In this situation, the merged firm gets much larger output (ОТ) than the monopoly output (OM) at a lower price (OP 3) than the monopoly price (OP 1). It will supply and use ОТ output at OP 3 price. The merged firm would thus maximise its profits at point F where its MC/S curve cuts the D/MU curve. If the monopoly and monopsony firms merge into a single firm with the monopsonist taking over the monopoly firm, the МС/S curve of the monopsonist becomes his marginal cost curve. Thus the price will settle somewhere between OP 1 and OP 2. The greater the relative bargaining strength of the monopolist, the closer will price be to OP 1 and the greater the relative strength of the monopsonist, the closer will price be to OP. In actuality, the actual quantity of the product sold and its price depends upon the relative bargaining strength of the two. So there is disagreement over price between the monopolist who wants to charge a higher price OP and the monopsonist who wants to pay a lower piece OP 1 From a theoretical viewpoint, there is indeterminacy in the market. He buys OQ units of the product at OP 2 (=QA) price, as determined by point A on the supply curve MC/S. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 12: 11–26.The monopsonist is in equilibrium at point В where his marginal expenditure curve ME intersects the demand cure D/MU. Market power and inefficiency: A contracts perspective. Army Lawyer, Department of the Army Pamphlet 27-50-336, 1–25. How to keep military personnel from going to jail for doing the right thing: jurisdiction, ROE & (and) the rules of deadly force. American Political Science Review 68: 1775–1777. Bureaucracy and representative government. Bureaucracy and public economics, 2nd ed. Long-term bilateral monopoly: The case of an exhaustible resource. The market for force and public security: The destabilizing consequences of private military companies. Bilateral monopolies and incentives for merger. Can industry consolidation lead to greater efficiencies? Evidence from the U.S. Personality, bargaining style and payoff in bilateral monopoly bargaining among European managers. Joint strike fighter: Restructuring added resources and reduced risk, but concurrency is still a major concern, 20 March. Quarterly Journal of Economics 61: 503–532. Prices and wages under bilateral monopoly. Oxford Economic Papers (new series) 44: 306–316.īowley, A.L. Domestic content requirements with bilateral monopoly. Merger to monopoly to serve a single buyer: Comment. Quarterly Journal of Economics 84: 85–99.īaker, J.B., J. The theory of price determination in government–industry relationships. Journal of Economic Issues 5: 41–55.Īgapos, A.M., and P.R. Competition in the defense industry: An economic paradox. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.Īgapos, A.M. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. Finally, laws, rules and regulations may explicitly prohibit the government from exercising monopolist power, even if such an exercise would be of benefit to the taxpayer. A government may also shift the risk of procurement from the monopsonist to the government, decreasing the ability of the government to negotiate on cost and schedule. A government may, for reasons of political or public interest, subsidize the monopsonist to lower prices, increase supply, or both. Public policy may restrict the ability of a government to take advantage of its monopolist position. The final price and quantity are determined through a negotiating process that may, in part, depend on the risk preference of the negotiator. In a market characterized by bilateral monopoly, the monopolist has an incentive to curtail production to maximize profit while the monopsonist should use its market power to expand production and lower unit cost. Bilateral monopolies present challenges to private and public managers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |