Average total cost decrease as quantity of output increases
No competition because of a huge fixed cost
Eg. Cable TV
economies of scale allows only A single seller to achieve lowest average total cost
One cause of market failure
Public ownership
Rate of return regulation
Publicly owned businesses in Canada
Achieve economies of scale, but lack of competition weaken incentives to reduce costs or innovate
Set price allowing regulated monopoly to just cover average total costs and normal profits
Problem: Incentive to exaggerate reported costs guarantee to have a certain percentage back
First Anti-combines law in 1889
Modern Competition Act in 1986
"To maintain and encourage competition in Canada in order to promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian Economy"
To prevent anti-competitive business behavior
Raises expected costs to business of price fixing relative to expected benefits
Price fixing, bid rigging (Eg. Quebec), false/misleading advertising
Punish by prison time or fines etc...
Less serious
Mergers, abusing dominant market position, lessening competition
Punish by Fines, legal prohibition
Competition tribunal for civil offenses weight cost of lessening competition against benefits of increased efficiencies
If mergers that reduce competition also provide economies of scale, maybe approved for promoting "efficiency and adaptability"
Latin Phrase
Buyers alone is responsible for checking quality of products before buying
Gov. regulation eliminates waste, achieves efficiency, promotes the public interest
Most economists agree the competition act serves the public-interest well
Gov. regulation benefits regulated business, not the public interest
Evidence is mixed on gov. regulation - some support capture, some support public-interest view
Market outcome, even with monopoly power, better than gov. regulation outcome if significant gov. failure
Gov. outcome, with public interest regulations, better than market outcome if significant market failure
Game with two players who must each make a strategic choic, where results depend on the other player's choice.
One based on lack of trust, one based on trust; both smart choice
Each player is motivated to (cheat/confess); self-interest, both better off if they trust
Outcome of a game in which each player makes best choice, given the choice of the other
Players in Prisoner's Dilemma driven to Nash equilibrium outcome where everyone cheat/confess
Successful as detective set up properly