Competition leads to a more efficient use of resources. Discuss.
The word “efficiency”, in economists’ dictionary, is often interpreted into the degree of an economy allocates scarce resources to meet the needs and wants of consumers. As we can see that a free market economy is the one in which resources are allocated based on the principle of self-interests. Where there are profits, there are firms, and where there are firms to produce identical goods and services, inevitably, there is competition. The degree of competition determines the market structure which is the main determinant of the behaviour or conduct of firms. This in turn determines the efficiency in the use of scarce resources. It is often argued that competition leads
…show more content…
As it has shown in figure 3, the total welfare in the perfectly competitive market is the area of ABPPC and ACPPC, whereas the total utility under monopoly is the same area less the area of ADE. By setting a higher price and less amount of output, the monopolist may have gained more benefits from the loss of consumers, but the deadweight welfare loss representing total societal loss has also occurred which is a social waste made by the monopolist. Therefore, competition as the example given in perfect competition would lead to a more efficient use of society’s resources.
Although perfect competition would bring us the maximized economic efficiency, monopoly in certain industries such as water supply industry may seen to be more beneficial due to the nature of the industries. The reason for this is that in some industries which require scale economies, there is an absolute advantage of a monopolist over small firms in perfect competition—economies of scale—that the monopolist is able to produce its goods and services at a lower cost level because of larger scale of production, more efficient use of large machines, more specialized division of labour or even more efficient management. If we take scale economies into account, perfect competition leading to efficiency is not that preferable: shown in figure 4, the
One could ask, what does an economic theory of efficiency have to do with public policy? The answer is multifaceted, first Smith
Competition is prevalent in various aspects of life, including sports, school, and jobs. Everyone at some point in their lifetime will have to compete against others in order to achieve a goal or earn a prize. It’s how the world has worked for a long time; it’s survival of the fittest and this minor competition between everyone is how we have continuously gotten smarter, faster, and stronger. Competition is necessary to a certain degree, but how much is too much? It’s definitely not a bad thing, and as long as there’s a healthy amount, it can be beneficial because it fosters self-improvement, and it will push people to go all out and try their absolute best.
Since there is no significant barriers required to entry and exit in perfect competition market, it means that a firm can freely enter or leave the competition while in a monopolistic competition, the market required few barriers to entry and exit. Even so, the number of barriers that required in monopolistic competition is more than the total barriers that required in a perfect
Natural monopolies are cases in which production costs, infrastructure, and demand structure lead to a single monopolizing firm producing the good at lower cost than any other arrangement. Under such situations, firms will tend to over-charge and under-supply, causing a reduction in social surplus and an inefficient distribution of goods. A lack of competition is a fundamental violation of the idealized market assumptions. Little or no competition leads to inefficiencies of production and operation (Weimer and Vining p. 102). Furthermore, natural monopolies give an unfair and non-competitive advantage to firms that have entered the industry first. In cases of natural monopolies, government must typically regulate private industry in an attempt to maximize surplus, or, alternatively, government may provide the good or service publicly.
Dunne, T., Klimek, S. D., Roberts, M. J., & Xu, D. Y. (2013). Entry, exit, and the determinants of market structure. The RAND Journal of Economics, 44(3), 462-487.
2. Economist Harvey Leibenstein argued that the loss of economic efficiency in industries that are not perfectly competitive has been understated. He argued that when competition is weak, firms are under less pressure to adopt the best techniques or to hold down their costs. He referred to this effect as "x-inefficiency."
Efficiency is important to producers, consumers, and society as a whole because the resources are scarce. The people have to decide to use the resources to increase its benefits. When a resource are used to produce goods and services it make it hard to use for another goods and services. So the best way to understand economy is to allocation resource is to produce more goods. In this type of economy production possibilities frontier (PPF) graph can be shown of the production of two goods. Producers could lose money if they produce a good and the demand of the produce is low because less people are going to buy the product. This effect consumer by how high and low the demand is. If the demand is high then the price of the goods is low. If the demand is low then the price of the goods is high.
Since it is impossible to satisfy the wants of society as a whole, what is attempt is to meet the specific needs of customers through efficiency -- "efficiency in the use of scarce resources" (Wadley, 20110). Economic efficiency is concerned with the relation between both
Efficiency refers to how productive a company is in using its assets. Efficiency is usually measured relative to how much revenue is generated for a certain level of assets.
According to Palmer & Torgerson (1999), the concept of efficiency can be divided into three types:
“Market Efficiency entitles operating at an optimal point where the marginal benefit of each good is equal to its marginal
Competition is present in all aspects of American society. Competition gives a base for trying to reach better things. Without being competitive, people will become stale. Competition makes people motivated, work harder to increase productivity, and strive to reach greater goals.
Competition failure or monopoly may result from natural monopoly where it costs incurred in production becomes lower when only one firm is involved in production than several firms producing the same output. In a monopolist market under-production, higher prices become dominant contributing to market inefficiency. Winston cites cases of misuse of monopoly power can lead to market failures and sometimes may lead to acute shortage of essential commodities (130).
Similarly looking at J.A Schumpeter as an economist, his concepts seem to favour monopolistic activity within our economy suggesting that they provide an ‘engine for technological processes’ and are needed to fuel research and development and increase innovation. Through his readings, Schumpeter conveys the idea that monopolies bring forward extra surplus in which other perfectively competitive firms will be unable to supply and can be used to undertake extra research. Looking at the graph on the left you can see that monopolies have the ability to gain ‘supernormal’ profits as the degree of competition within the market stands at zero for a pure monopoly. The profit maximising point is MC=MR and output is Q and price P, given that price (AR) is above ATC at Q, supernormal profits are possible (area PABC). All graphs and ideologies are referenced below. The extra amount gained can be used on improving the
To identify an appropriate strategy for a given industry one must look into the external and internal factors influencing the company. This Schnell Air report has been conceived with a triple objective in mind: to provide the Schnell Air Board with (i) a brief and compelling synthesis of Schnell Air’s competitive market environment overview since it entered the Innsbruck – Turin route in January 1997 as compared to prior to its entry, (ii) analyse the available data to establish the extent of predatory pricing strategies being plotted by the two existing duopolies – Air Turin and Innsbruck Air and (iii) by using a Game Theoretic approach model and highlight the affect of a 4th daily service on the same route given the