrastructure that could raise costs without benefits.^[57] The United States Postal Service exemplifies a state-operated legal monopoly, holding exclusive authority over first-class letter delivery and mailbox access under the Private Express Statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1693–1703 and 39 U.S.C. §§ 601–606), which criminalize unauthorized private conveyance of letters unless exceptions apply, such as urgent delivery or postage payment at least sixfold the USPS rate. Enacted in piecemeal fashion since 1792 and codified to sustain revenue for rural service, this monopoly generated about $5.45 billion in value for USPS in fiscal year 2015 by shielding core mail revenues.^[58]^[59] Historical cases illustrate the scope and contestation of such monopolies. The American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) functioned as a regulated monopoly in interstate telephony from the 1913 Kingsbury Commitment—where it pledged to interconnect with independents under Interstate Commerce Commission oversight—until the 1984 divestiture mandated by the Modified Final Judgment in United States v. AT&T, dissolving its control over 80% of U.S. phone lines to foster competition.^[60] Similar franchises persist in sectors like cable television or waste collection, where governments award non-competitive contracts to a single provider, often with price caps to align with public interest. While these mechanisms can secure stable investment, empirical analyses indicate they frequently result in higher prices and subdued innovation compared to competitive markets, as evidenced by post-1984 telecommunications price declines exceeding 50% adjusted for inflation.^[54]

Economic Efficiency and Welfare

Output and Price vs Competitive Markets

In a perfectly competitive market, firms are price takers facing a horizontal demand curve at the market price, producing where price equals marginal cost (P = MC), which maximizes output at the point where market supply intersects demand.^[61] This equilibrium quantity, denoted as Q_c, reflects allocative efficiency as resources are allocated until the marginal benefit to consumers (price) equals the marginal cost of production.^[62] A monopolist, facing the entire market demand curve which slopes downward, equates marginal revenue (MR) to marginal cost (MR = MC) to maximize profit. Since MR lies below the demand curve for quantities greater than zero, the monopoly output Q_m occurs at a lower level than Q_c, specifically where MR intersects MC.^[61] The monopolist then sets price P_m on the demand curve at Q_m, resulting in P_m exceeding both the competitive price P_c and marginal cost.^[62] Consequently, monopoly markets feature restricted output and elevated prices relative to the competitive benchmark. Empirical studies indicate that while the theoretical model predicts these divergences, actual monopoly markups and output restrictions are often modest, with average price-cost markups across industries estimated at around 1.2 to 1.5 in recent U.S. data, varying by sector and not always implying large welfare losses.^[63] For instance, analyses of regulated and unregulated monopolies show that output reductions are tempered by demand elasticities and potential entry threats, leading to prices only moderately above competitive levels in many cases.^[64] This suggests that real-world monopoly power, sustained by barriers, does not uniformly produce the stark theoretical extremes but consistently yields higher prices and lower quantities than would prevail under competition.^[63]

Deadweight Loss and Allocative Inefficiency

Monopolies achieve profit maximization by producing the quantity where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, which occurs at a lower output level than in competitive markets, where price equals marginal cost. This restriction in output leads to a price above marginal cost, preventing the production of units for which consumers' willingness to pay exceeds the resource cost, thereby creating allocative inefficiency.^[65] Allocative inefficiency manifests as a failure to equate price with marginal cost, the condition for Pareto-efficient resource allocation, resulting in resources being underutilized in the monopolized sector while potentially overutilized elsewhere. The deadweight loss quantifies this inefficiency as the forgone net social benefit from unproduced units, geometrically represented as the triangular area between the demand curve, marginal cost curve, and the monopoly quantity.^[66]^[67] Empirical estimation of deadweight loss traces to Arnold Harberger's 1954 analysis, which approximated the welfare loss from U.S. monopoly power using corporate profit data as a proxy for monopoly rents and elasticity assumptions, yielding an estimate of about 0.1% of national income for the period 1899–1953. Subsequent studies have refined these calculations, often finding small but positive deadweight losses, confirming the theoretical prediction of inefficiency despite the magnitude varying with market elasticities and cost structures.^[68]^[69]

Dynamic Efficiency and Innovation Incentives

Dynamic efficiency refers to the capacity of markets to generate technological progress, product improvements, and process innovations over time, contrasting with static efficiency focused on current resource allocation. In monopoly settings, theoretical models suggest that market power can enhance incentives for innovation by allowing the firm to capture a larger share of the returns from R&D investments, as rivals cannot immediately imitate successful innovations without barriers like patents.^[70] This aligns with Joseph Schumpeter's view that temporary monopolies arising from innovation enable firms to fund further creative destruction, where superior technologies displace incumbents and drive long-term growth.^[71] However, counterarguments posit that monopolies face reduced pressure to innovate due to the absence of competitive threats, leading to complacency and underinvestment compared to competitive markets where firms must innovate to survive.^[72] Kenneth Arrow formalized this by showing that a monopolist's incentive to innovate is lower than a competitor's, as the monopolist bears the full R&D cost but loses only the incremental profit from improvement, whereas entrants gain the entire market upon success. Empirical tests of the Schumpeterian hypothesis—positing a positive link between market power and innovation—yield mixed results; studies in pharmaceuticals and chemicals often find higher R&D intensity in concentrated industries, attributed to scale economies in research and patent protections creating temporary exclusivity.^[73]^[70] Broader evidence indicates an inverted U-shaped relationship, where moderate market concentration boosts innovation through resource allocation to R&D, but extreme monopoly power correlates with diminished incentives as firms prioritize rent preservation over risky investments.^[74] For instance, U.S. antitrust data from 1970–2010 show that industries with post-merger concentration increases experienced short-term R&D spikes but long-term declines if dominance solidified without entry threats.^[75] In contrast, sectors like semiconductors demonstrate that potential competition from entrants sustains innovation even under dominant firms, suggesting sustained monopolies without rivalry underperform dynamically.^[76] Overall, while monopolies can facilitate innovation in knowledge-intensive fields via supernormal profits, empirical patterns underscore that dynamic efficiency hinges more on transient market power and entry prospects than permanent dominance, with regulatory interventions preserving rivalry often yielding net welfare gains through heightened inventive activity.^[77]^[78]

Benefits of Monopolies

Schumpeterian Temporary Monopolies

Joseph Schumpeter argued in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1942) that the expectation of temporary monopoly profits serves as the primary incentive for entrepreneurial innovation, driving economic progress through what he termed "creative destruction."^[79] Successful innovators disrupt established markets by introducing superior products, processes, or organizational methods, temporarily shielding themselves from competition and enabling recoupment of high upfront costs associated with research and development.^[70] This market power is inherently fleeting, as rivals either imitate the innovation—once patents expire or secrets diffuse—or launch counter-innovations that render the original obsolete, perpetuating a cycle of upheaval rather than static price competition.^[70] Schumpeter contended that such temporary monopolies are not only tolerable but essential, as perfect competition would erode profits too rapidly to justify the risks and resources of groundbreaking advancements.^[79] In competitive equilibrium, firms lack the surplus to fund substantial R&D, whereas the prospect of monopoly rents—often facilitated by intellectual property protections like patents—motivates investment in uncertain ventures.^[80] He emphasized that long-term monopolies sustained without innovation stagnate, but those born from creative acts propel productivity gains across the economy.^[70] Empirical studies support aspects of this framework, showing positive correlations between firm market power and innovative output, particularly in sectors like pharmaceuticals and technology where temporary exclusivity via patents correlates with higher R&D expenditures.^[73] For instance, analysis of U.S. manufacturing data from the mid-20th century onward indicates that industries with moderate market concentration exhibit greater patenting rates and productivity growth compared to highly fragmented ones, aligning with Schumpeter's hypothesis that some degree of temporary dominance fosters technological advance. However, evidence also reveals that excessive or perpetual monopoly power can deter entry and subsequent destruction, underscoring the need for mechanisms ensuring temporariness.^[80]

Research and Development Investments

Monopolies derive a comparative advantage in research and development (R&D) investments from their capacity to internalize the full returns of innovations, avoiding the dissipation of benefits through spillovers that constrains firms in competitive environments.^[81] This dynamic enables dominant firms to fund costly R&D projects whose payoffs would otherwise be shared with imitators, fostering preemptive innovation to maintain market positions.^[70] Joseph Schumpeter's framework emphasizes that market power, particularly when temporary and arising from prior innovations, incentivizes ongoing R&D as a mechanism of creative destruction, where incumbents innovate to deter entrants and sustain leadership.^[70] Theoretical models demonstrate that monopolists invest more aggressively in cost-reducing or product-enhancing R&D when spillovers are low, as the threat of displacement amplifies the value of proprietary advancements.^[81]^[82] Empirical evidence across manufacturing and service sectors reveals a positive correlation between indicators of monopoly power—such as persistent high markups or concentration ratios—and R&D intensity, with studies showing that market leaders allocate greater resources to innovation decisions, though effects on spending levels vary by industry structure.^[83]^[81] For instance, analyses of firm-level data indicate that high-market-share enterprises generate 72% more citation-weighted patents than lower-share rivals, linking monopoly-like positions to measurable inventive output.^[70] In dynamic settings with limited spillovers, monopoly persistence correlates with elevated R&D trajectories compared to duopolistic competition.^[81] The pharmaceutical industry exemplifies this pattern, where patent-granted temporary monopolies have propelled global R&D expenditures to $276 billion in 2021 across 4,191 companies, yielding innovations like mRNA vaccines and targeted therapies that address unmet medical needs.^[84] Historical precedents, including General Electric's and Westinghouse's R&D dominance in electrification during the 1920s–1930s, which increased electricity's share of mechanical power from 53% to 78%, further demonstrate how monopoly profits financed infrastructure-scale technological leaps.^[70] Countervailing findings suggest that entrenched monopolies may underinvest in radical innovations due to replacement effects, where successful R&D cannibalizes existing product lines, yet aggregate evidence favors heightened R&D under conditions of protectable market power.^[85]^[82] This underscores the role of monopoly in bridging the gap between high upfront R&D costs and long-term societal gains from diffusion-enabled technologies.

Empirical Cases of Consumer Gains

The Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) held a monopoly on primary aluminum ingot production in the United States from its founding in 1888 until the mid-20th century, controlling over 90% of the market by the 1940s.^[86] During this period, Alcoa invested heavily in production capacity and process innovations, such as the development of the Soderberg process for electrolytic reduction, which expanded output by over 344,000% from 1900 to 1939 and drove aluminum prices downward through economies of scale.^[87] Ingot prices fell steadily, from approximately $0.50 per pound in the early 1900s to $0.18 per pound by 1945, making aluminum viable for consumer applications like cookware, packaging, and aircraft components, thereby increasing accessibility and market penetration for end-users.^[88] This proactive scaling, rather than output restriction, contrasted with static monopoly models by prioritizing long-term demand growth over immediate price gouging.^[89] In the oil refining sector, the Standard Oil Trust, which dominated about 90% of U.S. kerosene production by the 1880s, reduced consumer prices through vertical integration and efficiency gains.^[90] Kerosene prices dropped from 58 cents per gallon in 1865 to 26 cents by 1870, and further to around 6 cents by the early 1900s, as Standard Oil optimized refining yields (increasing from 60% to 95% of crude input) and built pipelines to bypass costly rail transport.^[91]^[92] These declines, amounting to over 75% in real terms during peak dominance, stemmed from cost reductions passed to consumers, expanding household lighting access and fueling industrial uses without the predicted monopoly price inflation.^[93] Empirical records indicate no sustained price hikes attributable to market power; instead, competition from substitutes like electricity and gas pressured ongoing efficiencies.^[90] Patent-granted temporary monopolies in pharmaceuticals provide another empirical instance, where exclusive rights incentivize high-risk R&D yielding products with net consumer value. For example, the development of statins like atorvastatin (Lipitor), patented by Pfizer until 2011, generated innovations that reduced cardiovascular events by up to 30% in clinical trials, averting millions of heart attacks and strokes globally despite elevated prices during exclusivity (averaging $100-200 monthly per patient).^[94] Post-patent generics dropped costs by 80-90%, but the monopoly period recouped $13 billion in U.S. sales to fund discovery, with studies estimating societal benefits from averted healthcare costs exceeding $100 billion annually in prevented morbidity.^[95] Without such incentives, empirical analyses suggest reduced innovation pipelines, as evidenced by lower drug approval rates in jurisdictions with weaker IP protections.^[77] These cases highlight how dynamic efficiencies—scale, innovation, and investment—can elevate consumer surplus beyond competitive benchmarks in specific historical contexts, though outcomes depend on contestability and technological progress rather than inherent market structure.^[96]

Regulation and Antitrust Policy

Criteria for Dominance Assessment

Assessing dominance or monopoly power in antitrust law involves defining the relevant market and evaluating a firm's ability to restrict competition independently of rivals and customers. This determination typically combines structural factors, such as market share and barriers to entry, with evidence of behavioral power, like sustained supracompetitive pricing. Regulators and courts avoid rigid rules, recognizing that market dynamics vary by industry; for instance, high shares in concentrated markets with low entry barriers may not indicate dominance, while lower shares in network-effect-heavy sectors might.^[97]^[98] In the United States, under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, monopoly power requires proof of the ability to control prices or exclude competition, often inferred from durable high market shares (typically 70% or above) coupled with significant entry barriers, such as economies of scale, patents, or regulatory hurdles. Shares below 50% generally do not support an inference of monopoly power absent direct evidence of exclusionary effects, as courts emphasize that superior efficiency can lawfully yield high shares. Direct evidence includes persistent pricing above marginal costs or barriers preventing rivals from responding, with the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index sometimes used to gauge concentration but not as a standalone threshold.^[64]^[99]^[97] European Union law under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union presumes dominance at market shares of 50% or higher, viewing such positions as enabling independent behavior, though shares below 40% render dominance unlikely without countervailing evidence. Assessments incorporate additional factors like the relative size and strength of competitors, vertical integration, innovation capacity, and access to inputs or distribution, alongside barriers to entry and expansion. The European Commission weighs potential competition from imports or innovation, but structural indicators like a fragmented competitor base or network effects strengthen dominance findings.^[100]^[101] Cross-jurisdictional convergence emphasizes effects-based analysis over per se rules, prioritizing empirical evidence of harm potential over presumptions from size alone; for example, temporary dominance from innovation may not trigger scrutiny if entry remains feasible. Barriers to entry are evaluated for durability: natural ones like high fixed costs are distinguished from artificial ones like exclusionary contracts, with low barriers undermining dominance claims even at elevated shares.^[102]^[103]

Types of Antitrust Violations

Antitrust violations concerning monopolies primarily fall under U.S. federal laws, including Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which prohibits monopolization, attempts to monopolize, or conspiracies to monopolize any part of trade or commerce.^[104] To establish monopolization under Section 2, a firm must possess monopoly power in the relevant market—typically defined as the ability to control prices or exclude competition—and engage in exclusionary conduct to acquire or maintain that power, rather than through superior efficiency or natural growth.^[105] Attempts to monopolize require showing a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power through predatory or anticompetitive acts with specific intent.^[106] Exclusionary practices violating Section 2 often include predatory pricing, where a dominant firm sets prices below cost to eliminate rivals, intending to recoup losses later through monopoly pricing once competition is foreclosed.^[107] Courts assess this by examining whether prices are below average variable cost or involve other evidence of intent, such as capacity expansions to deter entry, though successful claims require proof of recoupment feasibility.^[107] Tying arrangements, which condition the sale of one product (tying product) on the purchase of another (tied product), are scrutinized when a firm with market power in the tying market leverages it to gain advantage in the tied market, potentially extending monopoly power. Such practices violate Section 2 if they coerce buyers and harm competition in the tied market, as distinguished from voluntary bundling that enhances efficiency.^[106] Exclusive dealing agreements, requiring buyers to source inputs or sell outputs only from the dominant firm, can violate Section 2 by foreclosing rivals' access to essential markets if they substantially limit competition, measured by the percentage of foreclosed market share—often 30-40% or more raising concerns.^[108] Refusals to deal, where a monopolist denies rivals access to necessary facilities or inputs without business justification, may constitute exclusionary conduct if the refusal is aimed at maintaining monopoly power, though unilateral refusals by vertically integrated firms are generally lawful absent prior dealing or essential facility doctrine elements. Under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, horizontal conspiracies among competitors—such as price-fixing, market allocation, or bid-rigging—unreasonably restrain trade and can facilitate collective monopolization, treated as per se illegal without efficiency defenses.^[104] Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950, prohibits mergers or acquisitions whose effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly" in any line of commerce. The Federal Trade Commission Act's Section 5 broadly condemns "unfair methods of competition," encompassing practices beyond Sherman or Clayton violations, such as incipient threats to competition, but applied to monopolies it overlaps with exclusionary conduct scrutiny.^[104] Enforcement agencies like the Department of Justice and FTC evaluate these violations using structural presumptions (e.g., high market shares post-merger) and conduct evidence, prioritizing empirical market data over speculative harms.^[109]

Remedies and Breakup Mechanisms

Antitrust remedies for monopolies generally fall into two categories: behavioral remedies, which impose ongoing restrictions on a firm's conduct such as prohibiting exclusive contracts or mandating interoperability, and structural remedies, which involve divestitures or corporate breakups to eliminate monopoly power at its source.^[110]^[111] Behavioral remedies seek to curb abusive practices without altering ownership structure, but they require prolonged regulatory oversight and may fail to address entrenched dominance.^[112] Structural remedies, by contrast, aim to foster competition through asset separation, though courts apply them cautiously due to risks of disrupting efficient operations or transferring monopoly power elsewhere.^[113] Breakup mechanisms typically proceed via judicial decree under statutes like the Sherman Antitrust Act, where a court orders a monopolist to divest subsidiaries or divisions into independent entities capable of competing.^[114] In the 1911 United States v. Standard Oil case, the U.S. Supreme Court mandated the dissolution of John D. Rockefeller's trust into 34 separate companies, citing violations of the Sherman Act through predatory pricing and market exclusion; however, many of these entities later recombined or merged, forming modern giants like ExxonMobil and Chevron, suggesting limited long-term competitive gains.^[115] Similarly, the 1982 consent decree in United States v. AT&T required the divestiture of AT&T's local telephone operations into seven regional "Baby Bells" effective January 1, 1984, ostensibly to spur innovation; post-breakup, telecommunications saw rapid technological advances and price declines in long-distance services, but regional monopolies persisted until further deregulation and mergers reconsolidated market power.^[60]^[116] Empirical assessments of breakup effectiveness reveal mixed outcomes, with studies indicating no consistent evidence of sustained output increases or price reductions across historical cases.^[116] A review of 19 antitrust divestitures found negligible impacts on prices or quantities in 18 instances, attributing this to high barriers to entry and the natural monopoly characteristics in sectors like utilities.^[116] Theoretical models further caution that fragmenting a monopolist into fewer firms, such as a duopoly, can reduce social welfare by 63% in scenarios with significant fixed costs, as duplicated investments erode efficiencies without proportional competitive benefits.^[117] Proponents argue breakups deter anticompetitive mergers and enhance innovation incentives, yet reconsolidation in cases like Standard Oil underscores that structural changes alone rarely prevent market reconcentration absent ongoing market forces.^[118] In recent cases, authorities have favored behavioral over structural remedies amid digital platform complexities. The 2023 United States v. Google trial culminated in a September 2025 ruling confirming Google's search monopoly but imposing data-sharing mandates and restrictions on default agreements rather than divestiture of Android or Chrome, reflecting judicial reluctance to impose "radical" breakups without clear evidence of necessity.^[119]^[120] The U.S. Department of Justice sought structural separation of Google's ad tech but courts emphasized proportionality, noting divestitures should be used "only with great caution" except in clear monopoly maintenance scenarios.^[121] This approach aligns with critiques that breakups in innovative sectors risk stifling dynamic efficiencies, as seen in AT&T's post-divestiture telecom boom, while behavioral tools allow targeted intervention without presuming judicial superiority in firm restructuring.^[122]

Recent Antitrust Developments

In August 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Alphabet's Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully maintaining a monopoly in general search services and general search text advertising, citing Google's exclusive default agreements with device manufacturers and browsers as key anticompetitive conduct that foreclosed rivals.^[123] In September 2025, the same court imposed remedies including a prohibition on exclusive search distribution deals, requirements for Google to share search data with competitors under fair terms, and mandates to facilitate easier removal of Google as a default search engine, though it rejected government requests for structural divestitures such as selling the Chrome browser or Android operating system.^[119] ^[124] In April 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held Google liable for monopolizing open-web digital advertising markets through acquisitions and exclusionary tactics, marking the second major U.S. antitrust victory against the company in under a year.^[125] Ongoing cases include the Federal Trade Commission's September 2023 suit against Amazon alleging monopolization of online superstores and advertising via self-preferencing and predatory pricing, with trial scheduled for June 2027.^[126] In September 2025, Amazon settled a separate FTC enforcement action under the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act for $2.5 billion, addressing deceptive subscription practices in Prime but not resolving the core antitrust claims.^[127] In the European Union, the Digital Markets Act (DMA), effective from 2023, designated Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, and ByteDance as "gatekeepers" subject to ex-ante obligations to prevent monopolistic abuses, with non-compliance fines up to 10% of global turnover.^[128] In April 2025, the European Commission found Apple in breach of DMA anti-steering rules for restricting app developers from informing users of alternative payment options, and Meta for failing to offer effective choice in personalized advertising consent, imposing corrective measures without immediate fines.^[128] Google faced a €2.95 billion fine in September 2025 for favoring its own shopping services in search results, extending prior antitrust penalties totaling over €8 billion since 2017.^[129] These actions reflect heightened enforcement under the Biden administration's FTC and DOJ, targeting tech platforms' dominance, though critics argue remedies fall short of addressing root causes like network effects and data barriers, with no structural breakups ordered since the 1982 AT&T divestiture.^[130] Appeals are pending in multiple cases, potentially reaching the Supreme Court by 2026.^[131]

Historical and Modern Examples

Pre-Industrial Resource Monopolies

In ancient China, the state established a monopoly on salt production and distribution during the Han Dynasty in 119 BC to finance imperial expansion and military campaigns. This system centralized control over salt evaporation ponds and wells, prohibiting private production and requiring official distribution, which generated substantial revenues; by the third to fifth centuries AD in post-Han kingdoms, salt taxes accounted for 80-90% of state income in some regions.^[132]^[133] The monopoly persisted for over two millennia, evolving into a quasi-tax mechanism that funded bureaucracy but incentivized smuggling and black-market networks, as private salt-making was criminalized and enforcement relied on state agents.^[134] Confucian scholars criticized it during the 81 BC Discourses on Salt and Iron for promoting corruption and selfishness among officials, arguing it distorted markets and eroded moral order, though Legalist reformers defended it as essential for state power.^[134] European powers imposed monopolies on spice trade routes and production in the 15th and 16th centuries to capture rents from high-demand commodities like pepper, nutmeg, and cloves sourced from Asia. Portugal's Crown granted the Estado da Índia a monopoly in 1505, enforcing exclusive trading rights through naval forts and violence in the Indian Ocean, which allowed control over supply and drove European prices to 14 times Asian levels by the early 1500s.^[135] The Dutch United East India Company (VOC), chartered in 1602, received a 21-year monopoly on Dutch spice trade, using military force to dominate the Indonesian archipelago, destroying competing supplies—such as burning clove trees in the Banda Islands in 1621—to maintain scarcity and profits exceeding 18% annually in its early decades.^[135] These resource controls relied on royal charters and armed enforcement rather than technological barriers, enabling windfall gains but fostering inefficiencies like over-reliance on coercion and vulnerability to smuggling or rival incursions. Such pre-industrial monopolies often arose from sovereign authority over scarce, non-reproducible resources essential for preservation (salt) or luxury (spices), prioritizing fiscal extraction over efficiency. In China, the salt system's rigidity contributed to rebellions and mafia-like secret societies by the Song and Ming eras, as high official prices spurred illicit production.^[136] European spice monopolies similarly generated state revenues—Portugal's share from spices reached 10-15% of royal income by 1550—but collapsed under competitive pressures, illustrating how geographic control, absent modern patents, proved transient without sustained violence.^[135] These cases highlight causal links between resource exclusivity and state power, though they frequently induced shortages, elevated consumer costs, and administrative corruption absent competitive checks.

Industrial Era Trusts and Utilities

The Standard Oil Trust, established in 1882 by John D. Rockefeller, consolidated numerous oil refining firms into a single entity that controlled roughly 90% of U.S. refining capacity by the 1890s.^[137] This structure enabled vertical integration from crude extraction to distribution, yielding operational efficiencies that reduced kerosene prices from 58 cents per gallon in 1865 to 7.5 cents by 1897.^[91] Such declines stemmed from innovations like byproduct utilization and rail transport rebates, which lowered costs and expanded market access for consumers, though critics alleged predatory exclusion of rivals via selective pricing.^[138]^[139] Other prominent trusts emerged in sectors like tobacco and steel. The American Tobacco Company, founded by James B. Duke, achieved dominance over 90% of U.S. cigarette production by 1910 through aggressive mergers and machinery innovations that cut manufacturing costs.^[140] U.S. Steel, formed in 1901 via J.P. Morgan's acquisition of Carnegie Steel and other firms for $480 million, represented the era's largest capitalization at over $1.4 billion, facilitating economies in iron ore mining, steel production, and fabrication.^[141] These trusts often pursued market consolidation to mitigate price wars and achieve scale, but faced accusations of stifling competition, prompting the Sherman Antitrust Act of July 2, 1890, which declared combinations restraining trade illegal.^[142] Utilities, particularly railroads and nascent electric services, exemplified natural monopoly traits owing to substantial fixed investments in tracks, stations, and grids that deterred duplicative entry. Railroads controlled vast regional networks; by 1900, five major systems handled 70% of U.S. freight tonnage, leveraging network effects for efficiency but enabling discriminatory rates that favored large shippers.^[141] This spurred the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, creating the Interstate Commerce Commission to enforce "reasonable" rates and curb rebates, marking early federal oversight of infrastructure monopolies. In electricity, Thomas Edison's 1882 Pearl Street Station in New York initiated centralized power distribution, with firms like Consolidated Edison gaining local exclusivity due to wiring costs exceeding $100 per customer in urban areas by the 1890s; states responded with public utility commissions, such as New York's in 1907, to regulate returns on capital at 8-10%. These frameworks balanced monopoly provision of essential services against potential overpricing, though empirical evidence shows regulated utilities often sustained innovation in transmission while limiting consumer choice.

20th Century State Monopolies

In the Soviet Union, the state exercised total monopoly control over the economy from the establishment of central planning in the late 1920s through the dissolution in 1991, owning all means of production, distribution, and foreign trade. This command system suppressed market incentives, leading to widespread resource misallocation, as production quotas prioritized quantity over quality and consumer needs, resulting in chronic shortages of goods despite high industrial output in heavy sectors. Price controls and administrative allocation exacerbated inefficiencies, with factories operating without competition, often producing substandard products that lacked incentives for improvement. By the Brezhnev era (1964–1982), economic stagnation set in, marked by declining productivity growth and reliance on subsidies, contributing to the system's eventual collapse. Western European governments pursued selective nationalizations post-World War II, creating state monopolies in utilities, transport, and heavy industry to rebuild economies and ensure public control. In Britain, the 1945–1951 Labour administration nationalized coal mining on January 1, 1947, under the National Coal Board, employing over 700,000 workers initially but facing persistent over-manning and low productivity; by the 1970s, the industry required billions in annual subsidies amid strikes and declining output, with losses prompting price hikes in 1974 to stem deficits. Railways were nationalized in 1948 via British Railways, which suffered from underinvestment and inefficiency, carrying 1.1 billion passengers annually by 1950 but failing to modernize amid competition from roads. Steel nationalization in 1951 under the British Iron and Steel Corporation similarly lagged in efficiency, with productivity roughly half that of international rivals by the late 1960s due to political interference over commercial decisions. France followed a similar path, nationalizing Renault on December 16, 1944, to punish wartime collaboration and secure automotive production, alongside peaks in 1945–1946 for energy and transport; later, the 1981–1982 Mitterrand government extended monopolies to 39 banks, insurance firms, and electronics giants like Thomson, controlling about 25% of industrial investment by the mid-1980s. These entities often exhibited lower return on capital and innovation rates than private firms, burdened by employment guarantees and bureaucratic oversight, though they facilitated reconstruction in war-devastated sectors. In telecommunications, state monopolies across early 20th-century Europe, including France and Britain, correlated with 25–50% fewer telephones per capita and higher subscription prices compared to systems with private competition or concessions, as government ownership reduced incentives for network expansion from 1892–1914 data.^[143] State monopolies in commodities like tobacco persisted for revenue generation; Poland's Polish Monopoly of Tobacco, established in 1919, controlled production and sales through 1939, processing millions of kilograms annually but limiting market entry and innovation amid interwar economic pressures. Similar regimes in Japan (until 1985) and Italy generated fiscal surpluses but stifled private initiative, often prioritizing state budgets over consumer choice. These 20th-century state monopolies generally underperformed private alternatives in efficiency and service quality, as political objectives overrode profit motives, leading to higher costs and slower adaptation to demand shifts.^[144]

Digital and Tech Monopolies Post-2000

The dominance of digital platforms in the early 21st century has been marked by the rise of companies leveraging network effects, data aggregation, and scale economies to achieve substantial market control in sectors such as search, e-commerce, social networking, and mobile app distribution.^[145] These firms, including Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Meta Platforms, and Apple, have faced antitrust scrutiny primarily from U.S. regulators like the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC), as well as the European Commission, for allegedly maintaining monopolies through exclusionary practices, acquisitions, and contractual restrictions that hinder competition.^[146] For instance, network effects—where a platform's value increases with user adoption—create high barriers to entry, enabling incumbents to sustain shares exceeding 90% in some markets without traditional production costs typical of industrial monopolies.^[147] Google has maintained a commanding position in online search, holding approximately 90.4% of the global market share as of September 2025, down slightly from prior peaks but still indicative of limited viable alternatives.^[148] The U.S. DOJ filed a monopolization suit against Google in October 2020, alleging it preserved its search monopoly via exclusive default agreements with device manufacturers and browsers, such as multibillion-dollar deals with Apple to set Google as the default on iOS Safari.^[146] A federal judge ruled in August 2024 that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully maintaining this monopoly, though remedies remain pending as of 2025; the case highlighted how such deals foreclosed rivals like Bing from gaining traction despite Microsoft's investments.^[149] Separately, the DOJ's 2023 suit against Google's advertising technology stack accused it of anti-competitive bundling and data hoarding to dominate digital ads, a market where Google processes over 90% of searches feeding ad auctions.^[150] Amazon's e-commerce operations captured 37.6% of U.S. online retail sales in 2024, with projections exceeding 40% by 2025, bolstered by its Prime subscription ecosystem and logistics investments that deter entrants.^[151] The FTC sued Amazon in June 2023, claiming it monopolized online superstores through predatory pricing—such as below-cost sales on its first-party products—and dual-listing policies that punish third-party sellers for offering lower prices elsewhere, thereby suppressing competition and inflating consumer costs.^[150] Evidence from the complaint included internal Amazon analyses acknowledging these tactics' role in sustaining market power, though Amazon contends its low prices reflect efficiency gains from scale rather than exclusion.^[152] In cloud computing, Amazon Web Services (AWS) holds about 31% global share as of 2024, facing probes for tying services that allegedly lock in customers via high switching costs.^[153] Meta Platforms, formerly Facebook, has been accused of monopolizing "personal social networking services" by acquiring potential rivals to neutralize threats. The FTC's December 2020 amended complaint alleged that Meta's 2012 purchase of Instagram and 2014 acquisition of WhatsApp eliminated nascent competitors, preserving over 70% U.S. market share in social networking as of the filing.^[154] A 2025 federal trial featured testimony from CEO Mark Zuckerberg defending the deals as pro-competitive enhancements rather than monopolistic consolidation, but the suit argues Meta's strategy involved "buy or bury" approaches to maintain user data advantages for targeted advertising.^[155] Concurrently, a coalition of 48 U.S. states sued in 2020, claiming addictive platform designs and acquisitions stifled innovation in youth-oriented social media.^[156] Apple's iOS ecosystem, controlling about 28% of global smartphone OS market share but over 50% in premium segments as of 2024, has drawn fire for App Store policies that enforce a 30% commission and restrict alternative distribution.^[102] The DOJ sued Apple in March 2024 for smartphone monopolization via "walled garden" tactics, including blocking cloud gaming apps, limiting NFC payments, and cross-app messaging interoperability to preserve hardware-software integration profits.^[150] In Europe, the Commission fined Apple €1.8 billion in March 2024 for abusing dominance in music streaming distribution by prohibiting apps from informing users of cheaper external subscriptions, violating anti-steering rules.^[157] Additional 2025 probes under the Digital Markets Act targeted Apple's browser choice screens and sideloading restrictions, with a UK tribunal ruling in October 2025 that App Store fees constituted an abuse of dominance by foreclosing competition.^[158] In response to Apple's app store practices and alleged monopolistic behavior, federal U.S. laws such as the Open App Markets Act (OAMA) and the App Store Freedom Act (ASFA) have been proposed.^[159]^[160] These cases underscore how proprietary ecosystems generate lock-in, though Apple maintains such controls ensure security and privacy absent in Android's fragmented market.^[161]

Debates and Critiques

Standard Economic Critiques

In standard neoclassical economic analysis, monopolies are critiqued for generating allocative inefficiency by restricting output to the level where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, resulting in a quantity below the competitive equilibrium where price equals marginal cost.^[25] This underproduction creates a deadweight loss, representing the net loss of consumer and producer surplus from foregone transactions where consumers' willingness to pay exceeds the marginal cost of production.^[162] The magnitude of this triangular deadweight loss depends on the elasticity of demand; steeper demand curves yield smaller losses, as seen in Harberger's 1954 estimation of monopoly-induced resource misallocation at approximately 0.1% of U.S. national income.^[162] Monopolies also face criticism for productive inefficiency, as the absence of competitive pressures reduces incentives to minimize costs, leading to phenomena like X-inefficiency—slack in resource use beyond technical minimums.^[163] Unlike competitive firms, monopolists can sustain higher average costs without market discipline, exacerbating overall resource misallocation.^[164] A further critique involves rent-seeking behavior, where firms expend resources to obtain or preserve monopoly rents through lobbying, litigation, or barriers rather than productive investment. Gordon Tullock's 1967 analysis extended Harberger's deadweight loss by arguing that these dissipative efforts convert monopoly profits (the "rectangle" of transfers from consumers) into additional social costs, potentially equaling or exceeding the triangular inefficiency.^[165] Empirical studies corroborate higher markups in concentrated markets, with U.S. non-financial sectors showing average markups rising from 1.1 in 1980 to 1.6 by 2015, implying sustained pricing above marginal costs.^[166] These critiques assume barriers to entry sustain monopoly power; without them, contestable market theory suggests inefficiencies may self-correct, though standard models emphasize persistent harms absent intervention.^[167]

Defenses Against Overregulation

Advocates of restrained antitrust enforcement argue that overregulation risks Type I errors—falsely condemning pro-competitive conduct or mergers—which impose greater economic costs than Type II errors of underenforcement, as blocked efficiencies deprive consumers of lower prices and innovation gains.^[168] Empirical analyses indicate that aggressive interventions, such as those prioritizing market structure over demonstrated harm, can chill welfare-enhancing transactions; for instance, studies of merger retrospectives show that many challenged deals would have generated net consumer benefits through cost synergies averaging 5-10% of sales.^[169] A core defense rests on the consumer welfare standard, articulated by Robert Bork in The Antitrust Paradox (1978), which posits that antitrust policy should exclusively target conduct reducing output or raising prices, not firm size or power absent such effects.^[170] Bork contended that prior cases, like the breakup of Standard Oil in 1911, often protected inefficient rivals rather than consumers, leading to higher costs; he estimated that misguided enforcement distorted markets by favoring structural presumptions over economic evidence, a view supported by post-Chicago school analyses showing no consistent correlation between concentration and consumer harm in dynamic industries.^[171] Schumpeterian theory further bolsters this position, emphasizing that temporary monopoly power incentivizes "creative destruction" by funding risky R&D, yielding long-term productivity gains that competition alone cannot sustain.^[172] Joseph Schumpeter argued in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942) that large firms with market power, like those in early 20th-century steel or automobiles, drove innovations—such as assembly-line production—outpacing fragmented competitors; modern extensions, including econometric models of tech sectors, find that monopoly rents correlate with patent outputs, with firms like pre-1990s AT&T generating breakthroughs in telecommunications that diffused broadly despite regulated dominance.^[173] Overzealous breakups, critics warn, could fragment such incentives, as evidenced by the 1984 AT&T divestiture, which initially spurred equipment innovation but slowed network investments, costing consumers an estimated $1-2 billion annually in delayed efficiencies until reconvergence.^[174] Proponents also highlight natural monopoly dynamics in network industries, where scale economies preclude viable entry without subsidies; here, price-cap regulation or light-touch oversight outperforms forced fragmentation, preserving average cost reductions of 20-30% observed in utilities.^[175] Recent defenses against neo-Brandeisian reforms stress that abandoning consumer welfare for broader "power" concerns invites subjective enforcement, potentially mirroring pre-1970s errors where cases against firms like IBM (dismissed in 1982 after 13 years) yielded no welfare gains but diverted resources.^[176] Overall, these arguments prioritize verifiable harm thresholds to avoid regulatory overreach that stifles the very competition it seeks to foster.

Government Monopolies' Greater Harms

Government monopolies inflict greater economic harms than private counterparts due to the absence of profit-loss discipline and entrenched political incentives, which allow inefficiencies to persist without corrective mechanisms like bankruptcy or consumer exit. Private monopolies, while capable of extracting rents, face pressures from potential technological disruption, antitrust enforcement, or regulatory price controls that can mitigate excesses; state monopolies, conversely, often enjoy sovereign immunity from such constraints, subsidized by taxpayers and insulated from competition by law. Empirical analyses of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) consistently demonstrate lower total factor productivity, with average X-inefficiency rates 20-30% higher than private firms, stemming from principal-agent problems where managers prioritize political directives over cost minimization.^[177]^[178] Fiscal burdens amplify these harms, as government monopolies generate chronic deficits without market accountability. The U.S. Postal Service (USPS), holding a legal monopoly on first-class mail delivery, recorded a $6.5 billion net loss in fiscal year 2023 amid rising operational costs and stagnant volume, necessitating repeated congressional bailouts totaling over $100 billion since 2007; in contrast, private parcel competitors like UPS and FedEx posted combined profits exceeding $10 billion that year, driven by innovations in logistics and customer service. Similar patterns emerge globally: privatization studies across 50+ countries show post-sale efficiency gains averaging 12% in labor productivity and 7% in profitability, as firms shed bureaucratic overhead and align with consumer demands.^[179]^[177] Corruption thrives in this environment, where monopoly rents invite rent-seeking by officials and cronies unchecked by shareholder oversight. Venezuela's PDVSA, the state oil monopoly nationalized in 1976, exemplifies this: by 2019, embezzlement and mismanagement siphoned an estimated $300 billion from reserves, precipitating hyperinflation and GDP contraction of 75% from 2013-2021, far outstripping harms from private oil majors like ExxonMobil, which faced market and legal scrutiny.^[180] In Ecuador, state monopolies in utilities and telecom correlated with productivity stagnation, as political appointments diverted resources from investment, yielding 15-20% lower capital efficiency than privatized peers per World Bank metrics.^[181] Innovation stagnation compounds long-term damages, as bureaucratic inertia supplants competitive R&D. SOEs invest 40% less in new technologies on average, per cross-country panels, due to soft budget constraints enabling survival without adaptation; the Soviet Union's centralized industrial monopolies, for instance, produced GDP per capita 1/3 of U.S. levels by 1989 despite resource endowments, culminating in systemic collapse.^[182]^[183] Unlike private monopolies eroded by Schumpeterian creative destruction—e.g., AT&T's 1982 breakup spurring telecom advances—government variants endure, distorting resource allocation across economies and eroding public trust in institutions.^[96]

References

[1]
Monopoly – Introduction to Microeconomics
Monopoly is a market with no competition at all, and firms have a great deal of market power. In the case of monopoly, one firm produces all of the output in a ...
[2]
Open Principles of Microeconomics - 9. Monopoly
In the case of monopoly, one firm produces all of the output in a market. Since a monopoly faces no significant competition, it can charge any price it wishes, ...9. Monopoly · 9.1 How Monopolies Form... · Natural Monopoly
[3]
"Economic Effects of Monopoly" by David R. Kamerschen
Apr 3, 2020 · In Part I we will explore in some detail the economic (and some noneconomic) effects of monopoly. In Part II we will examine briefly public ...
[4]
An Economic History of Antitrust Legislation in the U.S.
May 2, 2025 · The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the brainchild of Senator John Sherman of Ohio, was the first federal legislation to outlaw monopolistic practices.
[5]
What Makes Something a Monopoly? - FEE.org
Oct 21, 2024 · Many people consider a monopoly to be any business with a high market share. But the historical definition is rather different.
[6]
Monopoly - Econlib
A monopoly is an enterprise that is the only seller of a good or service. In the absence of government intervention, a monopoly is free to set any price it ...
[7]
9.1 How Monopolies Form: Barriers to Entry - UH Pressbooks
Monopolies form through barriers to entry, including economies of scale, resource control, legal restrictions, patents, trademarks, and practices like ...
[8]
Monopoly - Economics Help
Oct 28, 2019 · Definition of Monopoly. A pure monopoly is defined as a single seller of a product, i.e. 100% of market share. In the UK a firm is said to ...Advantages · Diagram of Monopoly · Regulation of monopoly
[9]
Monopoly - (Principles of Economics) - Vocab, Definition, Explanations
A monopoly is a market structure characterized by a single supplier of a good or service that has no close substitutes. Monopolies arise due to barriers to ...
[10]
Monopoly Market Structure Explained - Intelligent Economist
Apr 7, 2025 · Characteristics of a Monopoly Market Structure · 1. A Lack of Substitutes · 2. Barriers to Entry · 3. Competition · 4. Price Maker · 5. Profits.Characteristics of a Monopoly... · Advantages of a Monopoly
[11]
8.1 How Monopolies Form: Barriers to Entry - UH Pressbooks
Monopolies form through barriers to entry, which are legal, technological, or market forces. These include natural monopolies (economies of scale) and legal ...
[12]
ECON 150: Microeconomics
We focus on the differentiating characteristics: number of firms, type of product, ease of entry, and market power or price control.
[13]
8.1 Monopoly – Principles of Microeconomics
Whereas perfect competition is a market where firms have no market power and they simply respond to the market price, a monopolistic market is one with no ...
[14]
Chapter 3. Monopoly and Market Power – The Economics of Food ...
Monopoly = A single firm in an industry with no close substitutes. The phrase, “no close substitutes” is important, since there are many firms that are the sole ...Missing: credible | Show results with:credible
[15]
Monopoly vs. Oligopoly: What's the Difference? - Investopedia
A monopoly is when a single company produces goods with no close substitute, while an oligopoly is when a small number of relatively large companies produce ...An Overview · Monopoly · Oligopoly · Legalities
[16]
Profit Maximization for a Monopoly | Microeconomics
Thus, a profit-maximizing monopoly should follow the rule of producing up to the quantity where marginal revenue is equal to marginal cost—that is, MR = MC.
[17]
Profit Maximization in Monopoly Market - GeeksforGeeks
Sep 27, 2025 · In a monopoly, profit maximization is achieved by determining the output level where Marginal Revenue equals Marginal Cost.
[18]
[PDF] Chapter 11 Monopoly
Monopolies maximize profits by setting price or output so that marginal revenue (MR) equals marginal cost. (MC). • Profit function to be maximized by choosing ...
[19]
Monopoly – Intermediate Microeconomics - Oregon State University
Mathematically, profit maximization for a monopolist is the same as for any firm: find the output level for which marginal revenue equals marginal cost. Let's ...
[20]
Profit Maximizing in a Monopoly | EBF 200
We say that in a monopoly, profit is maximized when MR=MC, just like in a competitive market, when MR = Price = MC. You will remember that in a competitive ...
[21]
9.2 How a Profit-Maximizing Monopoly Chooses Output and Price
Rating 5.0 (1) Total profit is maximized where marginal revenue equals marginal cost. In this example, maximum profit occurs at 6 units of output where MR=MC=200.
[22]
3.5: Monopoly Power - Social Sci LibreTexts
Jan 4, 2021 · Economists use the Lerner Index to measure monopoly power, also called market power. The index is the percent markup of price over marginal cost ...
[23]
Lerner index - Concurrences
A measure proposed by economist A.P. Lerner to measure monopoly or market power. The Lerner Index (LI) is: In perfect competition, LI is equal to zero.
[24]
The Lerner Index of Monopoly Power: Origins and Uses
The Index is a better indicator of a firm's price-setting discretion than its ability to sustain monopoly prices. Citation. Elzinga, Kenneth G., and David E ...
[25]
5 (Monopoly) Firms' optimization and pricing, price-discrimination
Compared to perfect competition, a monopoly typically produces less output and charges a higher price ... The difference in monopoly vs perfect competitive ...
[26]
What Is Price Discrimination, and How Does It Work? - Investopedia
Companies that dominate a particular market and use price discrimination strategies within their various sub-markets are known as discriminating monopolies.
[27]
https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/monopoly-price-discrimination
[28]
How Monopolists Use Price Discrimination to Maximize Profits
Dec 15, 2023 · Price discrimination allows a monopolist to sell the same product at different prices to different customers based on their willingness to ...
[29]
Monopoly price discrimination (video) - Khan Academy
Jun 21, 2019 · Price discrimination is charging each consumer their entire willingness to pay. What if a monopolist can charge each buyer their entire willingness to pay?
[30]
Examples of Price Discrimination - Economics Help
Mar 6, 2019 · Examples include cut-price fuel on certain days, airline prices varying by season/day, and electricity tariffs based on quantity consumed.
[31]
Price Discrimination - Definition, Types and Practical Example
Example of Price Discrimination: Cineplex The Canadian entertainment company, Cineplex, is a classic example of a firm using the price discrimination strategy. ...
[32]
Discriminating Monopoly: Definition, How It Works, and Example
An example of a discriminatory monopoly is an airline company. Airlines frequently sell various seats at different prices based on demand.What Is a Discriminating... · How They Work · Example
[33]
[PDF] Price Discrimination and Imperfect Competition - MIT
The classic theory of third-degree price discrimination by a monopolist selling to several distinct markets is straightforward: the optimal price-discriminating ...<|separator|>
[34]
15.5: Welfare Effects - Social Sci LibreTexts
Aug 9, 2024 · If a price discriminating monopolist produces less than a nondiscriminating monopolist, then price discrimination reduces welfare. · Price ...
[35]
Welfare Effects
15.5 Welfare Effects ... If a price discriminating monopolist produces less than a nondiscriminating monopolist, then price discrimination reduces welfare.
[36]
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/101032/ECON469.pdf?sequence
[37]
Barriers to Entry - Economics Help
Jul 28, 2017 · Barriers to entry are factors that prevent or make it difficult for new firms to enter a market. Examples such as brand loyalty, economies ...
[38]
Managing a patent - USPTO
Apr 27, 2023 · ” The term of a utility or plant patent generally lasts 20 years ... patents must include the patent number and U.S. application number.
[39]
When Does My Patent Expire? - Gesmer Updegrove LLP
Generally, a U.S. utility patent expires 20 years from the filing date. Design patents expire 15 years from the issue date.
[40]
Barriers to Entry - Types of Barriers to Markets & How They Work
Perfect competition, Zero barriers to entry ; Monopolistic competition, Medium barriers to entry ; Oligopoly, High barriers to entry ; Monopoly, Very high to ...
[41]
Natural Monopoly: Definition, How It Works, Types, and Examples
Utility industry: This is a natural monopoly. Utility monopolies provide water, sewer services, electricity transmission, and energy distribution such as retail ...What Is a Natural Monopoly? · Special Considerations · Pros and Cons · Examples
[42]
Natural Monopolies
A natural monopoly exists when average costs continuously fall as the firm gets larger. An electric company is a classic example of a natural monopoly.
[43]
Barriers to Entry: (Definition, 15 Examples & 4 Types) - BoyceWire
Barriers to Entry Examples – 4 Types. Barriers to entry can be categorised under 4 separate types: legal, technical, strategic, and brand loyalty.Barriers to Entry Definition · The Importance of Barriers to... · Legal · Technical
[44]
11.2: Barriers to Entry- Reasons for Monopolies to Exist
Jul 17, 2023 · Economies of scale and network externalities are two types of barrier to entry. They discourage potential competitors from entering a market ...Economies of Scale and... · Natural Monopolies · Other Barriers to Entry
[45]
Monopoly and Barriers to Entry: Old Wine in New Bottles - Econlib
Nov 7, 2022 · Capital requirements to realize economies of scale may serve as a barrier to entry, and therefore operate to confer imperfectly competitive ...
[46]
Natural Monopoly | Economics Definition + Examples
The most common characteristics of a natural monopoly are the following: High Fixed Costs; High Minimum Efficient Scale (MES); High Barriers to Entry; No ...
[47]
Natural Monopoly - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
For a single-output firm, subadditivity is both necessary and sufficient for a natural monopoly, as subadditivity implies that it is more efficient for a single ...<|separator|>
[48]
Subadditivity of Costs - (Intermediate Microeconomic Theory)
The concept of subadditivity of costs helps explain natural monopolies by illustrating that a single firm's average costs can be lower than the combined costs ...
[49]
Are Municipal Electricity Distribution Utilities Natural Monopolies?
Dec 16, 2002 · The empirical evidence suggests that franchised monopolies, rather than side-by-side competition, is the most efficient form of production ...
[50]
Natural monopolies | American Business History Class Notes
Examples of natural monopolies in American industry include railroads, telecommunications, and utilities. The economic theory behind natural monopolies ...
[51]
[PDF] Survey of the Empirical Evidence on Economies of Scale
The survey found that available empirical information on economies of scale is indefinite and disappointing, with a limited appraisal of individual studies.
[52]
[PDF] Economies of Scale and the Question of Natural Monopoly in the ...
T HIS PAPER will provide a review and analysis of the available evidence concerning the question of economies of scale and the possibility of "natural ...
[53]
Understanding Legal Monopolies: Definition and Functionality
Examples of legal monopolies today include monopolies on gambling and ... granted exclusive trade rights by their respective national governments.
[54]
Franchised Monopoly: Meaning, Criticism, Examples - Investopedia
A franchised monopoly refers to a company that is sheltered from competition by virtue of an exclusive license or patent granted by the government.
[55]
Patent term calculator - USPTO
The calculator can be used to estimate the expiration dates of utility, plant, or design patents. The calculator contains prompts to enter specific information ...Download Patent Term... · Guide to Locating Information...
[56]
What is Copyright? | U.S. Copyright Office
Under the current law, works created on or after January 1, 1978, have a copyright term of life of the author plus seventy years after the author's death.
[57]
Legal Monopoly: Understanding Its Definition and Implications
One example of a legal monopoly is a local water utility company that has been granted exclusive rights by the city to supply water to all residents. This ...
[58]
608 Quick Service Guide | Postal Explorer - USPS
The Private Express Statutes are a group of laws under which the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has the exclusive right, with certain limited exceptions to carry ...
[59]
[PDF] GAO-17-543, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
Jun 22, 2017 · The value of the U.S. Postal Service's (USPS) letter delivery and mailbox monopolies was $5.45 billion in fiscal year 2015, according to the ...
[60]
AT&T Monopoly History - Breakup/Divestiture of the Bell System
Jan 24, 2022 · In January 1982, in order to bring the nearly eight-year suit to an end, AT&T agreed to break up its local business into seven smaller regional ...
[61]
11.3: Monopoly Production and Pricing Decisions and Profit Outcome
Jul 17, 2023 · In a monopoly, the price is set above marginal cost and the firm earns a positive economic profit. Perfect competition produces an equilibrium ...Market Differences Between... · Marginal Revenue and...
[62]
https://www.banotes.org/microeconomics-ii/monopoly-vs-perfect-competition-impact-prices-output/
[63]
The Costs of Monopoly: A New View
Jul 12, 2016 · And because empirical studies have found that monopolists do not restrict output or raise prices by very much, most economists have concluded ...
[64]
Competition And Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct Under Section 2 ...
Monopoly power can harm society by making output lower, prices higher, and innovation less than would be the case in a competitive market.
[65]
[PDF] Monopoly
• The amount of allocative inefficiency arising from a monopoly outcome is referred to as a deadweight loss (aka. “welfare loss”). Page 13. 9- 13. Monopoly ...Missing: explanation | Show results with:explanation
[66]
[PDF] SURPLUSES, TRANSFERS, DEADWEIGHT LOSS AND ...
An analysis of efficiency, of course, has always been the backbone ... Allocative inefficiency and deadweight loss from a restriction of output may be identified.
[67]
Monopoly and Market Power - Regulation Body of Knowledge
Allocative efficiency means that the optimal mix of outputs is provided. This form of economic efficiency is said to exist when the price that customers pay for ...
[68]
[PDF] Harberger triangles - National Bureau of Economic Research
In his empirical work, Harberger calculates deadweight loss triangles based on demand curves constructed by returning tax revenue to consumers in lump-sum ...
[69]
[PDF] Introduction to Harberger's Monopoly and Resource Allocation—The ...
triangle; he used an empirical estimate of that deadweight loss to answer his ques- tion; and, when the loss appeared to be very small, he stated this ...
[70]
[PDF] Why Schumpeter was Right: Innovation, Market Power, and Creative ...
Instead, researchers have tested Schumpeter's hypothesis in more recent time periods when innovation and firm financial data are more readily available. Despite ...
[71]
[PDF] Schumpeter's Creative Destruction: A Review of the Evidence
Schumpeter's process of creative destruction states that technological advance is the main source of economic growth and improvements in the quality of life. It ...
[72]
How Do Competitive Pressures Affect Incentives to Innovate When ...
Schumpeter (1942) argues that competition decreases innovation because firms with more market power have greater returns to innovation and larger firms have ...Missing: incentivize | Show results with:incentivize
[73]
[PDF] Where Are We in the Competition-Innovation Debate?
There is some evidence that competition promotes innovation when the measure of competition is an index of proximity of firms to a technological frontier, ...
[74]
Rethinking Antitrust: The Case for Dynamic Competition Policy | ITIF
Oct 14, 2025 · Empirical evidence points toward an “inverted U”-shaped curve whereby concentrated industries engage in more innovation but start to engage ...<|separator|>
[75]
How Antitrust Affects Innovation - CLS Blue Sky Blog
Oct 17, 2017 · Antitrust appears to promote innovation when it maintains competition by preserving the number of firms competing within a market, but it retards innovation.
[76]
Intensity of competition and the incentive to innovate - ScienceDirect
It is claimed that more product market competition enhances dynamic efficiency of markets, that is it increases incentives to innovate. ... The empirical evidence ...
[77]
Intellectual monopolies as a new pattern of innovation and ...
Dec 7, 2023 · This paper integrates insights from the economics of innovation into political economy studies on intangible assets and associated rents to ...
[78]
[PDF] Innovation and Antitrust Enforcement - Daniel L. Rubinfeld and John ...
The close substitutes are research and development efforts, technologies, and goods that significantly constrain the exercise of market power with respect to ...Missing: incentivize | Show results with:incentivize
[79]
[PDF] Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy after Forty Years
According to Schumpeter, monopoly and monopoly profits are inherent in the capitalist process. What often looks like excessive profits 'provides the bait ...
[80]
Schumpeter's Vindication: The Enduring Link Between Scale and ...
Oct 16, 2025 · Schumpeter's analysis suggests that firms with market power have both a greater incentive and ability to innovate. Regarding incentives, a ...
[81]
[PDF] PERSISTENCE OF MONOPOLY, INNOVATION, AND R&D ...
Recent empirical evidence seems to support these Schumpeterian allegations from The Economist: there is a positive relationship between market power and ...
[82]
Persistence of monopoly, innovation, and R&D spillovers
As for the empirical evidence on the above puzzle, it reveals a positive correlation between market power and the intensity of innovation.1 Furthermore, this ...
[83]
Long-run versus short-run decisions: R&D and market structure in ...
My results show that concentration and other measures of monopoly power have a significant effect on the decision to innovate but not on the intensity of R&D.
[84]
New research: American biopharmaceutical investment in R&D ...
Sep 16, 2024 · The study indicates that global biopharmaceutical R&D investment is significant, totaling $276 billion across 4,191 global companies in 2021.<|separator|>
[85]
[PDF] Schumpeterian hypothesis revisited: on market structure and firms ...
Dec 31, 2020 · The above limitation on the incentive of the monopolist to perform R&D works is called the 'replacement effect'. (the monopoly via radical ...
[86]
United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945)
Thus until February 2, 1909, "Alcoa" had either a monopoly of the manufacture of "virgin" aluminum ingot, or the monopoly of a process which eliminated all ...
[87]
Free Markets Are Monopoly Busters - Hoover Institution
Sep 11, 2025 · That means that Alcoa's aluminum output over those thirty-nine years increased by over 344,665 percent! ... In short, Alcoa kept anticipating ...
[88]
Aluminum: Alcoa and Anti-Trust – Impact of Materials on Society
The bottom line is that Alcoa did popularize the use of aluminum among American consumers, made the company's products cheaper, and contributed to the growth of ...
[89]
If It Ain't Broke, Don't Break It Up - Brookings Institution
There wasn't any measurable increase in the rate at which aluminum prices had been declining under the Alcoa monopoly. Alcoa's domestic monopoly had largely ...
[90]
Remembering a Classic That Demolished a Myth - Mackinac Center
Dec 13, 2001 · "Crude and refined oil prices for consumers declined during the period Standard exercised greatest control of the industry." There was no upward ...
[91]
John D. Rockefeller and the Oil Industry - FEE.org
From 1865 to 1870, the price of kerosene dropped from 58 to 26 cents per gallon. Rockefeller made profits during every one of these years, but most of ...
[92]
Vindicating Capitalism: The Real History of the Standard Oil Company
In 1865, kerosene cost fifty-eight cents a gallon; by 1870, twenty-six cents.20 Refining capacity was increasing relative to the supply of oil; by 1871 the ...
[93]
Kerosene Consumers and the Antitrust Movement against Standard ...
May 17, 2024 · The participants agreed that the company had “greatly lessened the cost of light” and reduced the “price of oil 75 per cent since that ...
[94]
https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/what-are-some-of-the-potential-advantages-from-monopoly
[95]
[PDF] Innovation, Competition and Welfare-Enhancing Monopoly
Consumers benefit in increasing-cost generic industries in any case, but benefit more when all generic firms are driven out of the industry by low prices ...
[96]
Technological Innovation And Monopolization - Department of Justice
Jan 2, 2024 · This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function.Missing: franchises | Show results with:franchises
[97]
Monopoly Power and Market Power in Antitrust Law
Jan 3, 2024 · Antitrust law now requires proof of actual or likely market power or monopoly power to establish most types of antitrust violations.
[98]
Assessing market dominance - ScienceDirect.com
The assessment of market dominance incorporates an evaluation of both existing and potential competition. As, for example, the Guidelines regarding abuse of ...
[99]
[PDF] Dominance 2020 - Cleary Gottlieb
Under US law, a tying claim requires that the defendant have market power in the tying product, that the tying and tied items be sepa- rate products, that ...
[100]
Procedures in Article 102 Investigations - Competition
If a company has a market share of less than 40%, it is unlikely to be dominant. The Commission also takes other factors into account in its assessment of ...
[101]
The European Commission Proposes a New Approach to ...
Aug 6, 2024 · According to the draft guidelines, a “very large market share,” in particular 50 per cent and above, is indicative of a dominant position, ...
[102]
EU and US Antitrust Is Converging on Anti-Monopoly - ProMarket
Jun 18, 2025 · While the DMA's gatekeeper designation under Article 3 is not a dominance assessment in the classical sense—it is based on quantitative turnover ...
[103]
Entry Barriers and Contemporary Antitrust Litigation
Entry barriers are factors that allow existing firms to earn higher profits while deterring new firms. Examples include legal licenses, resource control, and ...
[104]
The Antitrust Laws | Federal Trade Commission
The antitrust laws proscribe unlawful mergers and business practices in general terms, leaving courts to decide which ones are illegal based on the facts of ...Guide to Antitrust Laws · Mergers · The Enforcers · Dealings with Competitors
[105]
What Are the Elements for a Monopolization Claim under the ...
May 20, 2024 · In the United States, Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it illegal for anyone (person or entity) to “monopolize any part of the trade or ...
[106]
Competition And Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct Under Section 2 ...
For example, a tie may result in a firm with monopoly power in one market acquiring a monopoly in a second market or perpetuating its monopoly in the tying ...
[107]
Predatory or Below-Cost Pricing - Federal Trade Commission
Guide to Antitrust Laws · Exclusive Supply or Purchase Agreements · Monopolization Defined · Predatory or Below-Cost Pricing · Refusal to Deal · Tying the Sale of ...
[108]
Exclusive Dealing or Requirements Contracts
Exclusive dealing or requirements contracts between manufacturers and retailers are common and are generally lawful.
[109]
US Antitrust Laws: A Primer | Mercatus Center
Mar 24, 2021 · US antitrust laws, broadly speaking, aim to curb efforts by firms to reduce competition in the marketplace or to create or maintain monopolies.Missing: types | Show results with:types
[110]
Antitrust Division | Understanding Single-Firm Behavior: Remedies
Jan 2, 2024 · that structural remedies are not always available. machinery case would be an example.
[111]
[PDF] STRUCTURAL vs. BEHAVIORAL REMEDIES IN BIG TECH SECTORS
At the same time, conventional antitrust remedies must deal with unconventional and often subtle forms of market power exercises, which in turn challenge the ...
[112]
Structural vs. Behavioral: Dueling Antitrust Remedies Proposed at ...
May 6, 2025 · And, structural remedies have historically been favored, even if underused, to keep antitrust enforcers out of the business of regulating ...
[113]
[PDF] Structural Antitrust Relief Against Digital Platforms
Aug 20, 2024 · Structural remedies will fail if they (a) do not break into the monopoly but simply transfer it to someone else; or (b) attempt to break up a.<|separator|>
[114]
A History of U.S. Monopolies - Investopedia
Apr 30, 2024 · Among the most notable monopolies in American history are Standard Oil, American Tobacco, U.S. Steel, and AT&T. The Sherman Antitrust Act banned ...
[115]
A History of Failure: Government-Imposed Corporate Breakups - AAF
Jun 27, 2018 · Standard Oil faced a similar situation to AT&T. In 1870, John D. Rockefeller founded the Standard Oil Company with business partners Maurice B.
[116]
The AT&T Divestiture: Was It Necessary? Was It a Success?
Jan 5, 2024 · No empirical evidence of increased output or lower prices following imposition of the decrees in 18 of 19 cases studied. Robert W.
[117]
[PDF] To "B" or not to "B": A Welfare Analysis of Breaking Up Monopolies in ...
In a numerical example, a regulation that breaks up a monopoly into two independent firms lowers welfare by 63 percent. More importantly, if the economy works ...
[118]
[PDF] In Defense of Breakups: Administering a “Radical” Remedy - CORE
Aug 7, 2020 · 169 If breakups deter firms from pursuing monopolistic mergers, they could improve consumer welfare even if the divestiture itself—analyzed ...
[119]
Department of Justice Wins Significant Remedies Against Google
Sep 2, 2025 · Today, the Justice Department's Antitrust Division won significant remedies in its monopolization case against Google in online search.
[120]
What comes next in Google's antitrust case over search? | Reuters
Sep 2, 2025 · A judge ruled on Tuesday that Alphabet's Google must share search data with competitors but rejected prosecutors' bid to make the internet ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[121]
Federal Court Endorses Behavioral Remedies, Rejects Structural ...
Sep 10, 2025 · First, the court cited case law advising that divestiture should be imposed "only with great caution" and (aside from cases involving monopolies ...
[122]
Why Breakups Aren't the Best Way to Curb Tech Monopolies
Feb 27, 2024 · Breaking up monopolies draws populist cheer from some antitrust advocates, but that approach could cause more harm than good in the case of ...
[123]
District Court Holds That Google Unlawfully Monopolizes Online ...
Aug 16, 2024 · The US District Court for the District of Columbia held that Google unlawfully monopolizes the markets for general search services and general search text ads.
[124]
Google not required to sell Chrome or Android, judge rules in ... - BBC
Sep 2, 2025 · A US judge has ruled that Google doesn't need to sell off its Android operating system or its Chrome browser in a landmark monopoly case.
[125]
Department of Justice Prevails in Landmark Antitrust Case Against ...
Apr 17, 2025 · The US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that Google violated antitrust law by monopolizing open-web digital advertising markets.
[126]
https://www.forensisgroup.com/resources/expert-legal-witness-blog/amazon-antitrust-lawsuit-2025-de-coster-et-al-v-amazon
[127]
FTC Secures Historic $2.5 Billion Settlement Against Amazon
Sep 25, 2025 · Amazon will be required to pay a $1 billion civil penalty, provide $1.5 billion in refunds back to consumers harmed by their deceptive Prime ...
[128]
Commission finds Apple and Meta in breach of the Digital Markets Act
Apr 22, 2025 · The European Commission found that Apple breached its anti-steering obligation under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), and that Meta breached the DMA obligation.
[129]
Despite Google's recent victory, a flurry of competition cases could ...
Sep 24, 2025 · In September 2025, the European Commission also imposed a fine of €2.95 billion (£2.5 billion) on Google, in relation to its search advertising ...
[130]
How Big Tech is faring against US antitrust lawsuits | Reuters
Sep 2, 2025 · Here are the statuses of the U.S. antitrust cases or probes against some of the world's most valuable companies: Alphabet's (GOOGL.O) , opens ...
[131]
Recent Developments in Antitrust Litigation 2025
Aug 5, 2025 · To prevail on a monopoly maintenance claim, as outlined in the FTC case, a claimant must show the defendant (1) possesses monopoly power in ...
[132]
A brief history of Chinese salt, the world's oldest monopoly
Jan 4, 2017 · By the third to fifth centuries, salt accounted for 80%-90% of state revenues in some of the kingdoms established after the Han dynasty ...
[133]
The State Salt Monopoly in China: Ancient Origins and Modern ...
Nov 14, 2020 · Salt was historically considered an important type of basic life necessity. The salt monopoly was in essence a quasi-tax in historical China ...
[134]
Monopoly & Empire: Ancient China's Debate on Salt and Iron
May 2, 2016 · The debate was about the Han Dynasty's salt and iron monopolies, with Confucians arguing they undermined honesty and promoted selfishness, and ...
[135]
Early Monopolies: Conquest and Corruption - Investopedia
Royal charters allowed the Dutch East India Company to corner the spice market as well as later allowing the British East India Company to do the same in ...
[136]
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4445257
[137]
Antitrust and Monopoly - Energy History - Yale University
In the late nineteenth century and during the first decade of the twentieth century, critics attacked Standard Oil as an unlawful monopoly. In 1906, President ...
[138]
The Myth That Standard Oil Was a “Predatory Monopoly” - FEE.org
Dec 26, 2018 · In other words, Standard Oil did precisely the opposite of what monopoly theory maintains—it reduced rather than raised prices, it increased ...
[139]
Standard Oil – A Company So Effective, Only the U.S. Government ...
Dec 2, 2015 · Standard Oil was effective due to its 90% market share, uniform quality, low prices, reduced sulfuric acid use, and byproducts sales.
[140]
American Tobacco and the Legacy of the Antitrust Laws
The equity of the American Tobacco Co. grew to over $300 million by 1911, making the American Tobacco Co. half the size of the Standard Oil Co. and U.S. Steel.Missing: era | Show results with:era
[141]
Broken Trust - National Archives Foundation
Steel. Railroads. Sugar. Oil. Tobacco. All these industries were monopolies during an earlier era. In 1890, the first major antitrust legislation was ...
[142]
https://shrm.org/topics-tools/employment-law-compliance/sherman-anti-trust-act-1890
[143]
Ringing in the 20th Century: The Effects of State Monopolies, Private ...
This paper uses data on countries around the world in 1913 and on European countries from 1892 through 1914 to test the effects of government monopoly service.
[144]
[PDF] POLISH TOBACCO MONOPOLY IN 1919-1939
For example, from 1 July 1923 to. 30 June 1924 monopolistic tobacco factories in Hungary processed about 31 million kg of tobacco, in 1923 factories in the ...
[145]
(Anti)Trust Issues - Harvard Law School
Oct 1, 2024 · The federal government is suing Apple, Amazon, Meta (Facebook's parent company), and Google for allegedly constructing illegal monopolies that harm consumers ...
[146]
Antitrust Case Filings | United States Department of Justice
Antitrust Case Filings · U.S. v. Safran, et al. · U.S. v. Jasen Butler · U.S. v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Spirent Communications PLC · American Airlines ...
[147]
Ranking the Big Tech Monopolization Cases, by Daniel A. Crane
Mar 26, 2024 · But to keep things simple we can group the monopolization cases into five buckets: Google search, Google AdTech, Facebook, Amazon, Apple. The ...
[148]
Search Engine Market Share Worldwide | Statcounter Global Stats
Search Engines, Percentage Market Share. Search Engine Market Share Worldwide - September 2025. Google, 90.4%. bing, 4.08%. YANDEX, 1.65%. Yahoo! 1.46%.United States Of America · Europe · United Kingdom · India
[149]
Factbox-How Big Tech is faring against US antitrust lawsuits
Sep 2, 2025 · Here are the statuses of the U.S. antitrust cases or probes against some of the world's most valuable companies: Alphabet's Google, Meta ...
[150]
The Antitrust Agencies' Big Tech Cases: An Update - AAF
Jun 11, 2024 · This primer provides an update on the cases against Google, Apple, Amazon, and Meta, highlighting both the legal arguments and the status of each.
[151]
Latest US Ecommerce Statistics (2025) | StatsUp - Analyzify
Market share of leading retail e-commerce companies in the United States in 2024. Amazon dominates the market with a significant 37.6% share. Walmart holds ...
[152]
Catching up on Big Tech Antitrust Cases - Choice 360
Apr 30, 2025 · Google LLC (2023) Alongside an antitrust lawsuit over its search engine monopoly, Google faced a second antitrust lawsuit over its advertising ...
[153]
Antitrust actions against major tech firms: A global overview
Dec 16, 2024 · Major technology companies such as Google, Apple, Meta (formerly Facebook), and Microsoft have faced numerous antitrust investigations and legal actions across ...<|separator|>
[154]
Facebook, Inc., FTC v. (FTC v. Meta Platforms, Inc.)
The Federal Trade Commission has sued Facebook, alleging that the company is illegally maintaining its personal social networking monopoly.
[155]
Mark Zuckerberg defends Meta in court against monopoly claims
Apr 15, 2025 · In Zuckerberg's second day of testifying in the federal antitrust trial, he defended Meta's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.
[156]
New York et al. v. Meta (originally Facebook Inc.), No. 20-3589 ...
Forty-eight plaintiff states filed a lawsuit against Facebook Inc., alleging that the company harms the public by illegally stifling competition to protect its ...
[157]
Commission fines Apple
The European Commission has fined Apple over €1.8 billion for abusing its dominant position on the market for the distribution of music streaming apps to ...Missing: US | Show results with:US
[158]
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/apple-loses-uk-lawsuit-over-app-store-commissions-2025-10-23/
[159]
Antitrust: Commission opens investigations into Apple
The European Commission has opened formal antitrust investigations to assess whether Apple's rules for app developers on the distribution of apps via the App ...
[160]
[PDF] Three Sides of Harberger Triangles
Harberger (1954) finds that resource misallocation due to monopolistic behavior in U.S. industry generates an inefficiency equal to approximately 0.1 percent of ...<|separator|>
[161]
[PDF] FIGURE 1-1 A Comparison of Monopoly and Competition
Also, the absence of competitive pressures may induce less than fully efficient production processes. ("X-inefficiency”) and thereby add to deadweight loss; see ...
[162]
[PDF] ARTICLES DEFINING BETTER MONOPOLIZATION STANDARDS
Nov 24, 2003 · inefficiency produced by the loss of competition. Such an open-ended ... that furthers monopoly power by impairing rival efficiency whether or not.
[163]
Rent Seeking - Econlib
Gordon Tullock originated the idea in 1967, and Anne Krueger introduced the label in 1974. The idea is simple but powerful. People are said to seek rents when ...
[164]
[PDF] New Evidence on the Markup of Prices over Marginal Costs and the ...
The markup of price over marginal cost reveals market power. The distinction between marginal and average cost is key. Average cost is easy to measure, ...
[165]
[PDF] Market Power and Monopoly Power in Antitrust Analysis
Consumers are made better off by the combination of increased output and lower prices. The increase in consumer surplus measures the extent to which consum ...
[166]
Errors in Antitrust Enforcement Matter More than You Think
The bottom line is that aggressive antitrust policy that stops or chills efficiency-generating mergers or conduct can deprive the economy of significant ...Missing: critiques | Show results with:critiques
[167]
The Efficiency Rebuttal in the New Merger Guidelines: Bad Law and ...
Aug 30, 2024 · ... aggressive-antitrust-enforcement/; Dennis W. Carlton, Eugene Fama ... Professor Brodley came to a similar conclusion: “innovation efficiency ...
[168]
[PDF] Consumer Welfare and the Legacy of Robert Bork
Writing 35 years ago in The Antitrust Paradox, Robert Bork observed, “Anti- trust policy cannot be made rational until we are able to give a firm answer to one ...Missing: summary | Show results with:summary
[169]
[PDF] The Antitrust Paradox, by Judge Robert Bork - NetChoice
Enter Judge Robert Bork. An economist and lawyer, Bork wrote the Antitrust Paradox in 1978 to bring clarity, predictability, and objectivity to antitrust law.
[170]
[PDF] In Defense of Monopoly - OAPEN Home
We take up in this book a largely Schumpeterian view of monopoly—per- haps more accurately dubbed and widely known as Schumpeterian competi- tion—in part ...
[171]
A Schumpeterian Look at Monopoly and Big Business
Dec 17, 2018 · Schumpeter's December 1948 address to the American Economic Association, in which he argued much opposition to monopoly is really just opposition to big ...
[172]
Is This Time Different? Schumpeter, the Tech Giants, and Monopoly ...
Jun 18, 2019 · Economist Joseph Schumpeter warned against such monopoly fatalism. He recognized that the most important long-term competitive pressure comes ...
[173]
Does Big Business Need Taming? The Role of Economics in ...
Most antitrust officials—and the economists who advise them—believe that the antitrust laws have two main purposes: to ensure that markets operate efficiently ...
[174]
Five Conservative Principles to Apply Against Weaponized Antitrust
Aug 5, 2021 · This includes rejecting central planning, defending the consumer welfare standard, and fighting efforts to punish economic success.Missing: overregulation | Show results with:overregulation
[175]
From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization
SOEs and MEs account for 37% of employ- ment and 66% of capital investment in India in 1989. Documents efficiency scores averaging 0.975 for pri- vate firms, ...
[176]
[PDF] Performance Differential Between Private and State-Owned ...
State-owned enterprises (SOEs) tend to be less profitable than private-owned enterprises (POEs), but are more leveraged and more labor intensive.
[177]
The long-run effects of privatization on productivity: Evidence from ...
The major finding is that the productivity of Privatized SOEs increases relative to SOEs at a decreasing rate, peaking at 14–16 years. Despite this improvement, ...
[178]
25 corruption scandals that shook the world - News - Transparency.org
Jul 5, 2019 · The plundering of the state-owned oil company, PDVSA, is exemplary of the widespread corruption at the highest levels of government. ... examples ...
[179]
[PDF] State Monopolies, Redistribution, and Productivity - IDB Publications
Feb 27, 2025 · In line with our analysis, the literature on state ownership and economic stagnation provides ample empirical and theoretical evidence ...
[180]
[PDF] state-owned enterprises: the other government - imf
This can result in a buildup of SOE debt, including arrears, and inefficient pro- vision of the good or service (such as deterioration of the railway network ...
[181]
FROM STATE TO MARKET REVISITED: A REASSESSMENT OF ...
Oct 12, 2015 · Many economists take it as 'conventional wisdom' that publicly owned enterprises are inefficient by their very nature. This seemed to be proved ...
[182]
Blackburn, Blumenthal, Lee, Klobuchar, and Durbin Introduce Bipartisan Antitrust Bill to Promote App Store Competition
Press release on the reintroduction of the Open App Markets Act to promote competition in mobile app ecosystems, targeting dominant app store operators.
[183]
Rep. Cammack Introduces App Store Freedom Act To Promote Competition, Protect Consumers
Press release announcing the App Store Freedom Act to enhance competition in app stores and protect consumers from restrictive practices.