State monopoly: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
BenC1995 (talk | contribs)
11 edits
Didn't change any existing material, just elaborated on state monopoly characteristics and its market power. Also added more references to improve credibility.
Line 5: Line 5:
A government monopoly may be run by any level of government — national, regional, local; for levels below the national, it is a [[local monopoly]]. The term '''state monopoly''' usually means a government monopoly run by the national government.
A government monopoly may be run by any level of government — national, regional, local; for levels below the national, it is a [[local monopoly]]. The term '''state monopoly''' usually means a government monopoly run by the national government.


== Characteristics of State Monopoly's ==
⚫
==Examples==
A state monopoly can be characterized by its commercial behavior not being effectively limited by the competitive pressures of [[Company|private organisations]].<ref>{{Cite book |url=http://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/the-regulation-of-the-state-in-competitive-markets-in-the-eu |title=The Regulation of the State in Competitive Markets in the EU |date=2007 |publisher=Hart Publishing |isbn=978-1-84113-497-0 |doi=10.5040/9781472560124.ch-004}}</ref> <ref>{{Citation |last=Gordon |first=Richard L. |title=Problems of Environmental Impacts and Regulating Business Practices |date=1994 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2620-9_10 |work=Regulation and Economic Analysis |pages=129–147 |place=Boston, MA |publisher=Springer US |isbn=978-1-4613-6123-7 |access-date=2022-05-02}}</ref> This occurs when its business activities exert an extensive influence within the [[Market (economics)|market]], can act autonomously of any [[Competition|competitors]], and potential competitors are unable to successfully compete with in.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Berg |first=Sanford V. |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511572067 |title=Natural Monopoly Regulation |last2=Tschirhart |first2=John |date=1989-01-27 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-33039-8}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Weber Waller |first=Spencer |date=2006-09-01 |title=Book Review: <i>Economics of Regulation and Antitrust</i>, W. Kip Viscusi, Joseph E. Harrington, Jr., and John M. Vernon (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts &amp; London, England, 4th Edn, 2005) |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/woco2006035 |journal=World Competition |volume=29 |issue=Issue 3 |pages=504–504 |doi=10.54648/woco2006035 |issn=1011-4548}}</ref>

These activities have a major influence on the operational environment, when its trading activities are not subject to competitive forces inherent within [[Free trade|free trading markets]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Li |first=Shuai |last2=Cai |first2=Jiannan |last3=Feng |first3=Zhuo |last4=Xu |first4=Yifang |last5=Cai |first5=Hubo |date=2019-02 |title=Government contracting with monopoly in infrastructure provision: Regulation or deregulation? |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S136655451830913X |journal=Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review |language=en |volume=122 |pages=506–523 |doi=10.1016/j.tre.2019.01.002}}</ref>  Therefore, this results in using its [[Dominance (economics)|market dominance]] and influence to its advantage, in affecting how the market evolves over a long period of time.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Allen |first=G. C. |url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781136510861 |title=Monopoly and Restrictive Practices |date=2013-11-05 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-136-51086-1 |edition=0 |language=en |doi=10.4324/9781315016597}}</ref> This is especially the case if the state monopoly controls access to vital inputs essential to operating within the market.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sibley |first=David S. |last2=Doane |first2=Michael J. |last3=Williams |first3=Michael A. |last4=Tsai |first4=Shu-Yi |date=2004-10 |title=Pricing Access to a Monopoly Input |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9779.2004.00179.x |journal=Journal of Public Economic Theory |language=en |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=541–555 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9779.2004.00179.x |issn=1097-3923}}</ref> 

The high degree of autonomy and ability to act independently in the market, has been demonstrated by the ability to alter relationships with its [[Customer|customers]] to its advantage, without negatively impacting its dominant market share.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Weber Waller |first=Spencer |date=2006-09-01 |title=Book Review: <i>Economics of Regulation and Antitrust</i>, W. Kip Viscusi, Joseph E. Harrington, Jr., and John M. Vernon (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts &amp; London, England, 4th Edn, 2005) |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/woco2006035 |journal=World Competition |volume=29 |issue=Issue 3 |pages=504–504 |doi=10.54648/woco2006035 |issn=1011-4548}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite journal |last=Grunichev |first=A.S. |last2=Mierin |first2=L.A. |last3=Yagudin |first3=R.Kh. |last4=Fakhrutdinov |first4=R.M. |date=2015-02-01 |title=Institutional Features of Interaction of the State and of Natural Monopolies |url=https://www.richtmann.org/journal/index.php/mjss/article/view/5673 |journal=Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences |doi=10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n1s3p73}}</ref> A state monopoly’s ability to increase the [[price]] or quantity of [[goods and services]] provided, without a relational change in its own [[Operating cost|operating costs]] (coupled with maintaining this price or quantity at above a [[Market clearing|market clearing rate]]), demonstrates its ability to disregard any competitive forces within the market.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Peck |first=James |last2=Rampal |first2=Jeevant |date=2019-10 |title=Non-optimality of state by state monopoly pricing with demand uncertainty: An example |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2019.108561 |journal=Economics Letters |volume=183 |pages=108561 |doi=10.1016/j.econlet.2019.108561 |issn=0165-1765}}</ref>  A state monopoly also retains the ability to reduce service value, or impose restrictive [[Contractual term|terms and conditions]], without experiencing a loss in [[market share]].<ref>Gordon. (1994). ''Regulation and economic analysis : a critique over two centuries'' (1st ed. 1994.). Springer-Science+Business Media, B.V.</ref>  

== Market Power ==
A state monopoly’s market power and dominance can arise from its superior [[Innovation|innovative]] capacity or greater performance.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Zhao |first=Bo |date=2012-05 |title=Monopoly, economic efficiency and unemployment |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0264999312000065 |journal=Economic Modelling |language=en |volume=29 |issue=3 |pages=586–600 |doi=10.1016/j.econmod.2012.01.001}}</ref> However, any of the three following factors more broadly explain a state monopoly’s existence:

* A natural monopoly endures within the market, whereby the most efficient form of meeting demand is through the creation of a [[State-owned enterprise|single government entity]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=W. |first=Sharkey, William |url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/1127513607 |title=The Theory of Natural Monopoly |date=1982 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-511-57181-7 |oclc=1127513607}}</ref>
* The state monopoly is legislated for, with legislative instruments precluding competitive activities regarding the provision of goods or services.<ref name=":0" />
* A poorly contestable market exists, with competition previously operating inefficiently despite the lack of legal restrictions.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Davis |first=Colin |last2=Hashimoto |first2=Ken-ichi |date=2016-02 |title=Economic Integration, Monopoly Power and Productivity Growth without Scale Effects: Economic Integration and Productivity Growth |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rode.12200 |journal=Review of Development Economics |language=en |volume=20 |issue=1 |pages=152–163 |doi=10.1111/rode.12200}}</ref>

=== Evidence of Exercising Market Power ===
The primary determinations of demonstrating the market power of state monopolies are:

* The monopoly’s [[economic income]] within the market is characterized by disproportionate returns on its existing [[Asset|asset base]].<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=von Blanckenburg |first=Korbinian |last2=Neubert |first2=Milena |date=2015-04-19 |title=Monopoly Profit Maximization: Success and Economic Principles |url=https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecri/2015/875301/ |journal=Economics Research International |language=en |volume=2015 |pages=1–10 |doi=10.1155/2015/875301 |issn=2090-2123}}</ref>  This income would be excessive, if it were not a result of its inefficient operations.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last=Toole |first=Andrew A. |date=2010-09 |title=G. G. Djolov, The Economics of Competition: The Race to Monopoly. London: The Haworth Press, 2006, 322 pp., ISBN 0789027895 (SC), $47.50. |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/agr.20232 |journal=Agribusiness |volume=26 |issue=1 |pages=174–175 |doi=10.1002/agr.20232 |issn=0742-4477}}</ref>
* There is a substantial difference between best practice benchmarks within private organisations, and the state monopoly’s own productive efficiency.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last=Brown |first=John Howard |date=2009-06 |title=Henry W. de Jong and William G. Shepherd, eds., Pioneers of Industrial Organization: How the Economics of Competition and Monopoly Took Shape (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2007). |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1053837209090245 |journal=Journal of the History of Economic Thought |volume=31 |issue=2 |pages=243–244 |doi=10.1017/s1053837209090245 |issn=1053-8372}}</ref>  For example, a monopoly’s lack of productive efficiency could be resultant of [[Gold plating (project management)|gold plating of assets]].<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal |date=1949-02 |title=Eyring, Carl F. Essentials of physics. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1948. 422 p. $3.75 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730330167 |journal=Science Education |volume=33 |issue=1 |pages=85–86 |doi=10.1002/sce.3730330167 |issn=0036-8326}}</ref>
* The monopoly [[Cross subsidization|cross-subsidies]] incomes between loss-making activities and profitable activities.<ref name=":3" />  If the aforementioned occurs through production or pricing behaviors, this suggests usual competitive forces characteristic of competitive markets are not being applied to the state monopoly.<ref name=":2" />  A firm engaging in this practice under normal market conditions, would not survive in the [[Long run and short run|long run]].<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":2" />

⚫
== Examples ==
The most prominent example of the monopoly is law and the legitimate use of physical force.<ref>K. Grechenig, M. Kolmar, The State's Enforcement Monopoly and the Private Protection of Property, [http://ssrn.com/abstract=2404617 Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) 2014, vol. 170 (1), 5-23].</ref> In many countries, the [[postal system]] is run by the government with competition forbidden by law in some or all services. Also, government monopolies on [[public utilities]], [[telecommunications]] and [[Rail transport|railroads]] have historically been common, though recent decades have seen a strong [[privatization]] trend throughout the [[industrialized world]].
The most prominent example of the monopoly is law and the legitimate use of physical force.<ref>K. Grechenig, M. Kolmar, The State's Enforcement Monopoly and the Private Protection of Property, [http://ssrn.com/abstract=2404617 Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) 2014, vol. 170 (1), 5-23].</ref> In many countries, the [[postal system]] is run by the government with competition forbidden by law in some or all services. Also, government monopolies on [[public utilities]], [[telecommunications]] and [[Rail transport|railroads]] have historically been common, though recent decades have seen a strong [[privatization]] trend throughout the [[industrialized world]].


Line 13: Line 34:


Health care systems where the government controls the industry and specifically prohibits competition, such as [[Health care in Canada|in Canada]], are government monopolies.<ref>{{cite news |first=David |last=Gratzer |author-link=David Gratzer |title= The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care |url=http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html |date=Summer 2007|work=[[City Journal (New York)|City Journal]] |publisher= [[Manhattan Institute]] |access-date=29 December 2008 }}</ref>
Health care systems where the government controls the industry and specifically prohibits competition, such as [[Health care in Canada|in Canada]], are government monopolies.<ref>{{cite news |first=David |last=Gratzer |author-link=David Gratzer |title= The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care |url=http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html |date=Summer 2007|work=[[City Journal (New York)|City Journal]] |publisher= [[Manhattan Institute]] |access-date=29 December 2008 }}</ref>

== Reforms to Enhance Competition ==
Although state monopolies are sustained through [[Legislative instrument|legislative instruments]], many [[OECD|major economies]] have seen efforts to reform the disproportionate market powers they sustain, to therefore enhance competition.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal |last=Buehler |first=Stefan |last2=Gärtner |first2=Dennis |last3=Halbheer |first3=Daniel |date=2006-07 |title=Deregulating Network Industries: Dealing with Price-quality Tradeoffs |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11149-006-0011-8 |journal=Journal of Regulatory Economics |language=en |volume=30 |issue=1 |pages=99–115 |doi=10.1007/s11149-006-0011-8 |issn=0922-680X}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Butler |first=Graham |date=2021-09-01 |title=State Monopolies and the Free Movement of Goods in EU Law: Getting Beyond Obscure Clarity |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/leie2021020 |journal=Legal Issues of Economic Integration |volume=48 |issue=Issue 3 |pages=285–308 |doi=10.54648/leie2021020 |issn=1566-6573}}</ref> This has been enacted through [[Regulatory reform|regulatory reforms]] (removing statutory restrictions to market competition) and structural reforms (including separating contestable elements of a state monopoly, and creating third party rights of access to natural monopolies).<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Estache |first=A. |date=2001-05-01 |title=Privatization and Regulation of Transport Infrastructure in the 1990s |url=https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/wbro/16.1.85 |journal=The World Bank Research Observer |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=85–107 |doi=10.1093/wbro/16.1.85}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Naughton |first=Barry |date=1992-01 |title=Implications of the State Monopoly Over Industry and Its Relaxation |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/009770049201800102 |journal=Modern China |language=en |volume=18 |issue=1 |pages=14–41 |doi=10.1177/009770049201800102 |issn=0097-7004}}</ref>

Across all levels of governmental jurisdiction, both structural and regulatory reforms have been preferred, as it forces all [[Market participant|market participants]] (both state monopolies and private industry) to respond to competitive pressures, as opposed to legislated regulatory structures.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Haber |first=Hanan |date=2018-03-04 |title=Liberalizing markets, liberalizing welfare? Economic reform and social regulation in the EU's electricity regime |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13501763.2016.1249012 |journal=Journal of European Public Policy |language=en |volume=25 |issue=3 |pages=307–326 |doi=10.1080/13501763.2016.1249012 |issn=1350-1763}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite book |last=Alberto. |first=Asquer, |url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/1015849922 |title=Regulation of Infrastructure and Utilities : Public Policy and Management Issues |date=2018 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |isbn=978-3-319-67735-4 |oclc=1015849922}}</ref>This has been observed to result in more [[Market efficiency|optimal]] outcomes for an economy, as [[resource allocation]] is no longer directed by legislative instruments or [[Regulatory agency|regulatory authorities]].<ref>{{Cite journal |date=2019-09-24 |title=Doing Business 2020: Comparing Business Regulation in 190 Economies |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1440-2 |doi=10.1596/978-1-4648-1440-2}}</ref>     

Despite these reform efforts to promote competitive markets, regulatory and structural reforms struggle to overcome the entrenched market dominance of state monopolies.<ref>{{Cite journal |date=2019-09-24 |title=Doing Business 2020: Comparing Business Regulation in 190 Economies |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1440-2 |doi=10.1596/978-1-4648-1440-2}}</ref>  This is resultant of advantages enjoyed by state monopolies, including [[First-mover advantage|first mover advantages]].<ref name=":5" />   


==See also==
==See also==

Revision as of 02:07, 2 May 2022

In economics, a government monopoly or public monopoly is a form of coercive monopoly in which a government agency or government corporation is the sole provider of a particular good or service and competition is prohibited by law. It is a monopoly created by the government. It is usually distinguished from a government-granted monopoly, where the government grants a monopoly to a private individual or company.

A government monopoly may be run by any level of government — national, regional, local; for levels below the national, it is a local monopoly. The term state monopoly usually means a government monopoly run by the national government.

Characteristics of State Monopoly's

A state monopoly can be characterized by its commercial behavior not being effectively limited by the competitive pressures of private organisations.[1] [2] This occurs when its business activities exert an extensive influence within the market, can act autonomously of any competitors, and potential competitors are unable to successfully compete with in.[3][4]

These activities have a major influence on the operational environment, when its trading activities are not subject to competitive forces inherent within free trading markets.[5]  Therefore, this results in using its market dominance and influence to its advantage, in affecting how the market evolves over a long period of time.[6] This is especially the case if the state monopoly controls access to vital inputs essential to operating within the market.[7] 

The high degree of autonomy and ability to act independently in the market, has been demonstrated by the ability to alter relationships with its customers to its advantage, without negatively impacting its dominant market share.[8] [9] A state monopoly’s ability to increase the price or quantity of goods and services provided, without a relational change in its own operating costs (coupled with maintaining this price or quantity at above a market clearing rate), demonstrates its ability to disregard any competitive forces within the market.[10]  A state monopoly also retains the ability to reduce service value, or impose restrictive terms and conditions, without experiencing a loss in market share.[11]  

Market Power

A state monopoly’s market power and dominance can arise from its superior innovative capacity or greater performance.[12] However, any of the three following factors more broadly explain a state monopoly’s existence:

  • A natural monopoly endures within the market, whereby the most efficient form of meeting demand is through the creation of a single government entity.[13]
  • The state monopoly is legislated for, with legislative instruments precluding competitive activities regarding the provision of goods or services.[13]
  • A poorly contestable market exists, with competition previously operating inefficiently despite the lack of legal restrictions.[13][14]

Evidence of Exercising Market Power

The primary determinations of demonstrating the market power of state monopolies are:

  • The monopoly’s economic income within the market is characterized by disproportionate returns on its existing asset base.[15]  This income would be excessive, if it were not a result of its inefficient operations.[15][16]
  • There is a substantial difference between best practice benchmarks within private organisations, and the state monopoly’s own productive efficiency.[17]  For example, a monopoly’s lack of productive efficiency could be resultant of gold plating of assets.[18]
  • The monopoly cross-subsidies incomes between loss-making activities and profitable activities.[17]  If the aforementioned occurs through production or pricing behaviors, this suggests usual competitive forces characteristic of competitive markets are not being applied to the state monopoly.[16]  A firm engaging in this practice under normal market conditions, would not survive in the long run.[18][16]

Examples

The most prominent example of the monopoly is law and the legitimate use of physical force.[19] In many countries, the postal system is run by the government with competition forbidden by law in some or all services. Also, government monopolies on public utilities, telecommunications and railroads have historically been common, though recent decades have seen a strong privatization trend throughout the industrialized world.

In Nordic countries, some goods deemed harmful are distributed through a government monopoly. For example, in Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, government-owned companies have monopolies for selling alcoholic beverages. Casinos and other institutions for gambling might also be monopolized. In Finland, the government has a monopoly to operate slot machines (see Veikkaus).

Governments often create or allow monopolies to exist and grant them patents. This limits entry and allow the patent-holding firm to earn a monopoly profit from an invention.

Health care systems where the government controls the industry and specifically prohibits competition, such as in Canada, are government monopolies.[20]

Reforms to Enhance Competition

Although state monopolies are sustained through legislative instruments, many major economies have seen efforts to reform the disproportionate market powers they sustain, to therefore enhance competition.[21][22] This has been enacted through regulatory reforms (removing statutory restrictions to market competition) and structural reforms (including separating contestable elements of a state monopoly, and creating third party rights of access to natural monopolies).[23][24]

Across all levels of governmental jurisdiction, both structural and regulatory reforms have been preferred, as it forces all market participants (both state monopolies and private industry) to respond to competitive pressures, as opposed to legislated regulatory structures.[25] [26]This has been observed to result in more optimal outcomes for an economy, as resource allocation is no longer directed by legislative instruments or regulatory authorities.[27]     

Despite these reform efforts to promote competitive markets, regulatory and structural reforms struggle to overcome the entrenched market dominance of state monopolies.[28]  This is resultant of advantages enjoyed by state monopolies, including first mover advantages.[21]   

See also

References

  1. ^ The Regulation of the State in Competitive Markets in the EU. Hart Publishing. 2007. doi:10.5040/9781472560124.ch-004. ISBN 978-1-84113-497-0.
  2. ^ Gordon, Richard L. (1994), "Problems of Environmental Impacts and Regulating Business Practices", Regulation and Economic Analysis, Boston, MA: Springer US, pp. 129–147, ISBN 978-1-4613-6123-7, retrieved 2022-05-02
  3. ^ Berg, Sanford V.; Tschirhart, John (1989-01-27). Natural Monopoly Regulation. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-33039-8.
  4. ^ Weber Waller, Spencer (2006-09-01). "Book Review: Economics of Regulation and Antitrust, W. Kip Viscusi, Joseph E. Harrington, Jr., and John M. Vernon (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, England, 4th Edn, 2005)". World Competition. 29 (Issue 3): 504–504. doi:10.54648/woco2006035. ISSN 1011-4548. {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help)
  5. ^ Li, Shuai; Cai, Jiannan; Feng, Zhuo; Xu, Yifang; Cai, Hubo (2019-02). "Government contracting with monopoly in infrastructure provision: Regulation or deregulation?". Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review. 122: 506–523. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2019.01.002. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ Allen, G. C. (2013-11-05). Monopoly and Restrictive Practices (0 ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315016597. ISBN 978-1-136-51086-1.
  7. ^ Sibley, David S.; Doane, Michael J.; Williams, Michael A.; Tsai, Shu-Yi (2004-10). "Pricing Access to a Monopoly Input". Journal of Public Economic Theory. 6 (4): 541–555. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9779.2004.00179.x. ISSN 1097-3923. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. ^ Weber Waller, Spencer (2006-09-01). "Book Review: Economics of Regulation and Antitrust, W. Kip Viscusi, Joseph E. Harrington, Jr., and John M. Vernon (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, England, 4th Edn, 2005)". World Competition. 29 (Issue 3): 504–504. doi:10.54648/woco2006035. ISSN 1011-4548. {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help)
  9. ^ Grunichev, A.S.; Mierin, L.A.; Yagudin, R.Kh.; Fakhrutdinov, R.M. (2015-02-01). "Institutional Features of Interaction of the State and of Natural Monopolies". Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. doi:10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n1s3p73.
  10. ^ Peck, James; Rampal, Jeevant (2019-10). "Non-optimality of state by state monopoly pricing with demand uncertainty: An example". Economics Letters. 183: 108561. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2019.108561. ISSN 0165-1765. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. ^ Gordon. (1994). Regulation and economic analysis : a critique over two centuries (1st ed. 1994.). Springer-Science+Business Media, B.V.
  12. ^ Zhao, Bo (2012-05). "Monopoly, economic efficiency and unemployment". Economic Modelling. 29 (3): 586–600. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2012.01.001. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. ^ a b c W., Sharkey, William (1982). The Theory of Natural Monopoly. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-511-57181-7. OCLC 1127513607.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  14. ^ Davis, Colin; Hashimoto, Ken-ichi (2016-02). "Economic Integration, Monopoly Power and Productivity Growth without Scale Effects: Economic Integration and Productivity Growth". Review of Development Economics. 20 (1): 152–163. doi:10.1111/rode.12200. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  15. ^ a b von Blanckenburg, Korbinian; Neubert, Milena (2015-04-19). "Monopoly Profit Maximization: Success and Economic Principles". Economics Research International. 2015: 1–10. doi:10.1155/2015/875301. ISSN 2090-2123.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  16. ^ a b c Toole, Andrew A. (2010-09). "G. G. Djolov, The Economics of Competition: The Race to Monopoly. London: The Haworth Press, 2006, 322 pp., ISBN 0789027895 (SC), $47.50". Agribusiness. 26 (1): 174–175. doi:10.1002/agr.20232. ISSN 0742-4477. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  17. ^ a b Brown, John Howard (2009-06). "Henry W. de Jong and William G. Shepherd, eds., Pioneers of Industrial Organization: How the Economics of Competition and Monopoly Took Shape (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2007)". Journal of the History of Economic Thought. 31 (2): 243–244. doi:10.1017/s1053837209090245. ISSN 1053-8372. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  18. ^ a b "Eyring, Carl F. Essentials of physics. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1948. 422 p. $3.75". Science Education. 33 (1): 85–86. 1949-02. doi:10.1002/sce.3730330167. ISSN 0036-8326. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  19. ^ K. Grechenig, M. Kolmar, The State's Enforcement Monopoly and the Private Protection of Property, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) 2014, vol. 170 (1), 5-23.
  20. ^ Gratzer, David (Summer 2007). "The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care". City Journal. Manhattan Institute. Retrieved 29 December 2008.
  21. ^ a b Buehler, Stefan; Gärtner, Dennis; Halbheer, Daniel (2006-07). "Deregulating Network Industries: Dealing with Price-quality Tradeoffs". Journal of Regulatory Economics. 30 (1): 99–115. doi:10.1007/s11149-006-0011-8. ISSN 0922-680X. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  22. ^ Butler, Graham (2021-09-01). "State Monopolies and the Free Movement of Goods in EU Law: Getting Beyond Obscure Clarity". Legal Issues of Economic Integration. 48 (Issue 3): 285–308. doi:10.54648/leie2021020. ISSN 1566-6573. {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help)
  23. ^ Estache, A. (2001-05-01). "Privatization and Regulation of Transport Infrastructure in the 1990s". The World Bank Research Observer. 16 (1): 85–107. doi:10.1093/wbro/16.1.85.
  24. ^ Naughton, Barry (1992-01). "Implications of the State Monopoly Over Industry and Its Relaxation". Modern China. 18 (1): 14–41. doi:10.1177/009770049201800102. ISSN 0097-7004. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  25. ^ Haber, Hanan (2018-03-04). "Liberalizing markets, liberalizing welfare? Economic reform and social regulation in the EU's electricity regime". Journal of European Public Policy. 25 (3): 307–326. doi:10.1080/13501763.2016.1249012. ISSN 1350-1763.
  26. ^ Alberto., Asquer, (2018). Regulation of Infrastructure and Utilities : Public Policy and Management Issues. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-3-319-67735-4. OCLC 1015849922.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  27. ^ "Doing Business 2020: Comparing Business Regulation in 190 Economies". 2019-09-24. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1440-2. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  28. ^ "Doing Business 2020: Comparing Business Regulation in 190 Economies". 2019-09-24. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1440-2. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_monopoly&oldid=1085717231"