Related Research Articles
A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity. This contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly and duopoly which consists of a few sellers dominating a market. Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service, a lack of viable substitute goods, and the possibility of a high monopoly price well above the seller's marginal cost that leads to a high monopoly profit. The verb monopolise or monopolize refers to the process by which a company gains the ability to raise prices or exclude competitors. In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge overly high prices, which is associated with a decrease in social surplus. Although monopolies may be big businesses, size is not a characteristic of a monopoly. A small business may still have the power to raise prices in a small industry.
A cartel is a group of independent market participants who collude with each other in order to improve their profits and dominate the market. Cartels are usually associations in the same sphere of business, and thus an alliance of rivals. Most jurisdictions consider it anti-competitive behavior and have outlawed such practices. Cartel behavior includes price fixing, bid rigging, and reductions in output. The doctrine in economics that analyzes cartels is cartel theory. Cartels are distinguished from other forms of collusion or anti-competitive organization such as corporate mergers.
In the United States, antitrust law is a collection of mostly federal laws that regulate the conduct and organization of business corporations and are generally intended to promote competition and prevent monopolies. The main statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. These Acts serve three major functions. First, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits price fixing and the operation of cartels, and prohibits other collusive practices that unreasonably restrain trade. Second, Section 7 of the Clayton Act restricts the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Third, Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization.
Price fixing is an anticompetitive agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product, service, or commodity only at a fixed price, or maintain the market conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and demand.
Collusion is a deceitful agreement or secret cooperation between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading or defrauding others of their legal right. Collusion is not always considered illegal. It can be used to attain objectives forbidden by law; for example, by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities. It can involve "unions, wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties". In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.
Anti-competitive practices are business or government practices that prevent or reduce competition in a market. Anti-trust laws differ among state and federal laws to ensure businesses do not engage in competitive practices that harm other, usually smaller, businesses or consumers. These laws are formed to promote healthy competition within a free market by limiting the abuse of monopoly power. Competition allows companies to compete in order for products and services to improve; promote innovation; and provide more choices for consumers. Some business practices may be pro-competitive, economic methodological tests and empirical legal cases are used to test whether business activity constitutes as anti-competitive behavior.
A protection racket is a type of racket and a scheme of organized crime perpetrated by a potentially hazardous group, usually a criminal organization, which guarantees protection outside the sanction of the law to a business, entity, or individual from violence, looting, arson, robbery, and other such threats, often in situations or regions in which such threats may often not be effectively prevented or addressed by the prevailing system of law and order or local government, in exchange for the extorted payments in cash or kind. The perpetrators of the protection racket may offer these services to protect vulnerable targets from other dangerous individuals and groups or may simply offer to refrain from themselves carrying out threats on the targets, and usually both of these forms of protection are implied in the racket. In many cases, there exists an actual and legitimate outside threat to the target of the protection racket, and the racketeers will in fact protect the target; however, often the racketeers will themselves coerce or threaten the business or targeted individual or entity into accepting the protection, often with the threat, implicit or otherwise, that failing to acquire these protection services will lead to the racketeers themselves contributing to the existing problem. In some instances, the potential threat to the target may be caused by the same group that offers to solve it, but that fact may be concealed in order to ensure continual patronage.
Non-price competition is a marketing strategy "in which one firm tries to distinguish its product or service from competing products on the basis of attributes like design and workmanship". It often occurs in imperfectly competitive markets because it exists between two or more producers that sell goods and services at the same prices but compete to increase their respective market shares through non-price measures such as marketing schemes and greater quality. It is a form of competition that requires firms to focus on product differentiation instead of pricing strategies among competitors. Such differentiation measures allowing for firms to distinguish themselves, and their products from competitors, may include, offering superb quality of service, extensive distribution, customer focus, or any sustainable competitive advantage other than price. When price controls are not present, the set of competitive equilibria naturally correspond to the state of natural outcomes in Hatfield and Milgrom's two-sided matching with contracts model.
Etacrynic acid (INN) or ethacrynic acid (USAN), trade name Edecrin, is a loop diuretic used to treat high blood pressure and the swelling caused by diseases like congestive heart failure, liver failure, and kidney failure. A con with Etacyrnic Acid compared to the other loop diuretic drugs such as Furosemide is that it has a significantly steep dose-response curve, which means the drug's dosing is very important as small variance in dose can cause a significant difference in the biological response.
Bid rigging is a fraudulent scheme in procurement auctions resulting in non-competitive bids and can be performed by corrupt officials, by firms in an orchestrated act of collusion, or between officials and firms. This form of collusion is illegal in most countries. It is a form of price fixing and market allocation, often practiced where contracts are determined by a call for bids, for example in the case of government construction contracts. The typical objective of bid rigging is to enable the "winning" party to obtain contracts at uncompetitive prices. The other parties are compensated in various ways, for example, by cash payments, or by being designated to be the "winning" bidder on other contracts, or by an arrangement where some parts of the successful bidder's contract will be subcontracted to them. In this way, they "share the spoils" among themselves. Bid rigging almost always results in economic harm to the agency which is seeking the bids, and to the public, who ultimately bear the costs as taxpayers or consumers.
A market is a composition of systems, institutions, procedures, social relations or infrastructures whereby parties engage in exchange. While parties may exchange goods and services by barter, most markets rely on sellers offering their goods or services to buyers in exchange for money. It can be said that a market is the process by which the prices of goods and services are established. Markets facilitate trade and enable the distribution and resource allocation in a society. Markets allow any trade-able item to be evaluated and priced. A market emerges more or less spontaneously or may be constructed deliberately by human interaction in order to enable the exchange of rights of services and goods. Markets generally supplant gift economies and are often held in place through rules and customs, such as a booth fee, competitive pricing, and source of goods for sale.
An order management system, or OMS, is a computer software system used in a number of industries for order entry and processing.
Bidding is an offer to set a price tag by an individual or business for a product or service or a demand that something be done. Bidding is used to determine the cost or value of something.
The Competition Bureau is the Competition regulator in Canada. It is an independent Canadian law enforcement agency that ensures that markets operate in a competitive, innovative manner.
This is a partial list of notable price fixing and bid rigging cases.
Horizontal territorial allocation is an agreement among competitors at the same level of distribution of a product or service to solicit customers only within a certain geographic area. The competitors who agree to this type of arrangement will often reject business from customers in another's territory. Territorial allocation scheme results in an absence of competition in prices and choice of products for the affected customers. Such agreements can be illegal under antitrust regulation.
United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., 362 U.S. 29 (1960), was a 1960 decision of the United States Supreme Court limiting the so-called Colgate doctrine, which substantially insulates unilateral refusals to deal with price-cutters from the antitrust laws. The Parke, Davis & Co. case held that, when a company goes beyond "the limited dispensation" of Colgate by taking affirmative steps to induce adherence to its suggested prices, it puts together a combination among competitors to fix prices in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. In addition, the Court held that when a company abandons an illegal practice because it knows the US Government is investigating it and contemplating suit, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to hold the case that follows moot and dismiss it without granting relief sought against the illegal practice.
United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150 (1940), is a 1940 United States Supreme Court decision widely cited for the proposition that price-fixing is illegal per se. The Socony case was, at least until recently, the most widely cited case on price fixing.
United States v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 648 F.2d 642, is a patent-antitrust case in which the United States unsuccessfully tried to persuade the court that a patent and technology licensing agreement between major competitors in the highly concentrated heavy electrical equipment market—Westinghouse, Mitsubishi Electric (Melco) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI)—which had the effect of territorially dividing world markets, violated § 1 of the Sherman Act. The Government had two principal theories of the case: (1) the arrangement is in unreasonable restraint of trade because its effect is to lessen competition substantially by precluding the Japanese defendant companies from bidding against Westinghouse on equipment procurements in the United States, when they are ready, willing, and able to do so; and (2) the arrangement is an agreement—explicit or tacit—to divide markets, which is illegal per se under § 1. Neither theory prevailed.
United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U.S. 265 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of the 1926 Supreme Court decision in the General Electric case that had exempted patent licensing agreements from antitrust law's prohibition of price fixing. The Court did so by applying the doctrine of the Court's recent Interstate Circuit hub-and-spoke conspiracy decision.
References
- ↑ "Price Fixing, Bid Rigging, and Market Allocation Schemes" . Retrieved 2 June 2013.
- ↑ United States Department Of Justice. Price Fixing, Bid Rigging, and Market Allocation Schemes: What they are and what to look for. RET. 22, OCT 2021. https://www.justice.gov/atr/file/810261/download
 | This economics-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |