CHAPTER

13

Monopolistic Competition
and Oligopoly

What are the characteristics of monopolistic competition and oligopoly

market structure models?

Chapter Outline
13.1 Price and Output Under Monopolistic Competition
Determination of Market Equilibrium
Monopolistic Competition and Efficiency
Application 13.1 Ready-to-Regulate Ready-to-Eat
Application 13.2 Monopolistic Competition Is in the Eye of the Beholder
13.2 Oligopoly and the Cournot Model
The Cournot Model
Evaluation of the Cournot Model
Application 13.3 Strategic Interaction on Duopoly Air Routes
13.3 Other Oligopoly Models
The Stackelberg Model
The Dominant Firm Model
The Elasticity of the Dominant
Firms Demand Curve
Application 13.4 The Dynamics of the Dominant Firm Model
in Pharmaceutical Markets
13.4 Cartels and Collusion
Cartelization of a Competitive Industry
Application 13.5 Will the Internet Promote Competition or Cartelization?
Why Cartels Fail
Application 13.6 The Difficulty of Controlling Cheating
Application 13.7 The Rolex Cartel
Oligopolies and Collusion
Application 13.8 Firm Count, Market Concentration, and Successful
Collusion
The Case of OPEC

Learning Objectives
Explain how price and output are determined under monopolistic competition.
Understand the characteristics of oligopoly.
Explore several key non-cooperative oligopoly models: Cournot, Stackelberg,
and dominant firm.
Show how price and output are determined under the cooperative oligopoly
model of cartels.

C petition
ompetition and pure monopoly lie at opposite ends of the market spectrum. Comis characterized by many firms, unrestricted entry, and a homogeneous
product, while a pure monopoly is the sole producer of a product. Yet many real-world
market structures seem to be incompatible with either the competitive or the pure monopoly model. How do we analyze a market situation, then, where there are a dozen similar but slightly different brands of aspirin or only three companies supplying breakfast
cereals?
Falling between competition and pure monopoly are two other types of market structure: monopolistic competition and oligopoly. Monopolistic competition is closer to

355

356

Chapter Thirteen Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly

competition; it has many firms and unrestricted entry, like the competitive model, but
the firms products are differentiated. Fast-food chains, for example, may be viewed as
monopolistic competitors. They supply the same general product, fast food, but one
chains specialty burger, say the Big Mac, is different from anothers, such as the
Whopper. Oligopoly is more like pure monopoly; it is characterized by a small number of
large firms producing either a homogeneous product like steel or a differentiated product
like cars.
This chapter examines monopolistic competition and oligopoly market structure models,
noting the similarities with as well as the differences from perfect competition and pure monopoly. We also explore the case of cartels, whereby firms in an industry attempt to coordinate price and output decisions so as to act, in concert, as a pure monopoly and maximize
their joint profit.

13.1
monopolistic
competition

a market characterized by
unrestricted entry and exit
and a large number of
independent sellers
producing differentiated
products

differentiated
product

a product that consumers

view as different from
other similar products

Price and Output Under Monopolistic Competition

Monopolistic competition resembles both competition and monopoly. As with competition, entry into and exit from the industry are unrestricted, often resulting in a large number
of independent sellers. However, in contrast to competition, the firms do not produce a homogeneous product. Instead, their products are heterogeneous, or differentiated. A differentiated product is one that consumers view as different from other similar products. For
example, Wheaties and Cheerios are differentiated products in the general category of
breakfast cereals. Consumers are not indifferent among brands of cereals; they perceive differences in taste, crunchiness, caloric content, and nutritional value. In a competitive market, by contrast, consumers view the product of one firm as identical to (a perfect substitute
for) any rival firms product.
Product differentiation may reflect real differences among products (Special K cereal is
lower in fiber but higher in protein than Post Raisin Bran), or it may be based only on the
belief that there are differences (a three-year-old may perceive Fruit Loops to be sweeter than
Frosted Flakes but their sugar content is the same). The content of most aspirins is virtually
identical, but many consumers believe Bayer to be superior to other brands. In blind taste
tests, many consumers claiming to have strong preferences for Coca-Cola over Pepsi cannot
select their preferred brand. This outcome doesnt affect the theory, however; the important
point is that consumers, or at least a substantial number of them, believe the products to be
different.
There are many aspects to product differentiation. For example, products may be differentiated by physical features such as function, design, or quality, or by advertising, brand
names, logos (such as the rainbow-hued apple on Macintosh computers), or packaging (such
as Oscar Mayer Lunchables). They may also be differentiated by conditions related to the
sale, such as credit terms, availability, or congeniality of sales help, location (have you ever
shopped at a nearby 7-Eleven because of its convenience?), or service. As this list suggests,
many of the goods you purchase are differentiated products. Clothing, drugs, cosmetics,
restaurant meals, and many types of food products are prominent examples.

Determination of Market Equilibrium

The first step in analyzing monopolistic competition is understanding the demand curve that
confronts a single firm. When a firm sells a differentiated product with close substitutes, it has
some degree of monopoly powerhence, the monopolistic in monopolistic competition. In
other words, the demand curve confronting the firm is downward-sloping. However, the degree of monopoly power will typically be slight because of the availability of close substitutes.

Price and Output Under Monopolistic Competition

357

For instance, because McDonalds is the only firm selling Big Macs, the quantity of Big Macs
sold is unlikely to fall to zero if McDonalds charges a slightly higher price than its competitors. But at a higher price for Big Macs, many consumers might switch to a Burger King
Whopper or a Wendys Double Bacon Cheeseburger. Thus, the demand curve facing each firm
in a monopolistically competitive market is downward-sloping but fairly elastic.
Assume that the market for jeans is monopolistically competitive. In Figure 13.1a, we
show the demand curve, D, for one firm in this market, Tight Jeans. The demand curves
position depends strongly on the prices of other jeans, as well as the variety available.
Thus, in drawing the demand curve for Tight Jeans, we assume that the number of other
firms in the industry is fixed. Furthermore, we assume that the prices charged by other firms
do not change when Tight Jeans varies its price. (Changes in the prices charged by other
firms would cause the demand curve for Tight Jeans to shift.) The basis for assuming other
firms prices as given is that Tight Jeans represents only a small part of the total jeans market. While a lower price for its jeans will cause some customers to shift from other brands,
the loss for each brand will be small enough to be unnoticeable, or at least not to provoke a
reaction.
Given the behavior of other firms in the market, lets consider how Tight Jeans determines price and output. Because its demand curve is downward-sloping, marginal revenue is
less than price, and profit maximization calls for operating where marginal revenue equals
marginal cost. If the firm has the cost curves shown in Figure 13.1a, it produces an output of
Q1 and charges a price of P1. The resulting economic profit equals the shaded area.
In terms of the diagram, the position of the monopolistically competitive firm resembles
that of a monopoly. However, there are two important differences. First, Tight Jeans is only
one among a number of firms producing a similar product, and so the demand curve is not

Monopolistic Competition
(a) In the short run, a firm in a monopolistically competitive market may make a profit.
(b) Attracted by the prospect of profits, new firms enter the market. As entry continues,
the demand curve for existing firms shifts downward until a zero-profit, long-run
equilibrium is attained.

Figure
Figure 13.1
11.2

Dollars
per unit

Dollars
per unit
MC
MC

AC
P1
P2

AC

D
D
MR

MR
0

Q1

Output
(a)

Q2

Output
(b)

358

Chapter Thirteen Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly

the market demand curve for jeans; it is only the demand curve for jeans produced by one
firm. Second, under monopolistic competition, as distinct from pure monopoly, entry into
the market is unrestricted. When existing firms are making profits, other firms are attracted
to the market. Thus, the equilibrium in Figure 13.1a cannot be a long-run equilibrium because profits are being realized. It could represent a short-run equilibrium, but with the entry
of other firms, the demand curves facing each existing firm will shift.
Under monopolistic competition, long-run equilibrium is attained as a result of firms entering
(or leaving) the industry in response to profit incentives. In the present example, entry continues to occur until firms in the market are no longer making economic profits. How
will the entry of other firms affect existing firms like Tight Jeans in Figure 13.1a? New
firms will increase the industrys total output, as well as provide for a wider variety of differentiated products. Both of these effects shift existing firms demand curves downward,
leading to a general reduction in the industrys level of prices and, from that, lower profits. (It is also possible that entry will lead to higher prices for some inputs, causing cost
curves to shift upward as in an increasing-cost competitive industry, but we will ignore
this possibility.) Entry and output adjustments by existing firms will continue until economic profits are zero; only then will there be no further incentive for other firms to
enter the market.
Figure 13.1b shows a position of long-run equilibrium for Tight Jeans. The firms demand
curve has shifted down to D, a position where it is just tangent to the average cost curve at
point T. (If the demand curve intersected the average cost curve, then there would be a
range of output over which profit would be positive; the final equilibrium must be a tangency.) The profit-maximizing output is now Q2 with a price of P2; at this price and output
Tight Jeans makes zero economic profit.1 All rival firms will be in a similar situation, making
zero economic profit in long-run equilibrium. Their cost and demand curves, however, need
not be identical because they are not producing exactly the same products. For this reason,
there may be a range of prices prevailing in equilibrium. Given the similarity among the differentiated products within a monopolistically competitive market, prices are likely to vary
over a small range. A Big Mac and a Whopper need not be the exact same price, for example, but it would be surprising if the prices differed substantially.
Firms in a monopolistically competitive industry compete not only on price, but also by
variations in their products intended to attract customers. The range of differentiated products in a market is not fixed, and firms often introduce new variations they believe will be
profitable. For instance, when Coca-Cola introduced its caffeine-free Coke, it was betting
that enough consumers wanted to limit caffeine intake for the line to be profitable. The
company was right, and for a time it found itself in the position shown in Figure 13.1a, making a profit. But once it was recognized that this was a profitable way to differentiate cola
drinks, other firms followed suit. Coca-Colas profit eroded as the market moved toward a
long-run equilibrium.2
Note that the long-run equilibrium position is similar to both the competitive and the
monopolistic equilibria. As with perfect competition, each firms demand curve is tangent to
its long-run average cost curve, so economic profit is zero. As with monopoly, the demand
curve is downward-sloping, so price exceeds marginal cost at the equilibrium. However, be1

It is not a coincidence that marginal revenue and marginal cost are equal at the output where the demand curve is
tangent to the average cost curve; it is a geometric necessity. Try depicting the equilibrium with total revenue and
total cost curves to see why.
2
Not all new product variations, of course, are successful. For example, McDonalds introduced the McLean burger
during the 1980s, hoping that it would satisfy the tastes of health-conscious fast-food consumers. The McLean
burger never proved profitable and came to be known as the McFlopper by industry analysts.

Price and Output Under Monopolistic Competition

359

cause the firms demand curve is relatively elastic, price will normally not exceed marginal
cost by very much. For instance, demand elasticities for monopolistically competitive firms
can easily exceed 10. If the firms demand elasticity is 15, we can use the markup formula explained in Chapter 11 [(P  MC)/P  1/] to see that when profit is being maximized, the
markup would be only about 7 percent of price.

Monopolistic Competition and Efficiency

excess capacity

the result of firms failing

to produce at lowest
possible average cost

In Chapter 10, we saw that a competitive industry tends to be efficient, while in Chapter 11
we saw that a monopoly is inefficient (produces a deadweight loss). Because monopolistic
competition combines elements of both monopoly and competition, it is natural to consider
whether it is an efficient market structure, like competition, or inefficient, like monopoly.
Monopolistic competition has been charged with inefficiency in two respects. We can
examine both with the aid of Figure 13.2, which shows a monopolistically competitive firm
in long-run equilibrium (ignore the D* demand curve for now). The first aspect of the alleged inefficiency involves the fact that the firm does not operate at the minimum point on
its long-run average cost curve. In the diagram, the firm operates at point A, where average
cost per unit is greater than at point S. Every firm in the monopolistically competitive industry is in a similar position. By contrast, firms in a competitive industry operate at the minimum points on their long-run AC curves. When firms fail to produce at lowest possible
average cost, they are sometimes said to have excess capacity.
A failure to operate at minimum average cost is potentially inefficient because it is possible to produce the same industry output at a lower cost. To verify this notion, suppose that
there are currently 10 firms like the one in Figure 13.2, each producing 100 units of output
at an average cost of $15. The total cost of producing the 1,000 units would therefore be
$15,000 (10  100  $15). If the average total cost is at a minimum of, say, $11 per unit at
an output of 125 units per firm, then 8 firms could produce the same 1,000 total output for
less total cost. The total cost would now be $11,000 (8  125  $11).
A monopolistically competitive market has also been alleged to be inefficient because it
produces the wrong total output from a social perspective. (Note that in discussing excess
capacity we were concerned with an unchanged total output.) Each firm is producing an
output where price is greater than marginal cost. This condition suggests, by analogy to the

Figure
Figure 13.2
13.2
Alleged Deadweight Loss
of Monopolistic Competition
The monopolistic competitors demand curve is D
when it alone varies price; the demand curve D*
is relevant when all firms simultaneously change
output. The deadweight loss is shown by area
ARB; similar areas for the other monopolistically
competitive firms can be added to this area to
obtain the total deadweight loss due to restricted
output in this market.

Dollars
per unit
AC

MC
A

P
R

D*
0

MR
Output

360

Chapter Thirteen Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly

case of pure monopoly, that additional output is worth more to consumers than the cost of
producing it. There is a deadweight loss from producing too little.
Figure 13.2 shows a monopolistically competitive firm producing an output of Q where
price, AQ, is greater than marginal cost, BQ. It is tempting to apply the same reasoning we
did in the case of pure monopoly and argue that the magnitude of the deadweight loss equals
triangular area ACB. By performing the same calculation for each firm in the industry and
adding up the results, we could arrive at the deadweight loss for the entire monopolistically
competitive industry. Tempting as it is, this procedure is incorrect and overstates the industrys total potential deadweight loss.
To understand this, consider the firm in Figure 13.2 expanding output to the apparently
efficient point C on its demand curve. Recall that the firms demand curve is drawn on the
assumption that rival firms keep their prices unchanged. This is the appropriate assumption
if we are examining a price change by one firm alone. However, the prospective inefficiency here is that all firms in this industry are producing too little. If all expand their output, the demand curve confronting each firm must shift downward. Consequently, it is not
desirable for every firm to expand output to the point where marginal cost intersects its initial demand curve, since that curve shifts in reaction to output and price changes by the
other firms.
There is a complicated interdependence between individual firms demand curves in an
industry composed of several firms, and that interdependence must be accounted for in
evaluating efficiency. (Note that this problem did not arise with pure monopoly because
there was only one firm in the industry, or with a competitive market where we worked
with industry, and not firm, demand curves.) One way to account for the interdependence
is to draw the demand curve confronting the firm when it and all other firms in the industry simultaneously expand output. This demand curve, shown as D* in Figure 13.2, captures the interdependence among the firms and shows that the marginal value, or price, of
the firms product falls more rapidly when rival firms are also producing more units. Point R
now represents the efficient output of this firm, and this is consistent with every other firm
also having expanded output to the point where their price is equal to marginal cost. We
can thus sum the areas like ARB to arrive at the total deadweight loss resulting from each
firm producing at a point where price exceeds marginal cost. Of course, the important point
is that the industrys total deadweight loss is smaller than if we erroneously sum up the
areas like ACB.
While monopolistic competition has been charged with being inefficient, there are three
reasons why government intervention probably is not warranted. First, any deadweight loss
associated with monopolistic competition is likely to be small, due to the presence of competing firms and free entry. Put differently, each firms demand curve is relatively elastic, and
so the excess of price over marginal cost is typically small. In the case of pure monopoly, this
is not necessarily true. (Note that this excess, P  MC, is the height of the deadweight loss
triangle, AB, in Figure 13.2.) For the same reason, the cost associated with excess capacity
will also tend to be small.
Second, and, perhaps, most important, any possible inefficiency cost must be weighed
against the product variety produced by monopolistic competition and the benefits of such
variety to consumers. Similarly, it is probably desirable for firms to continue to have a dynamic incentive to introduce new differentiated products that better satisfy consumer tastes,
and that incentive could be undermined by regulation.
Third, any sort of intervention has its own costs, which must also be balanced against the
potential gain from expanding output. The costs of operating a regulatory agency may exceed the noted deadweight loss associated with monopolistic competition. Moreover, regulators can find it difficult to obtain the information necessary to achieve a more efficient
output and mistakes may be made.

Price and Output Under Monopolistic Competition

Application
Application

13.1

Ready-to-Regulate Ready-to-Eat

n the early 1970s, the Federal Trade Commission

(FTC) initiated antitrust proceedings against the
three leading ready-to-eat (RTE) cereal manufacturers.
The three manufacturers accounted for more than 80
percent of RTE cereal sales and had been instrumental
in increasing the number of nationally marketed brands
from 27 in 1950 to 74 in 1971. The FTC argued that the
product proliferation effectively precluded new entry
and relied upon extensive advertising aimed at overly
impressionable customers (kids) to differentiate cereals.
While the typical industry devoted less than 1 percent
of its sales revenue to advertising, the RTE cereal industry allocated more than 11 percent and ranked among
the top five industries in terms of advertising intensiveness as of 1977. This is what one would expect from a
monopolistically competitive market in which firms
compete by varying (and advertising) the nature of their
products in an effort to attract customers. The FTC proposed breaking up the three top RTE manufacturers into
eight more evenly matched firms, regulating industry expenditures on advertising, and requiring licensing of significant cereal formulas and trademarks.

Application

13.2

361

Although the FTC alleged that there was little fundamental difference between RTE cereal brands, manufacturers argued that the grain bases, shapes, flavors,
nutritional values, and so on of the various brands reflected vigorous competition and the desire to better satisfy consumers preferences for diversified breakfast fare.
Furthermore, manufacturers argued that the pricing discretion afforded to any individual brand by product proliferation was minorthat is, the elasticity of demand
for any particular brand was fairly high.
After spending several million dollars to prosecute
the case, the FTC dropped its proceedings in 1982. The
reversal partly resulted from the election of Ronald
Reagan as president in 1980 and the appointment of
more pro-business commissioners to the FTC. Moreover, the rapid growth in the late 1970s of health-oriented cereals that featured ingredients such as oat bran
and were marketed by smaller firms, as well as growth in
the number of house brand cereals sold by supermarkets, openly contradicted the FTC claims that product
proliferation by the major cereal makers deterred new
entrants to the industry.

Monopolistic Competition Is
in the Eye of the Beholder

R efractive
eye surgery has become very popular in
recent years. Nearly 1 million Americans undergo
3

the procedure each year in order to correct their vision.

As the refractive eye surgery industry has grown, it has
evidenced all the characteristics of monopolistic competition. Entry and exit into the industry is relatively unrestricted. There are a large number of independent sellers

3
This application is based on Randy Tucker, Cost Cuts Debated by Doctors: Surgery Often On Sale, Cincinnati Enquirer, November 15, 2000,
p. B10; Turning Surgery Into a Commodity, New York Times, December 9, 2000, pp. B1 and B4; and Imperfect Vision, ABCNEWS.com,
July 31, 2001.

who do not produce a homogeneous product. For example, under the Lasik procedure, a surgeon creates a flap
in the eye, then uses a laser on the area underneath to
correct the vision. PRK, another form of laser eye
surgery, consists of a surgeon using a laser on the eyes
surface to correct vision. Some patients opt for corneal
rings, prescription inserts that are intended to correct
mild nearsightedness.
The various sellers of refractive eye surgery services
tout the advantages of their differentiated product over
what rivals are offering. It has been estimated that
surgery centers are spending $200 per each eye corrected
on advertising. For example, TLC Laser Eye Centers rely
on Tiger Woods to advertise their service. However, Dr.

362

Chapter Thirteen Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly

Penny Asbell, Director of the Cornea Service and Refractive Surgery Center in New York, urges prospective
customers to be cautious when evaluating such promotions. Asbell notes that, Just because someone is advertising doesnt necessarily mean that theyre more
qualified. She recommends relying on a surgeon associated with an academic medical center, such as a teaching hospital or one that is well known for advanced
technology.
Dr. Steve Updegraff, director of Updegraff Lasik Vision, recommends choosing a doctor belonging to the
American College of Surgeons. The credentialling
process there is pretty steep; also that group is diligent
about advancing the field of surgery. Dr. Updegraff says
that when something goes wrong during the flap cutting

13.2
oligopoly

an industry structure
characterized by a few
firms producing all or
most of the output of
some good that may or
may not be differentiated

stage of Lasik, some less experienced surgeons may go

ahead and perform the tissue removal anyway, instead of
stopping surgery and trying again at a later date. He says
that this is one reason for poor results.
Finally, sellers of refractive eye surgery services appear to also compete on price and respond to profitbased incentives for entry and exit. Whereas, the cost
of laser eye surgery was as high as $6,000 in the late
1990s, it had fallen to less than $1,000 for surgery on
both eyes as of 2002. Lasik Vision has opened centers
across the United States in recent years. When Lasik
Vision entered the market in Cincinnati, Ohio, with
an introductory offer of $1,000 for both eyes, its chief
existing rival in town, LCA-Vision, immediately
matched its price.

Oligopoly and the Cournot Model

Oligopoly is an industry structure characterized by a few firms producing all, or most, of the
output of some good that may or may not be differentiated. The number of competitors is
the distinguishing feature of this market structure. With competition (and monopolistic
competition), there are many sellers, whereas with pure monopoly there is only one seller.
Oligopoly falls between these extremes. In the United States, there are a number of examples of oligopolistic industries, including aluminum, cellular phone service, network television, and military aircraft.
When there are a small number of competitors, their market decisions will exhibit strong
mutual interdependence, and this characteristic of oligopoly is what makes analysis of it difficult. By mutual interdependence, we mean that a firms actions (setting price, for example)
have a noticeable effect on its rivals, and so they are likely to react in some way. In this way,
the firms are interdependent. As an example, suppose that General Motors (GM) is considering a 10 percent cut in the price of its Buick line. This action will have a significant effect
on Ford and DaimlerChrysler. If they maintain their prices, they will lose sales to GM. If
they cut prices, they can avoid losing sales, but they will make a smaller profit per car. To
complicate matters further, Ford and DaimlerChrysler have the options of cutting prices by
more or less than the 10 percent cut by GM.
Now consider what this situation means for GM: the results of its own 10 percent price
cut cannot be predicted without knowing how its rivals will respond. For instance, GMs
sales will rise more if Ford and DaimlerChrysler maintain their prices than they would if
those companies also reduce their cars prices. GM must base its decisions on some guess, or
conjecture, about its competitors responses. What guess should it make? The problem for
GM, and also for us as we try to understand the market, is that it is far from clear which prediction is appropriate. The market functions differently depending on which predictions
about responses each firm makes and acts on. Furthermore, over time the firm may learn
that some of its predictions were wrong and alter its behavior accordingly. But its competitors will also be learning and trying to outguess it. Complex questions of strategy arise in this
setting.

Oligopoly and the Cournot Model

363

In view of this complicated interdependence, it is perhaps not surprising that we do not

have one agreed-upon theory of oligopoly. In fact, dozens of models have been suggested.
Some of them appear to successfully explain the behavior in some industries over some periods of time, but none appears to explain all oligopolistic behavior. We will discuss a few of
the more important models that have been developed, but be forewarned that determining
when each model applies (if at all) is often difficult.
In addition to smallness in the numbers of competitors, there are two other features of
oligopoly that are likely to have a bearing on how the market performs. First is whether the
product is homogeneous or differentiated. Some oligopolies produce a homogeneous product, like aluminum or steel, while others produce differentiated products, like diapers or airline service in smaller city-pair markets. When the product is differentiated, advertising
(which we will discuss in more detail in the following chapter) is likely to become a more
important influence in the market.
A second important oligopoly feature is the nature of barriers to entry, if any. Oligopolistic firms are often thought to realize economic profits, and whenever there are profits there is
incentive for entry. Something must impede entry for profits to persist. Moreover, just as in
the case of monopoly (see Chapter 11), potential entry can influence oligopolists pricing
behavior.

The Cournot Model

duopoly

an industry with just two

firms

Cournot model

a model of oligopoly that

assumes each firm
determines its output based
on the assumption that
any other firms will not
change their outputs

We begin our discussion of oligopoly by considering one of the earliest models, introduced
by French economist Augustin Cournot in 1838.4 Cournot considered a duopoly, an industry with just two firms. To illustrate his analysis, Cournot assumed that the two firms sold
water from the only two mineral springs in the area. To follow tradition, we will consider
two firms that sell bottled water, Artesia and Utopia. No entry of new firms is possible. The
bottled water is a homogeneous product, so that only one price can prevail in the market;
that price is determined by the combined output of the two firms in conjunction with the
market (industry) demand curve for bottled water. To further simplify the analysis, we assume that both firms have constant and equal long-run marginal cost curves, and that the
market demand curve is linear.
The key element in the Cournot model is that each firm determines its output based on the
assumption that any other firms will not change their outputs. This assumption (and it may be an
unreasonable one, as we will see) allows us to determine the market price and output. To see
how we can do this, consider Figure 13.3, where the market demand and marginal revenue
curves are shown as D and MR, and each firms marginal cost (MC) and average total cost
(ATC) curves are assumed to be constant. Now lets examine Artesias output decision.
Artesias most profitable output will depend on how much Utopia is producing, so first we
consider how much Artesia will produce for each possible output of Utopia.
Suppose that Utopia produces nothing. In the Cournot model, Artesia assumes Utopia
will continue to produce nothing whatever output Artesia chooses. In this situation, Artesia confronts the entire market demand curve and behaves as a monopolist, producing QM
(48), where Artesias marginal revenue curve (the same here as the market marginal revenue curve) intersects marginal cost. In the analysis that follows, it will be helpful to remember that with linear demand and constant marginal cost, the marginal revenue curve
intersects marginal cost at an output half as large as that at which marginal cost intersects
the demand curve. In this case, Artesias output of 48 is half as large as the output that

Augustin Cournot, Rchrches sur les Principes Mathmatiques de la Thorie des Richesses (Paris, 1838), trans.
Nathaniel Bacon (New York: Macmillan, 1897).

364

Chapter Thirteen Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly

Dollars
per unit

Figure
Figure 13.3
13.3
The Cournot Model
When Utopias output is 32, the vertical
axis relevant for Artesias output decision
is BQU, and Artesias demand curve is the
BD portion of the market demand curve.
Artesias marginal revenue curve is then
MR(32), and its most profitable output is
32, so combined output is 64.

Monopoly price and quantity

Cournot price and quantity
Competitive price
and quantity
MC = ATC
MR
MR(32)

QU

QM

(32)

(48)

QU + QA
(64)

QC
(96)

Output

would be produced under competition, 96, as shown by the intersection of demand and
marginal cost.
Artesias output depends on how much Utopia produces. We have just seen that Artesia
will produce 48 units when Utopia produces nothing. Alternatively, suppose that Utopia
produces 32 units. Then how much will Artesia produce? Artesia believes Utopia will continue to produce 32 units regardless of how much Artesia produces (and thus regardless of
what happens to the market price, which will be determined by the two firms combined
output). At each price, Artesia can sell 32 fewer units than total quantity demanded as
shown by the market demand curve. So Artesias demand curve is the market demand curve
shifted leftward by 32 units. This idea can be shown in a simpler, yet equivalent fashion by
moving Artesias vertical axis rightward by 32 units without repositioning the demand
curve. Taking the origin for Artesia now to be QU, the demand curve confronting Artesia is
the BD portion of the original demand curve. This makes sense. If Artesia produces nothing,
total output will be 32 (Utopias output), price will be BQU, and as Artesia produces and
adds to Utopias output, price will fall along the BD portion of the demand curve.
Confronted with the demand curve BD, Artesias marginal revenue curve is MR(32), the
marginal revenue curve when Utopias output is fixed at 32. In this situation, Artesia produces where its marginal revenue curve, MR(32), intersects marginal cost; thus Artesias
output is 32 units, while the total output of the two firms is 64 units. Note that Artesias
output is half the difference between the competitive output (96) and Utopias output (32);
this is because MR(32) intersects MC halfway between the new vertical axis for Artesia and
the output at which MC intersects the demand curve.
We can now see how Artesias output depends on how much Utopia produces. For each
possible output by Utopia, Artesia will produce half the difference between Utopias output
and the output at which MC intersects D (96 units). If Utopia produces nothing, Artesia
will produce 48; if Utopia produces 10, Artesia will produce 43; if Utopia produces 20, Artesia will produce 38; and so on. Now that we know what Artesia will do, what about Utopia?
Because the firms have the same costs and because we also make the Cournot assumption for
Utopia (that is, it will take Artesias output as a given in determining its output), the same

Oligopoly and the Cournot Model

reaction curve

a relationship showing
one firms most profitable
output as a function of
the output chosen by
other firms

365

relationship holds for Utopia. In other words, Utopia will produce 48 units if Artesia produces nothing, 43 if Artesia produces 10, and so on.
So where will the market equilibrium be? Equilibrium is reached when neither firm has
any incentive to change its output. This occurs when each firm is producing the output it
prefers given the other firms output. In this example, that occurs only when both firms produce 32 units. To check this, we note in Figure 13.3 that Artesias most profitable output
when Utopia produces 32 units is also 32 units. Because Utopia has the same marginal cost
curve, it will also maximize profit by producing 32 units when Artesia produces 32. Neither
firm has any incentive to change its output of 32 when the other firm is producing 32. (The
implication of equal output here arises because the firms have the same costs; if costs differ,
outputs will differ, but the reasoning remains the same.)
There is another way to arrive at this conclusionby using reaction curves. Each firms
reaction curve shows its profit-maximizing output for each possible output by the other firm.
In fact, we have already explained the relationships above. In Figure 13.4, RA is Artesias reaction curve. It shows that Artesia will produce 48 units when Utopias output (measured
on the vertical axis) is zero, will produce 36 when Utopias output is 24, and so on. Utopias
reaction curve is RU; it is the same relationship as for Artesia but looks different in the graph
because the firms outputs are on different axes. We can see how equilibrium can be attained
in a step-by-step process, although this should not be thought of as the actual adjustment
process, because if both firms started producing 32, there would be no reason for either to
change. To begin, if Utopia produces nothing, then Artesia produces 48. When Artesia produces 48, however, we can see by looking directly above 48 to Utopias reaction curve that
it will produce 24. With Utopia producing 24, Artesia would prefer to change its output to
36. And with Artesia producing 36, Utopia will produce 30. The adjustments follow the arrows, and the firms are both not satisfied with their outputs until they reach the point where
each is producing 32 units. Put differently, the Cournot equilibrium occurs at the intersection
of the two reaction curves.

Figure
Figure 13.4
13.4
The Cournot Model with Reaction Curves
Each reaction curve shows one firms most
profitable output as a function of the other
firms output. For example, when Artesias
output is 48, RU shows 24 to be Utopias most
profitable output. The Cournot equilibrium is
shown by the intersection of the reaction
curves, with each firm producing its most
profitable output given the output of the
other firm.

Output
of Utopia
96

RA

48

32
30
24
RU

32 36

48

96

Output
of Artesia

366

Chapter Thirteen Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly

As depicted in Figure 13.3, the Cournot equilibrium involves a combined output of 64

units by the two firms in the industry. It is important to note that this amount is greater
than the pure monopoly output (48 units) and less than the competitive output (96 units).
A total output lying between that of pure monopoly and competition is characteristic of
most oligopoly models. Some other things are clear from inspection of Figure 13.3. Price exceeds marginal cost, and, because average cost equals marginal cost, price is above average
cost and both firms realize economic profit. However, their combined profit is less than the
maximum combined profit possible if the firms together produce the monopoly output. This
fact is significantit means that if the firms colluded instead of behaving independently as
Cournot duopolists, they could increase their combined profit.

Evaluation of the Cournot Model

Is it reasonable for a firm to assume, in choosing its output, that the output of a rival remains
constant? Not in the duopoly setting we have just studied, if the market is still adjusting toward the Cournot equilibrium. Away from the Cournot equilibriumthat is, when Artesia
changes its output on the assumption that Utopia will keep its output fixedit will observe
that the assumption is wrong: Utopia does change its output in response to Artesias actions.
Yet at each step in the adjustment process, the firms continue to behave based on an assumption they can see is wrong. Thus, the key assumption of the Cournot model, that each
firm takes the other firms outputs as given, appears to be suspect if the market is still adjusting toward equilibrium.
While this criticism is significant, there are some things that can be said in defense of the
Cournot model. First, note that if the equilibrium is somehow established, firms will not see
the assumption invalidated. When Artesia sees Utopia producing 32 units, and decides on
32 for itself, based on the assumption that Utopia will not change its output, it will be right.
The assumption becomes implausible only for adjustments to the equilibrium.
Second, the assumption is more plausible the larger the number of firms in the market.
(The Cournot model can readily accommodate any number of firms greater than two and, in
general, the greater the number of firms, the larger the total industry output as a percentage
of the competitive output.) With 10 equal-sized firms, if one changes its output by, say, 10
percent, it will represent only a 1 percent change in industry output, which will have a small
effect on price. The other firms may not associate such a small price change with the actions
of one firm because other things, like shifting market demand, can also affect price.

Application

13.3

Strategic Interaction
on Duopoly Air Routes

A American
1993 study examined the interaction between
and United Airlines over 19841988 on
16 Chicago-based air routes on which the two carriers
could reasonably be characterized as a symmetric duopoly.5 On these routes, the two carriers held a combined
market share of over 90 percent, accounted for more
5

James A. Brander and Anming Zhang, Dynamic Oligopoly Behavior

in the Airline Industry, International Journal of Industrial Organization,
11 (1993), pp. 407435.

than one-third of the total passenger traffic each, and

had very similar costs.
The study found that Cournot behavior most frequently characterized the interaction between the two
air carriers on the selected duopoly routes. The Cournot
outcome, however, did not always prevail. Changes in
underlying costs and market demand influenced the
strategic interaction between the two carriers. For example, a strike in 1985 by the pilots of United Airlines triggered an apparent price war and an outcome more

Other Oligopoly Models

consistent with competition than with the Cournot
model. The strike appeared to have increased the uncertainty each firm had (and thereby assumptions it made)
about its rivals costs and strategic intentions.
The study acknowledged that some other factors may
explain why, in terms of total output, the most frequently observed market outcome (consistent with
Cournot behavior) lies between the pure monopoly and
the perfectly competitive outcome. For example, because American and United Airlines interact in more
than one market (that is, on different routes), such multiple points of contact may serve to restrain competition
between the two firms on any given route. In other
words, American may be wary of aggressively expanding

13.3

367
output and lowering price on the ChicagoIndianapolis
route for fear that United may retaliate in kind across all
the routes on which the two airlines compete.
On the other hand, while only two carriers may operate on any particular route, there is always the possibility of new entry. Just as we saw with monopoly in
Chapter 11, the possibility of entry can strongly affect
the operation of a market, and the same is certainly true
in oligopoly markets. If American and United recognize
that entry will occur if the price rises too much above
cost, it may influence their output decisions. The threat
of entry thus serves to push the observed market output
away from the pure monopoly outcome and closer to the
competitive outcome.

Other Oligopoly Models

The Cournot model serves as a good introduction to oligopoly models by highlighting the
importance of how firms handle the mutual interdependence in such markets. In this section we explore two other models of oligopoly. Although they by no means represent all the
models that have been suggested, they do indicate some different assumptions a firm in an
oligopoly market might make about rival firms actions.

The Stackelberg Model

Stackelberg
model

a model of oligopoly in
which a leader firm selects
its output first, taking the
reactions of follower firms
into account

residual demand
curve

a firms demand curve

based on the assumption
that the firm knows how
much output rivals will
produce for each output
the firm may choose

Recall that in the Cournot model each firm takes other firms outputs as constant in determining its own output. We saw, however, that this assumption may not be valid. So now
suppose that in the same two-firm example, we have one firm that continues to behave in
the naive Cournot fashion, while the other firm wises up and realizes that it should not assume its rivals output doesnt change. In fact, lets assume that Artesia realizes how Utopia
chooses its output (from its reaction curve) and see whether Artesia can use that information to realize greater profit. Artesia is the leader firm in this case; it chooses its best output
taking Utopias reaction into account. Utopia is the follower firm; it selects output in exactly the same way as in the Cournot model, by taking the output of the other firm as given.
This is the essence of the Stackelberg model: a leader firm selects its output first, taking the
reactions of naive Cournot follower firms into account.6
Figure 13.5 illustrates the Stackelberg model as it operates for Artesia and Utopia. The
marginal cost, average total cost, and market demand curves are shown in Figure 13.5a; they
are the same as in Figure 13.3. Figure 13.5a shows how Artesia selects its output. Given
Artesias output, Utopias output can be read off its reaction curve, RU, reproduced directly
below in Figure 13.5b. Remember that we are assuming that Artesia knows Utopias reaction curve, so that it knows how much output Utopia will produce for each output Artesia
may choose.
Our first task is to determine Artesias demand curve under these conditions. This will
not be the market demand curve, but what is referred to as a residual demand curve, which
shows how much Artesia can sell at each price. The amount that Artesia can sell at each
6

Heinrich von Stackelberg, Marktform und Gleichewicht (Vienna: Julius Springer, 1934). As with the Cournot
model, the Stackelberg model can readily be adapted to account for a larger number of firms.

368

Chapter Thirteen Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly

Dollars
per unit

Figure
Figure 13.5
13.5
The Stackelberg Model
When Artesia knows that Utopia will choose
output as in the Cournot model, Artesia
confronts the demand curve SCD, and its most
profitable output is 48. Utopia will produce 24,
so total output is 72, higher than when both
firms behave as Cournot duopolists.

(48)

(24)

E
C
MC

MR

0
Output
of Utopia 48

48

(a)

96

Output

96

Output
of Artesia

24
RU

48
(b)

price is less than total quantity demanded (as shown by the market demand curve) by the
amount that Utopia produces. For example, suppose that Artesia produces zero. From
Utopias reaction curve, Artesia knows that Utopia will then produce 48 units. Thus, total
(combined) output is 48 units when Artesia produces nothing, and the market price in Figure 13.5a will be S. At the other extreme, if Artesia produces 96 units, Utopia will produce
nothing, and Artesia will be at point C in Figure 13.5a. That gives two points on Artesias
residual demand curve, S and C. Artesias residual demand curve (with the assumed linear
demand and cost conditions) is just the straight line connecting these points between outputs of zero and 96 units. Beyond 96 units of output, Artesias residual demand curve coincides with the market demand curve (along CD), since Utopia will produce zero if Artesia
produces in excess of 96 units.
To see that straight-line segment SC represents Artesias residual demand curve for outputs between zero and 96 units, suppose that Artesia produces 48 units. From Utopias reaction curve, Artesia knows that Utopia will produce 24, so total output will be 72. When
total output is 72, the price is given by point B on the market demand curve. Thus, Artesia
can sell 48 units when price is at the height of point E (the same height as point B), which
gives us a third point on Artesias demand curve. Note that the horizontal distance between Artesias demand curve and the market demand curve is Utopias output. As you can
see, Utopias output becomes smaller as Artesia increases output along its demand curve. In
fact, for each one-unit increase in output by Artesia, Utopia reduces output by one-half

Other Oligopoly Models

369

unit (as can be seen from Utopias reaction curve), so the two firms total output increases
by only half as much as the increase by Artesia. That is why price declines less rapidly
along Artesias residual demand curve than along the market demand curve (Artesias demand curve is flatter; in fact, the slope is exactly half the slope of the market demand
curve).
With knowledge of its demand curve, profit maximization by Artesia is straightforward.
With demand curve SCD, the marginal revenue curve is MR, intersecting the marginal cost
curve halfway between zero output and the output where marginal cost intersects demand.
Therefore, Artesias profit-maximizing output is 48 units, with price shown by the height of
point E. Utopia is producing 24 units, so total industry output is 72 units.
Because we are using the same demand and cost conditions as we did with the Cournot
model, it is instructive to compare the outcomes. Note that total output is higher with the
Stackelberg model (72 versus 64), so price to consumers is lower. Output is closer to the
competitive result than in the Cournot model, but still lies between the competitive and
monopoly outputs. In addition, Artesia is making a larger profit and Utopia a smaller profit
than in the case of a Cournot equilibrium. (This is not shown in the graphs but is easily verified.) This outcome is to be expected: Artesia is exploiting its superior knowledge of how
Utopia will respond to make a larger profit at Utopias expense.
Our discussion highlights a key point: namely, that the conjectures a firm makes in an
oligopoly market about how its rivals will respond can affect firms outputs and profits as well
as total industry output. For example, total industry output is higher in a Stackelberg model
than in a Cournot model. And the firm that is a Stackelberg leader can take advantage of its
leadership position to set a larger (firm) output, thereby enhancing its profit at the expense
of firms that follow its lead in naive Cournot fashion.
Whether the Stackelberg or Cournot model better describes an oligopoly depends on the
particular market being examined. Where an oligopoly is composed of roughly equal-sized
firms, none with superior knowledge or exercising a leadership position, the Cournot model
is likely to be more apt. However, when one firm is more sophisticated about how rival firms
will react and uses this information to operate as a leader in terms of output, pricing, and/or
the introduction of new products, the Stackelberg model is more appropriate. The leadership role played by Intel in terms of setting price and introducing new products in the computer chip market over the last decade provides a possible example of the latter case.

The Dominant Firm Model

dominant firm
model

a model of oligopoly in
which the leader or
dominant firm assumes its
rivals behave like
competitive firms in
determining their output

In the Stackelberg model, the leader firm assumes that rivals display Cournot behavior and
plans its output and price accordingly. We now will examine an alternative model in which
the leader firm makes a different conjecture about the behavior of rival follower firms. In
this model, known as the dominant firm model, the leader or dominant firm assumes that its
rivals behave as competitive firms in determining their output. (Sometimes this model is referred to as the dominant firm with a competitive fringe model because the competitive firms
are on the fringe.) The dominant firm model has been used by economists to analyze the
performance of many industries.
Figure 13.6 shows how this market structure operates. To determine what price will maximize its profit, the dominant firm must know its demand curve. As with the Stackelberg
model, the dominant firms demand curve is a residual demand curve that shows what it can
sell after accounting for other firms output. In this case, the other firms in the market are assumed to behave as competitive firms: they will accept whatever price is set by the dominant
firm and produce an output where their marginal cost equals that price. The output of the
competitive fringe firms can therefore be determined from their supply curve because they
collectively behave as a competitive industry. This supply curve is shown as SF in the diagram. The market demand curve is DD.

370

Chapter Thirteen Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly

Dollars
per unit

Figure
Figure 13.6
13.6
The Dominant Firm Model
With the supply curve of fringe firms shown as SF, the
residual demand curve of the dominant firm is
derived by subtracting the quantity supplied by fringe
firms at each price from total quantity demanded at
that price; the result is curve P1AD. The dominant
firm maximizes profit by producing QD and charging
price P; fringe firms produce QF at that price, so total
output is QT.

SF
P1

MCD

P
C
A

P2

MRD

QD QF

QT
(= QD + QF)

D'

Output

At any price, the dominant firm can sell an amount equal to the total quantity demanded at that
price (as shown by DD) minus the quantity the fringe firms produce (as shown by SF). For example, the dominant firms demand curve begins at P1 because at that price the fringe firms will
supply as much as consumers wish to purchase, and the dominant firm could sell nothing. At
the other extreme, if the dominant firm charges a price less than P2, it faces the entire market demand curve because the fringe firms will produce nothing at such a low price. Between
P1 and P2, the dominant firms residual demand curve is P1A, where the horizontal distance
between this demand curve and the market demand curve at each possible price shows the
output of the fringe firms.
Armed with a knowledge of its demand curve, P1AD, the dominant firm also knows its
marginal revenue curve, MRD, and maximizes profit by producing where marginal revenue
equals marginal cost. With a marginal cost curve shown as MCD, the dominant firms profitmaximizing output equals QD. The price is P, the height of the dominant firms residual demand curve (not the market demand curve) at output QD. At price P, other firms produce
QF as shown by their supply curve, and total output, QT, is the sum of their output and the
dominant firms output. At price P, consumers wish to purchase an output of QT, and so the
market is in equilibrium. At the equilibrium, note that price is above marginal cost for
the dominant firm, but it is equal to marginal cost for the fringe firms, SF. This implies that
total output is less than if the industry were competitive. The competitive output for the
dominant firm is where MCD intersects the residual demand curve; at that point both it and
the other firms are producing where marginal cost equals price. Total output and price under
competitive conditions are indicated by point C on the market demand curve.
One interesting implication of this model is that the share of total industry output produced by the dominant firm may not indicate how close output comes to the competitive result. For example, suppose that the supply curve of the fringe firms is perfectly elastic (as
with a constant-cost competitive industry) at price P: the supply curve coincides with the
horizontal dotted line in the graph. Then the dominant firms residual demand curve is also
given by this horizontal dotted line, and marginal revenue will equal P out to output QT.

Other Oligopoly Models

371

The dominant firm will produce where its marginal cost curve intersects this horizontal line.
Industry output will be the same, QT, but now the dominant firm is producing about 90 percent of it. Furthermore, price is equal to marginal cost, as under competition, even though
one firm is contributing 90 percent of total output. This example illustrates the critical importance of the elasticity of the competitive firms supply curve for the functioning of this
sort of market structure.
Recall that this model differs from the Stackelberg model only in what the leader, or
dominant, firm assumes about rival firms output. In the Stackelberg model, the leader firm
assumes Cournot behavior on the part of rivals; in this model, it assumes competitive behavior. The dominant firm model is more appropriate when there are a sufficiently large number
of fringe firms for the assumption of competitive behavior to be plausible.

The Elasticity of the Dominant Firms Demand Curve

Based on the fact that the dominant firms output is equal to the total market output minus
the quantity the fringe firms supply, we can derive the dominant firms elasticity of demand
as follows:

MS1   MS1  1;

hD  hM

SF

(1)

where D is the elasticity of the dominant firms demand; M is the elasticity of the market
demand; MS is the dominant firms market share; and SF is the elasticity of supply of the
fringe firms.7 To see how to apply the formula, consider the case of the pharmaceutical firm
Hoffman-La Roche (Roche for short), whose brand-name product Valium is the marketleading anti-anxiety drug. Suppose that Roche can be taken to be the dominant firm in the
anti-anxiety market, that it has a 25 percent market share, that it faces a competitive fringe
of firms that produce the generic equivalent of Valium, that the elasticity of supply by the
competitive fringe is equal to 2, and that the elasticity of market demand for anti-anxiety
drugs is equal to 1. Using these assumptions, we can calculate the elasticity of demand for
the dominant firms product, Valium, as follows:
hD  1

1
1
 1  10.
0.25
  20.25

Even though its output is equal to one-fourth the entire market output, Roche faces a residual demand with an elasticity of 10. Thus, if the company raises Valiums price by just 5 percent, it will lose half its sales.
The formula for the dominant firms demand elasticity shows that the demand elasticity becomes larger when (1) the dominant firms market share becomes smaller, (2) the

To derive this formula, we start with the fact that the dominant firms output (QD) equals the market output (QM)
minus the output of the competitive fringe (QSF):
QD  QM  QSF.
This relationship also holds for a given change in output that results from a price change:
QD  QM  QSF.
Now divide by QD and multiply the two terms on the right by QM/QM and QSF/QSF, respectively:

  Q    Q  Q .

DQD
DQM

QD
QM

QM
D

DQSF
SF

QSF
D

Dividing this expression by P/P yields the formula in the text. Note that the minus sign on the right-hand side became a plus sign because we are treating the elasticity of demand as a positive number; QM/QD equals 1/MS; and
QSF/QD equals (QM  QD)/QD or (1/MS)  1.

372

Chapter Thirteen Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly

elasticity of the market demand becomes greater, and (3) the elasticity of supply by
the competitive fringe becomes greater. For example, if Roches market share was 10
percent instead of 25 percent, the elasticity of demand for Valium would be greater:
28  [1(1/0.1)  2((1/0.1)  1)] versus the 10 already calculated. If the elasticity of the
demand for anti-anxiety drugs was 5 instead of 1, the elasticity of demand for Valium
would be 26  [5(1/0.25)  2((1/0.25)  1)] instead of 10. And if the elasticity of the
fringe supply was 5 instead of 2, the elasticity of demand for Valium would be 19 
[1(1/0.25)  5((1/0.25)  1)] instead of 10.

Application

13.4

The Dynamics of the Dominant Firm

Model in Pharmaceutical Markets

A spires,
the patent on a brand-name pharmaceutical exthe producer of the drug typically confronts
competition from generic manufacturers. Generic manufacturers do little research of their own; rather, they
specialize in copying brand-name products after their
patents expire. Generic manufacturers tend to become
both more numerous and more capable of expanding
their output capacity the longer that a brand-name drug
is off-patent. In such a setting, therefore, the brandname drug producer can be taken to be the dominant
firm, with its market share decreasing and the competitive fringes elasticity increasing the more years the
brand-name drug is off-patent.
What does the dominant firm model predict about
the price charged by a brand-name drug maker and the
sensitivity of consumers to the brand-name drugs price
as the number of years that the drug has been off-patent
increases? As the fringe supply curve tends to shift rightward (see Figure 13.6) as the time since the brand-name
drug makers patent expired increases, it works to shift
the dominant firms residual demand curve leftward and
put downward pressure on the price charged by the
brand-name drug maker. Moreover, as both the brandname makers market share decreases and the elasticity
of the fringe supply increases, equation (1) indicates
that the demand elasticity facing the brand-name maker

13.4

tends to increase with the time since patent expiration.

The available empirical evidence bears out these theoretical predictions generated by the dominant firm
model.8
The empirical evidence also suggests that after patent
expiration, brand-name makers pursue a market segmentation strategycharging a lower price to hospitals and
health maintenance organizations than to retail pharmacies. Hospitals and health maintenance organizations
are more sensitive to price owing to their large volume
of purchases and their greater knowledge about the
(characteristically small) risks of substituting a generic
drug for a brand-name product. Market segmentation,
however, has not been without its costs. Retail pharmacists have sued pharmaceutical companies for conspiring
to deny them the same price discounts offered to hospitals and health maintenance organizations. Brand-name
drug makers opted to settle one such suit in 1996 for
$551 million.9

Richard Caves, Michael Whinston, and Mark Horwitz, Patent Expiration, Entry, and Competition in the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry,
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics, (1991), pp. 148.
9

Judge Agrees to Settlement in Drug Case, New York Times, June 22,
1996, p. 17.

Cartels and Collusion

In the oligopoly models we have examined so far, individual firms were assumed to behave
independently. Each firm makes a specific conjecture regarding how other firms will respond
to its actions and then maximizes its own profit accordingly, without any concern for how it
affects other firms profits. An alternative class of oligopoly models is based on various types

Cartels and Collusion

cartel

an agreement among
independent producers to
coordinate their decisions
so each of them will earn
monopoly profit

373

of cooperation among firms. The firms coordinate their pricing and output decisions in
an attempt to increase their combined profit, thereby increasing their individual profits as
well.
The most important cooperative model of oligopoly is the cartel model. A cartel is an
agreement among independent producers to coordinate their decisions so each of them will
earn monopoly profit. Because cartels are illegal under the antitrust laws in the United
States (though, surprisingly, not in many other countries), they are not common here.
There have been a number of international cartels, however, and we examine one of the
most famous, OPEC, later in this section. Familiarity with the cartel model is useful, because
collusive practices that fall short of outright cartel agreements can be investigated with it.
We begin by considering what happens if firms in a competitive industry form a cartel, and
then extend the results to oligopolistic markets.

Cartelization of a Competitive Industry

Lets see how a group of firms in a competitive market can earn monopoly profits by coordinating their activities. We assume that the industry is initially in long-run equilibrium, and
then we identify the short-run adjustments (with existing plants) that the industrys firms
can make to reap monopoly profits for themselves. Figure 13.7b shows the industry equilibrium with a price of P and an output of 1,000 units. Figure 13.7a shows the competitive
equilibrium for one of the firms in the industry. Note that initially, the firm faces the horizontal demand curve d at the market-determined price and produces an output of 50 units.
To simplify matters, suppose that there are 20 identical firms in the industry, each producing
50 units of output.

Figure
Figure 13.7
11.2

Dollars
per unit

A Cartel
Under competitive conditions industry output is Q and price is P. If the firms in the
industry form a cartel, output is restricted to Q1 in order to charge price P1, the monopoly
outcome. Each firm produces q1 and makes a profit at price P1.
Firm

Dollars
per unit

Market

SS
SMC
P1

P1

SAC
d

mr*
0

q1
q
(35) (50)

q2
(a)

d*

MR
Output

Q1 Q
(700) (1,000)
(b)

D
Output

374

Chapter Thirteen Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly

Next, the firms form a cartel and agree to restrict output to attain a higher price. Each firm
agrees to produce an identical level of output, equal to one-twentieth of total industry output
because there are 20 firms. The cartel agreement has the effect of changing the demand curve
facing each firm. Before the agreement, if one firm alone reduced output, its action would not
appreciably affect price, as shown by the firms horizontal demand curve d. Now, however,
other firms match a restriction in output by one firm, so when one firm cuts output by 15
units, all firms match the reduction, industry output falls by 300 units, and price rises significantly. The demand curve showing how price varies with output when firms output decisions
are coordinated in this way is the downward-sloping curve d* in Figure 13.7a. At any price,
the quantity on the d* curve is 1/20 that on the industry demand curve.
Faced with this downward-sloping demand curve, the firms profit-maximizing output occurs where its short-run marginal cost curve SMC intersects the new marginal revenue curve
mr*. Output is 35 units, and because all 20 firms reduce production to the same output level,
total output falls to 700 units and the price rises to P1. Each firm is now making an economic
profit. Indeed, the idealized cartel result is just the same as if the industry were supplied by a monopoly that controlled the 20 firms. Figure 13.7b illustrates the result, with the short-run supply
curve SS (the sum of the SMC curves of the firms) intersecting the industry marginal revenue curve MR at an output of 700 units and a monopoly price of P1. By forming a cartel
and restricting output to achieve the monopoly equilibrium, the firms maximize their combined profit. Figure 13.7b shows the total market effect of the coordinated output reduction
by the 20 firms; Figure 13.7a shows the effects on each firm individually.
Firms can always make a larger profit by colluding rather than by competing. Acting
alone, competitive firms are unable to raise price by restricting output, but when they act
jointly to limit the amount supplied, price will increase. As we will see in the next subsection, however, achieving a successful cartel in practice is not as simple as it may seem.

Application

13.5

Will the Internet Promote

Competition or Cartelization?

T hepromote
common wisdom is that the Internet serves to
competition among suppliers, thereby creating bargains for surfing shoppers.10 Indeed, a survey by
Erik Brynjolfsson and Michael Smith of MIT finds that
prices on the Internet are 9 to 16 percent lower than in
retail outlets.
Although the Internet lowers the cost of search and
thus makes it easier for buyers to shop around for a lower
price, Hal Varian of U.C. Berkeley cautions that there is
a good reason why the Web might actually result in
higher prices for consumers. Namely, if there are only a
few sellers, the availability of low-cost information
about the prices they are charging could make it easier

10

This application is based on Hal R. Varian, Online Commerce Creates Strange Competition, New York Times, August 24, 2000, p. C2.

for these sellers to coordinate their pricing through the

Web. As a historical example, Varian points to the Joint
Executive Committee set up by the major U.S. railroads
in the 1880s prior to the enactment of antitrust laws.
The Committee served as a cartel by collecting and publishing information about the prices individual railroads
charged and their weekly shipments. The railroads often
cheated on the published prices by offering lower rates
to shippers in secret in exchange for more business.
Such cheating would have been mitigated by a public
Internet exchange, according to Varian, since each railroad could readily monitor the prices charged by others.
Any attempt to offer a lower price could quickly be
countered, thereby making the cartel less vulnerable to
cheating.
A modern parallel to the activities of the Joint Executive Committee is the manner in which airlines post fares

Cartels and Collusion

online: an airline will announce its rates and associated
terms and then watch to see how competitors respond. In
the late 1980s airlines began to use online reservation systems to signal their pricing intentions to each other. For
example, United would post its intended fare changes at 2
A.M. on Thursday. If rival airlines followed suit by 6 A.M.,
Uniteds price remained in effect. If not, United would return its price back to the pre-2A.M. level. In 1992, the Department of Justice brought an antitrust suit against
several large airlines in an effort to limit the extent to
which online reservations systems serve as a signaling device and thereby promote cartelization.

375
In the long run, the key will be the number of sellers
in any online category of goods or services. If there are
many sellers, the extra flow of information through the
Internet is likely to work to the benefit of buyers, pushing prices down. But in Web-based exchanges where
there are only a few sellers and many buyers, the availability of more timely price information may serve to
promote cartelization, thereby increasing prices to consumers. The Federal Trade Commission is attempting
to set some standards of behavior for online exchange
to ensure that they promote competition rather than
cartelization.

Why Cartels Fail

If cartels are profitable for the members, why arent there many more? One reason is that
in the United States they are illegal. But even before there were laws against collusive
agreements, cartels were rare except when actually supported by government; when they
did exist, they were short-lived. Three important factors appear to contribute to cartel
instability.
1. Each firm has a strong incentive to cheat on the cartel agreement. A cartel achieves
monopoly profit through its members restricting output below the levels that each
would individually choose, a reduction that results in a higher price. Once a higher
price is achieved, individual cartel members could earn even more profit by expanding
output. Each firm would like to enjoy the cartels benefita higher pricewithout
incurring the costlower output. If only one firm expands output, price will not fall
appreciably, but the additional sales at the monopoly price will add significantly to that
firms profit. It is thus in each firms self-interest to violate the cartel agreement to
restrict output.
Figure 13.7 illustrates the incentive to cheat on the cartel agreement. If the firm in Figure 13.7a adheres to the cartel agreement, it will produce q1 and sell at price P1. However,
note what happens if the firm expands output beyond q1 while the other firms continue to
abide by the cartel agreements restrictions. In this event the firm faces a horizontal demand
curve at price P1; that is, one firm expanding output alone will not affect price. Remember
that the downward-sloping demand curve d* is relevant only for simultaneous expansion
and contraction of output by all firms. The firm acting alone can increase its profit significantly by expanding output, since marginal revenue (equal to price with the horizontal demand curve) is above marginal cost at q1. Profit will be maximized if the firm increases sales
to q2 at the price of P1.
Every firm has the same incentive to expand output and cheat on the cartel agreement. Yet if many firms do so, industry output increases significantly, and price falls
below the monopoly level. It is in each firms interest to have other firms restrict their
output while it increases its own. Every firms self-interest is therefore a threat to the cartels survival. To be successful, the cartel must have some means of monitoring and enforcing its agreement.
The foregoing suggests why government backing generally is so essential to ensuring a
cartels stability. Government provides the means of monitoring and enforcing a cartel

376

Chapter Thirteen Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly

agreement. The caviar cartel provides a good example of this.11 Prior to the collapse of the
Soviet Union, the Ministry of Fisheries in Moscow set stringent quotas for the annual sturgeon catch, the source of caviar, one of the worlds most expensive delicacies. Close government monitoring limited poaching and illegal dealing in caviar. However, as the Soviet
Union disintegrated, four new independent states and two autonomous regions appeared
around the Caspian Seathe location of over 90 percent of the worlds sturgeon stocks.
Central authority evaporated, and the independent actions of numerous caviar poachers
and illegal traders ripped the formerly tightly regulated cartel wide open. Caviar prices
plummeted.
2. Members of the cartel will disagree over appropriate cartel policy regarding pricing, output,
allowable market shares, and profit sharing. In Figure 13.7, we assumed that the firms have
identical cost curves, making agreement on the profit-maximizing cartel output and price
relatively easy. But when firms differ in size, cost conditions, and other respects, agreement
will not come as easily since the firms will have different goals. If, for example, the cartel
members costs differ, they will disagree on what price the cartel should set. The problems
become even more acute when the firms must make long-run investment decisions. Every
cartel member will want to expand its capacity and share of total output and profit, but not
all can be allowed to do so.
These problems are basically political, and no matter what policy the cartel follows,
it will reflect a compromise among divergent views. As happens with any compromise,
some firms will be unhappy with the outcome, and those firms are all the more likely to
refuse to join the cartel or join but violate any cartel agreement on output.
Agreement will also be more difficult the less homogeneous the product. For example, in
the United States there are two primary areas in which oranges are grown: Florida and CaliforniaArizona. Through regulations instituted in 1937, the U.S. government (as an exception to antitrust laws) has allowed growers cartels to control prices and supplies in the two
areas. The organization of a growers cartel has been much more problematic in Florida than
in CaliforniaArizona.12 This reflects the longer growing season and greater varieties of oranges that can be produced in the climate and soil conditions there. Because there are more
product dimensions that must be taken into account, Florida orange growers have been less
successful at reaching an effective cartel agreementdespite the United States governments official approval of such an agreement.
3. Profits of the cartel members will encourage entry into the industry. If the cartel achieves
economic profits by raising the price, new firms have an incentive to enter the market. If
the cartel cannot block entry of new firms, price will be driven back down to the
competitive level as production from the outsiders reaches the market. Indeed, if an
increase in the number of firms in the market causes the cartel to break down, then price
will temporarily fall below the cost of production, forcing losses on the cartel members. The
prospect of entry by new competitors eager to share in the profits is probably the most
serious threat to cartel stability.
To be successful, therefore, a cartel must be able to get its members to comply with
cartel policy (limiting output) and to restrict entry into the market. These tasks are not
easily accomplished, and history is strewn with examples of cartels that flourished for a
short time only to disintegrate because of internal and external pressures.

11

Bootleggers Thrive, Sturgeons Flounder, as Caviar Cartel Splits, Washington Post, June 1, 1992, pp. 1 and 8.

12

Gary D. Libecap and Elizabeth Hoffman, The Failure of Government-Sponsored Cartelization and the Development of Federal Farm Policy, Economic Inquiry, 33 No. 3 (July 1995), pp. 365382.

Cartels and Collusion

Application

13.6

377

The Difficulty of Controlling

Cheating

T he(OPEC)
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
has relied on such measures as accounting
firms to monitor member nations outputs to eliminate
cheating on production quotas.13 These measures, however, have not been entirely successful. This is perhaps
not surprising, given that member states possess differing
production costs, petroleum reserves, time horizons, and
goals. Enforcing agreements is also difficult when member states are at war with one another, as in the case of
Iran and Iraq in the 1980s.
To demonstrate the difficulties facing OPECor any
other cartelin fixing prices, Raymond Battalio, a
Texas A&M professor, conducted an experiment with a
class of 27 introductory economics students. In the experiment, each student was asked to write either a 0 or a
1 on a slip of paper. A 1 indicated a willingness to adhere to a collusive agreement, whereas a 0 signified a desire to cheat. There were real money payoffs associated
with the game and they were structured so that if every13

This application is based on OPEC May Monitor Members Output

On Site to Reduce Cheating on Quotas, Wall Street Journal, November 13, 1987, p. 44; and All for One . . . One for All? Dont Bet on
It, Wall Street Journal, December 4, 1986, p. 1.

Application

13.7

one chose 1, the total payoff to all the students would be

maximized. The payoff to any individual student, however, was maximized if all other students opted for 1 and
the individual cheated and selected 0. If more than one
student cheated, the payoff for cheating decreased as the
number of cheaters increased, but was still greater than
the payoff to noncheaters. Significantly, the payoffs associated with all possible outcomes were disseminated to
students at the start of the experiment.
On the first round of the experiment, there were 6
noncheaters and 21 cheaters. Allowed to discuss the
outcome, the students quickly realized that they could
all be better off if they all voted to honor the agreement
and place a 1 on their ballots. A student leader proposed, Lets all put down 1, and nobody cheat. After
the students reached an explicit oral agreement to all
vote 1 another vote was taken. There were 4 1 votes and
23 0 votes. The ringleader muttered, Ill never trust
anyone again as long as I live. Asked how he voted, the
ringleader replied, Oh, I voted 0. The results suggest
that in a cartel setting, self-interest leads to efforts to
maximize returns individually even when the risk is
great of lowering overall returns both to oneself and to
ones partners.

The Rolex Cartel

A though
collusive agreements between different
firms typically come to mind when cartels are mentioned, the model has wider applicability. Essentially,
any firm with multiple production facilities or distribution channels and some market power faces a cartel management problem. The firm must coordinate the output
and pricing decisions of its various plants and distribution channels to ensure that its total economic profit is
maximized. To the extent, for example, that Rolex has
some market power, it needs to ensure that one of its licensed dealers does not attempt to cheat on the Rolex
cartel by selling more than a certain number of watches

at the agreed-upon price. Although such cheating may

benefit the individual dealer, it undermines the overall
profitability of the cartel. To limit the undermining,
Rolex may set up exclusive territories for its various dealers, allot a set number of watches to each dealer, and
specify a manufacturers suggested retail price.
In the mid-1980s, Rolex became disgruntled with
Carl Marcus, a Beverly Hills retailer of its watches.14

14
The Rolex War Rages on for Beverly Hills Jeweler, Los Angeles
Times, November 13, 1987, pp. 1 and 17.

378

Chapter Thirteen Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly

Marcus had been buying Rolex watches from other dealers around the country who were unable to sell their allocated number. He then sold these watches in the
Beverly Hills area at a discount of 5 to 25 percent below
the price most jewelers were charging for the same
items.
Rolex launched an advertising campaign against
Marcus alleging that he had sold a used watch to a customer while claiming it was new. The advertisements

asked Marcuss former customers to have their watches

inspected by Rolex to verify that they had not been similarly duped. The underlying motive of the advertising
campaign was not so much to protect unsuspecting customers as it was to preserve Rolexs market power and
profit. By offering to inspect the watches Marcus sold,
Rolex could obtain the registration numbers and identify the dealers who had undermined the cartel by selling some of their allotments to Marcus.

Oligopolies and Collusion

Much of what has been said about the consequences of cartel formation in a competitive
industry also applies to an oligopolistic industry. Firms in an oligopolistic industry can increase their profits (they may already be making some pure economic profits to begin
with) by colluding. The key to understanding this is our earlier finding that oligopoly output is usually greater than that of pure monopoly. This means that the oligopolistic firms
combined profit can be increased if total output is restricted to the monopoly level and,
with an appropriate sharing arrangement, each firm can realize greater profit. The incentive to colludethe prospect of higher profitalso exists in an oligopoly.
We generally expect collusion to be more common in oligopolies than in competitive
markets because there are only a few firms in an oligopolistic industry. The limited number
of firms means that fewer parties must participate in the collusive agreement, making reaching agreement easier. Additionally, monitoring is simpler when few firms are involved; it is
easier to detect cheaters.
Nonetheless, factors that inhibit the formation and maintenance of cartels in competitive markets are also present when oligopolistic firms collude. Each party to the cartel
agreement still stands to make more profit by cheating than by abiding by the cartel
agreement. Even though one firm does not face a horizontal demand curve if it cheats
as does the competitive firm in Figure 13.7ait will face a more elastic demand curve
when cheating than when complying, so its profit will be greater if it cheats and the
other firms abide by the agreement. Furthermore, the higher price achieved by collusion
can still prompt entry by new firms, and that also undermines the success of the cartel.
A final point is important. It is not necessary for all a markets firms to participate in
the cartel for it to be worthwhile. Several firms producing most of an industrys output can
increase their profit by colluding, although not by as much as when the entire industry is
cartelized. In this case, the colluding firms will behave as if they were one giant firm and
collectively exploit whatever monopoly power they have. The remaining firms then benefit from the higher price set by the colluding firms. In this case of partial market cartelization, the results can be analyzed using the dominant firm model illustrated earlier in
Figure 13.6. In that graph, the marginal cost curve of the dominant firm is interpreted
now as the summed marginal costs of the colluding firms, and they collectively maximize
profit subject to the residual demand curve. Therefore, partial cartelization of an industry
produces price and output lying between those found with pure monopoly and competition. We will see an example of this models application in the next subsection.

Cartels and Collusion

Application

13.8

379

Firm Count, Market Concentration,

and Successful Collusion

E ven
though price fixing is forbidden by the Sherman Act, numerous price-fixing agreements have
been documented in the United States. The existence
of such agreements corroborates Adam Smiths wellknown observation: People of the same trade seldom
meet together, even for merriment or diversion, but the
conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or
in some contrivance to raise prices.15
The ability to make a collusive arrangement stick appears to depend on the number of sellers and the degree
of seller concentration in the relevant product or geographic market. Specifically, of the price-fixing conspiracies successfully prosecuted by the U.S. Department of

Justice between 1963 and 1972, 10 or fewer firms were

involved in 79 percent of the cases.16 In 78 percent of
the documented cases, the top 4 firms involved in the
conspiracy accounted for more than 50 percent of the
total market output. Thus, a small number of firms and a
high degree of seller concentration appear to be more
conducive to successful price collusion. In the relatively
few cases in which a large number of firms have been involved, the conspiracies have been uncovered very
rapidly. Indeed, details of some of the large-group organizational meetings sometimes have even been printed
in local newspapers and thus have been quite easy for
authorities to detect.
16

15

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (New York: The Modern Library, 1937), p. 128.

George A. Hay and Daniel Kelly, An Empirical Survey of Price-Fixing Conspiracies, Journal of Law and Economics, 17 No. 1 (April
1974), pp. 1338.

The Case of OPEC

Few Americans took notice when OPEC was formed in 1960. Originally containing just 5
member nations, the cartel grew to an ominous 13 countries by 1973. During these years,
however, OPEC could not be judged successful. World oil prices actually declined slightly in
the 1960s. OPEC had not yet learned to use its potential market power.
All that changed with the 1973 ArabIsraeli War. During the War, OPECs Arab
members temporarily cut off oil exports. The result was dramatic: oil prices nearly
quadrupled in a matter of months. The price of a barrel of oil on the world market was $3
in 1973 but jumped to $11 in 1974, providing a graphic demonstration of what an output
restriction could accomplish. OPEC continued to hold down output after resuming
exports; by accident, OPEC had learned how to run a cartel! After the Wars end, oil
prices remained relatively stable (in real terms) until they received another jolt in 1978,
when revolution swept Iran. Iranian exports, which accounted for 20 percent of all
OPEC exports, fell to almost zero. The world oil price rose to an average of $20 per barrel in 1979. Soon, thereafter, the IranIraq War, which began in 1980, resulted in the
widespread destruction of oil-producing facilities in both countries and reduced oil exports further. The world oil price jumped again to over $30 per barrel in 1980 and averaged $35 in 1981.
Before continuing the historical saga of developments in the world oil market, lets examine the market as an example of a cartel. Specifically, because OPEC does not control all
supply sources (in 1972, OPEC production was 64 percent of noncommunist world output),
we will use the dominant firm model. In view of the history of OPEC, this is a bit of an
oversimplificationOPEC has not always been monolithic enough to act as a single profit-

380

Chapter Thirteen Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly

maximizing firm. Nonetheless, we can gain insight into the way this market has functioned
by treating OPEC as a dominant firm.
In Figure 13.8 we show world demand for oil as DD and non-OPEC supply as SF. These
relationships should be interpreted as short-run, where the elasticities are relatively low. As
we will see, low elasticities of demand and supply from fringe firms have a significant effect
on the outcome. The marginal cost curve for OPEC is shown as MCO, exhibiting substantially lower costs than other sources of supply, another characteristic of this market.
OPECs residual demand and marginal revenue curves are derived as before. Under competitive conditions (which prevailed before 1973), when OPEC and non-OPEC producers
are producing where marginal cost equals price, price is PC and total output is shown at
point C on the demand curve. When OPEC behaves as a dominant firm, however, it produces where marginal cost equals its residual marginal revenue, an output of QO with a
price of P. Note that price has risen sharply compared with the competitive price. This result should be contrasted with that shown earlier in Figure 13.6. In that representation of
the dominant firm model, we assumed that demand and fringe supply were more elastic. A
comparison of these graphs indicates why low elasticities of demand and fringe supply
imply a higher cartel price. Equation (1) on page 371 also suggests this: decreases in the
elasticity of the market demand and the fringe supply both work to lower the elasticity of
demand faced by the dominant firm.
Because much of OPECs early success was dependent on low elasticities, we need to be
sure we understand why this was a characteristic of the world oil market.
The price elasticity of demand for oil is quite low in the short run. When oil prices rose, consumers were caught with a stock of energy-consuming capital designed for cheap oil. Houses,
office buildings, and gas-guzzling automobiles could not be replaced overnight; it took time

Figure
Figure 13.8
13.8
OPEC Cartel as a Dominant Firm
World oil demand is shown by DD and non-OPEC
supply as SF. The residual demand curve confronting
OPEC is then P1AD. With its marginal cost curve
MCO, OPEC produces QO at price P. Non-OPEC
output at that price is QF, so total output is QT.

Dollars
per unit

SF

P1

PC

MCO

T
C
A
D

MRO
0

QF QO

QT

Output

Cartels and Collusion

381

for higher energy prices to have a substantial effect on energy consumption. A low price
elasticity means, of course, that moderate output restrictions will produce a large price increase, just what we see in Figure 13.8.
The price elasticity of supply of oil from non-OPEC suppliers is also quite low in the short run.
The biggest threat to a cartel is increased production by noncartel members or entry of new
firms. OPECs ability to raise oil prices successfully depended on total (OPEC and nonOPEC) output; if OPEC output restrictions were matched by substantial increases by others (as would happen with highly elastic non-OPEC supply), price would be largely
unaffected. How much non-OPEC suppliers could increase output depended on their price
elasticity of supply. Because non-OPEC producers were already producing at near-capacity
levels, their immediate ability to increase output was limited. Furthermore, new oil fields
could be brought into production only after a lengthy process of seismic exploration,
drilling, and installation of pipelines requiring several years. Thus, non-OPEC producers
were unable to respond quickly to the higher prices produced by the cartel.
These characteristics of the world oil market help explain OPECs early success. In addition, OPEC also enjoyed another advantage: oil-importing nations frequently adopted
policies that strengthened OPECs position. In the United States, for example, price controls on oil kept the price received by domestic oil producers artificially low and discouraged production and exploration. Price controls on natural gas discouraged production of
this alternative energy source. Similarly, tough environmental restrictions on the mining
and use of coal slowed the transition to coal as another energy alternative. Finally, price
controls on oil products such as gasoline and heating oil kept the prices of such products
below world market levels and encouraged consumption. Encouraging domestic consumption and discouraging domestic production implies an increase in demand for oil from
OPEC, and the United States inevitably became more dependent on imported oil during
the 1970s.
Our story, however, does not end with the $35-per-barrel price of 1981. As economic
theory tells us, long-run elasticities are greater than short-run elasticities. As time passed
consumers responded to higher energy prices by switching to more energy-efficient homes,
appliances, and cars, while non-OPEC suppliers increased output. Both responses put increased pressure on OPEC in the early 1980s. More specifically, world oil consumption fell
from a 1979 high of 51 million barrels per day to less than 45 million in 1985 (particularly
impressive since the prior long-run trend had been a 3 percent annual rate of increase in
consumption). At the same time, non-OPEC production increased sharply, from 15 million
barrels per day in 1977 to 24 million barrels in 1985. With total consumption down and
non-OPEC production up, OPEC had to restrict its output sharply to try to hold the price
up. Even though OPEC cut production from 31 million barrels per day in 1979 to barely 16
million barrels in 1985, the price of oil still fell below its previous level. The per-barrel price
dropped to $32 in 1982 and to $27 in 1984, and it continued falling gradually until it stabilized at around $18 in 1987.
The experience of OPEC after 1981 was almost a textbook case of the operation of economic forces that undermine cartels. According to Business Week:17 The OPEC cartel is
facing strains that it has never experienced before. . . . OPEC is so divided by cutthroat
competition and internal political bickering that the organization is unlikely to find a way to
agree anytime soon . . . Under-the-table discounts . . . are common.

17

The Leverage of Lower Oil Prices: On World Economies, on OPEC Countries, on the Oil Industry, Business
Week, March 22, 1982, p. 69.

382

Chapter Thirteen Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly

External pressures that diminished OPECs power were also at work:18 Demand for
OPEC oil . . . collapsed under the combined impact of . . . surprisingly high conservation, expanded use of alternative energy sources such as coal and gas, and rising nonOPEC production of oil from Mexico, the North Sea, and the North Slope of Alaska.
(Long-run price elasticities of demand are higher than short-run price elasticities and
were being felt as consumers switched to substitutes. Entry at the high cartel price was
taking place.)
To illustrate in analytic terms how the passage of time affected the market, long-run demand and non-OPEC supply responses can be incorporated into Figure 13.8. To avoid cluttering the diagram, we have not done so, but we recommend that you work this out.
Specifically, assume that the original competitive equilibrium was a long-run equilibrium.
Then a more elastic long-run demand curve will pass through point C on the short-run demand curve, and a more elastic supply curve will pass through point T on the non-OPEC
supply curve. With these curves, where will the long-run cartel equilibrium lie? You will find
that in the long run, price will be lower, non-OPEC output will be greater, and OPEC output will be smaller (all compared to the short-run cartel equilibrium shown in our graph)
just the events we saw emerge in the 1980s.
Most observers concluded that OPECs power had largely eroded by the late 1980s. In
August 1990, however, Iraq invaded Kuwait and supply was disrupted again. The price of oil
quickly rose to $40 per barrel, before falling back to about $20 per barrel after the United
States defeated Iraq in the Gulf War in early 1991. These events do not mean that OPEC
was exercising control, of course. Small changes in supply can have pronounced effects on
price in a competitive market in the short run when short-run demand is very inelastic. As
long as political turmoil pervades the Mideast, a major source of world oil, volatility is likely
to characterize this market.
By 1998, the price of oil had fallen below $12 a barrel, the lowest level in a decade,
because of increased global production and a decrease in OPECs share of total output to
40 percent (from more than 50 percent in the early 1970s). The decline in the price of
oil was arrested in 1999, due to a pact negotiated between the three largest exporters of
oil to the United States: Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Mexico. The first two countries
belong to OPEC, while Mexico does not. The three countries respectively account for
15, 18, and 14 percent of U.S. imports. The agreement, known as the Riyadh Pact, consisted of pledges to reduce output by 1.5 to 2.0 million barrels a day, about 2 to 3 percent
of world production of 73 million barrels a day. The price of crude oil rose above $30 in
the pacts wake.
Mexican officials who were key to brokering the pact, however, didnt hold any illusions about its long-run prospects. Then-president of Mexico, Ernesto Zedillo, recalled
that when he was an economics student at Yale University, one of his professors engaged
his class in a game to test the limits of oligopolistic behavior (see Application 13.6).19
Within a few minutes, somebody would start cheating; it never failed, Zedillo observed. No market with more than two participants can sustain a cartel.

18

Ibid., p. 69.

19

Big 3 Exporters Pact to Cut Oil Output Signals Seismic Shifts, Wall Street Journal, June 23, 1998, pp. A1 and
A10.

Review Questions and Problems

383

Summary
A monopolistically competitive market is one in
which there are a large number of competing firms, but
each firm produces a differentiated product.
Each firm in a monopolistically competitive market
confronts a demand curve that is fairly, but not perfectly,
elastic.
In long-run equilibrium, firms in a monopolistically
competitive market make zero economic profits. They are
not, however, producing at the minimum point on their
long-run average cost curves since the LAC curve is tangent to a downward-sloping demand curve.
Oligopoly is characterized by a few firms that together
produce all or most of the total output of some product. A
pronounced mutual interdependence among the decisions
of firms in the industry results.

What one firm does has a decided impact on other

firms in an oligopoly, but the way that other firms will
react is uncertain.
There are three common oligopoly models: Cournot,
Stackelberg, and dominant firm.
Oligopoly firms can collude and operate as a cartel.
The variety of models for studying oligopoly and the
differences in their implications make generalizing about
the effects of oligopoly difficult. In some cases, prices are
predicted to be near the monopoly level. In other cases,
they hover near the competitive level.
Oligopolistic outcomes lie somewhere between the
monopoly and competitive results and differ from one industry to another.

Review Questions and Problems

Questions and problems marked with an asterisk have solutions
given in Answers to Selected Problems at the back of the book
(page 577).

13.7. Explain how equilibrium is determined in the dominant

firm model. If market demand increases, how will a new equilibrium be determined?

13.1. What are the assumptions of the theory of monopolistic

competition? In what way do these assumptions differ from
those of the perfectly competitive model?

*13.8. Suppose that the supply curve of the follower firms in

the dominant firm model is perfectly horizontal. Does the dominant firm still have the power to set the industry price?

13.2. Explain the relationship between the demand elasticity

and the excess capacity that occurs for a monopolistic competitor.

13.9. Because firms in any industry can always make greater

profits by colluding there is an inevitable tendency for competitive industries to become cartels over time. Is the first part of
this statement correct? Is the second part? Explain.

13.3. Explain how, in the Cournot model, the output of one

firm depends on the output of other firms. Specifically, in Figure
13.3, what will be the output of Artesia if Utopia produces 32
units? If Utopia produces 48? If Utopia produces 64?
13.4. Starting from the Figure 13.3 Cournot equilibrium, suppose that the marginal and average total cost curves (which are
the same for both firms) shift downward. Explain how the firms
adjust to a new Cournot equilibrium.
13.5. How does the Stackelberg model differ from the Cournot
model? Which model predicts that output will be higher?
13.6. Explain how the residual demand curve confronting the
dominant firm in the dominant firm model is derived. In this derivation, what is assumed regarding how the output of other
firms is determined? How does it differ from the Cournot assumption?

13.10. What problems usually make cartels collapse? How was

OPEC able to avoid this fate, at least through the mid-1980s?
13.11. Consider the dominant firm model and treat OPEC as
the dominant firm. Explain how OPEC would determine the
price of oil and the level of output produced by the cartel. How
would OPECs price and output be affected by new discoveries
of oil that shift the supply curve of oil for non-OPEC members
to the right?
13.12. There is no general theory of oligopoly. Explain this
statement.
13.13. Under which oligopoly model does the outcome most
nearly resemble that obtained with pure monopoly? Under
which oligopoly model does the outcome most nearly resemble
that obtained with perfect competition?

384

Chapter Thirteen Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly

13.14. In an analysis of the automobile industry, what factors

would you consider in determining whether to use the competitive model, the monopoly model, or one of the oligopoly
models?
13.15. Suppose that there were three identical firms instead of
only two under the cost and market demand conditions outlined
in Section 13.2. What would be the Cournot equilibrium in
terms of each firms output as well as the total market output? If
there were four identical firms sharing the market?
13.16. In a two-firm Stackelberg model of oligopoly, can both
firms be leaders? Explain why or why not.
13.17. Suppose that Iran and Iraq are Cournot duopolists in
the crude oil market and face the following market demand
function:
P  100  (q1  q2);
where qi represents the output levels of the two countries
with Iran being 1 and Iraq being 2 and P is the per-barrel
price. The marginal revenue schedules facing the two countries are:
MR1  100  2q1  q2
MR2  100  2q2  q1.

Needless does not come cheap. Given its curative powers,

Bioeconotek charges $1,633 per dose and sells 62,020,000 doses
annually despite the presence of a competitive fringe of generic
suppliers, which collectively sell 51,650,000 doses annually at
the same $1,633 price.
Bioeconotek managers estimate that the fringe supply curve
is described by the equation:
P  600 

P  13,000 

13.19. Repeat the preceding problem but assume that Iran is

the Stackelberg leader.
13.20. It is the not too distant future and all important human
needs have been eliminated. Thanks to the firm Bioeconotek, a
miracle drug, Needless, has been invented that genetically suppresses a patients desire to think in terms of having needs. The
drug stimulates the patients cognitive ability to perceive substitute products as being ever more attractive the greater the price
of any item.

QM
.
10,000

In the preceding equations P is the price per dose, QFS is the

quantity supplied by the competitive fringe, and QM is quantity
consumed in the total market.
The marginal cost associated with producing and distributing
Needless is a constant $600 per dose. Bioeconotek initially invested $400 million in developing the drug but has faced no additional fixed costs since the initial investment.
a. At the current price of $1,633, a Bioeconotek manager estimates the demand elasticity for Needless as:
Elasticity 

MCi  qi;

13.18. Suppose that Iraq is the Stackelberg leader in the preceding problem. What will be each countrys reaction function?
How much will each country produce and what will its profits
be?

QFS
;
50,000

and that the market demand is given by:

Each country has a marginal cost curve of the form

where i  1, 2.
a. Determine each countrys reaction function.
b. Does a Cournot equilibrium exist? If so, find the outputs and
prices of crude oil in the two countries.
c. Suppose that the two countries collude and become a cartel.
What will be the resulting price and outputs for crude oil for
the two countries? [Note that the market marginal revenue is
100  2(q1  q2).]
d. Can it be said that because collusive profits are strictly
greater, it is true that these countries should necessarily collude? Are there any potential pitfalls in such a collusive
arrangement?

 

DQ P
1,633
 (10,000)
113,670,000
DP Q



 0.14.

b.

c.

d.

e.

Since this value represents an inelastic demand, he argues

that Needlesss price should be raised. Is there something
wrong with this reasoning? Briefly explain.
Write an equation that gives the demand for Bioeconoteks
own outputthat is, demand as seen by Bioeconotek given
market demand and the fringe supply.
What is the profit-maximizing price for Bioeconotek to
charge, given the current market demand and the current
fringe supply? (Recall that if a demand curve can be written
as P  a  bQ, then MR  a  2bQ.)
If Bioeconotek wants to implement a limit-pricing strategy
that successfully eliminates fringe suppliers from the market,
what annual output level does it need to select for its own
product, Needless?
Another Bioeconotek manager worries about future growth
of the fringe supply and argues that the company should set
the price determined in part d so as to drive the current
fringe out of business and eliminate any incentives for further entry. As briefly as possible, explain why this strategy
cannot be more profitable than the pricing strategy you gave
in part c.

13.21. Suppose that the market for Web search engines can
best be characterized as monopolistically competitive. If this is
the case, should firms that operate in the market such as Yahoo
and Alta Vista be prosecuted by antitrust authorities on account

Review Questions and Problems

385

of the potential inefficiency of the market outcome? Explain

why or why not.

the ongoing viability of the overlap practice? If so, what might

these factors be?

13.22. College textbooks have been increasing in price at a

rate greater than the general price level over the past several
decades. The reason for this phenomenon appears to be that
publishers have realized that by having authors revise their
texts more frequently, competition from used texts is reduced.
Using the dominant firm model, explain how such a more-frequent-revision strategy leads to a higher price for a given textbook.

13.24. In 2002, drug manufacturer Schering-Ploughs monopoly (through patent protection) on the huge-selling allergy medication Claritin was set to expire. To protect its $3 billion in
annual sales from Claritin, Schering-Plough sued 10 prospective
manufacturers of generic substitutes for Claritin. The suits alleged that anyone who swallowed a generic version would produce in their livers a separate chemical compound or metabolite
on which Schering-Plough had patent protection through April
2004. Using the dominant firm model, explain what ScheringPloughs actions were intended to accomplish in the market for
allergy medications.

13.23. Historically, officials from 23 elite northeastern colleges

with selective admissions policies and high tuition met each
spring to compare financial aid packages for more than 10,000
common applicants. The meetings, known as overlap, were
designed to eliminate any differences in the financial aid packages offered by the various colleges: What would you predict
would be the effect on the net price (tuition less financial aid)
paid by applicants to the colleges participating in the overlap
meetings? Are there any factors that would work to undermine

13.25. Assume that Intel can be treated as the dominant firm

in the market for computer chips. What three basic factors determine the elasticity of demand confronted by Intel? Explain
whether increases or decreases in these three factors will increase Intels elasticity of demand, and provide an intuitive explanation why.