oligopoly

(redirected from oligopolists)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Legal, Encyclopedia.
Related to oligopolists: duopoly, Monopolistic competition

Oligopoly

A Market characterized by a small number of producers who often act together to control the supply of a particular good and its market price.

Oligopoly

A situation in which a small number of companies split all or nearly all the market share of a good or service. There are two major models for oligopoly: the Cournot model and the Bertrand model.

In the Cournot model, each company assumes the output of the others, resulting in greater output than in a monopoly but less than in a state of perfect competition. This pushes prices lower but not as low as they would be in perfect competition. In the Bertrand model, the companies compete for the lowest possible price, resulting in perfect competition. Both models are applicable in different situations and times and neither expresses oligopoly perfectly. Less commonly, a third option is possible: if the companies in the oligopoly openly collude with each other, they can form a cartel.

oligopoly

A market in which a limited number of sellers follow the lead of a single major firm. For example, the domestic automobile market was long characterized as an oligopoly, with American Motors, Chrysler, and Ford following the pricing lead of industry giant General Motors. Compare monopoly, oligopsony.

oligopoly

a MARKET STRUCTURE characterized by concentrated supply conditions (i.e. a few large firms supply the bulk of industry output) and high barriers to entry. A key feature of oligopoly is the mutual interdependency of the leading suppliers, which has a major impact on the nature and intensity of their competitive relationships. For example, a price cut by one firm may seem advantageous as a unilateral act, but if rival suppliers are forced to follow suit rather than risk losing market share, such a move may escalate into a ‘price war’ leading to all firms suffering reduced profitability For this reason, oligopolists tend to prefer to coordinate their price behaviour (see PRICE LEADERSHIP, CARTEL, COLLUSION) and to seek instead to establish COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE over rival suppliers through PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION initiatives. See COMPETITION POLICY.

oligopoly

A type of MARKET STRUCTURE that is characterized by:
  1. few firms and many buyers, that is, the bulk of market supply is in the hands of a relatively few large firms who sell to many small buyers.
  2. homogeneous or differentiated products, that is, the products offered by suppliers may be identical or, more commonly, differentiated from each other in one or more respects. These differences may be of a physical nature, involving functional features, or may be purely ‘imaginary’ in the sense that artificial differences are created through ADVERTISING and SALES PROMOTION (see PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION).
  3. difficult market entry, that is, high BARRIERS TO ENTRY, which make it difficult for new firms to enter the market.

The primary characteristic associated with the condition of ‘fewness’ is known as MUTUAL INTERDEPENDENCE. Basically, each firm, when deciding upon its price and other market strategies, must explicitly take into account the likely reactions and countermoves of its competitors in response to its own moves. A price cut, for example, may appear to be advantageous to one firm considered in isolation, but if this results in other firms also cutting their prices to protect sales, then all firms may suffer reduced profits. Accordingly, oligopolists tend to avoid price competition, employing various mechanisms (PRICE LEADERSHIP, CARTELS) to coordinate their prices. See COLLUSION.

Oligopolists compete against each other using various product differentiation strategies (advertising and sales promotion, new product launches) because this preserves and enhances profitability -price cuts are easily matched whereas product differentiation is more difficult to duplicate, thereby offering the chance of a more permanent increase in market share; differentiation expands sales at existing prices or the extra costs involved can be ‘passed on’ to consumers; differentiation by developing brand loyalty to existing suppliers makes it difficult for new firms to enter the market.

Traditional (static) market theory shows oligopoly to result in a ‘MONOPOLY-like’ suboptimal MARKET PERFORMANCE: output is restricted to levels below cost minimization; inefficient firms are cushioned by a ‘reluctance’ to engage in price competition; differentiation competition increases supply costs; prices are set above minimum supply costs, yielding oligopolists ABOVE-NORMAL PROFITS that are protected by barriers to entry. As with monopoly, however, this analysis makes no allowance for the contribution that ECONOMIES OF SCALE may make to the reduction of industry costs and prices and the important contribution of oligopolistic competition to INNOVATION and NEW PRODUCT development. See KINKED-DEMAND CURVE, LIMIT-PRICING, PERFECT COMPETITION, MONOPOLISTIC COMPETITION, DUOPOLY, GAME THEORY, REVISED SEQUENCE, COMPETITION POLICY (UK).

References in periodicals archive ?
(154) Kodak would have made more sense as part of a Sherman Act section 1 or FTC [section] 5 case that challenged the behavior not only of Kodak but of its fellow oligopolists, IBM and Xerox, as strategic parallel conduct in the form of a win-win game to exploit locked-in customers in the aftermarkets for parts and repair as the critical component of an agreement to limit price competition to the primary market for copiers and gain monopoly profits in the aftermarkets.
Oligopolists behaving in a legal, consciously parallel fashion could achieve high and rising prices, even as costs remained stable, by engaging in price leadership.
This means that at any stage each firm behaves as a Cournotian oligopolist on residual demand.
When an industry experiences global consolidation, the emerging international oligopolists should find themselves facing an environment of multimarket contacts.
As oligopolists, it makes total sense for the College Board and ACT to be eyeing, together, expansion into the immense K-12 assessment market.
Feinberg (2002) examined the competitive behavior of CUs with respect to the interest rate on unsecured loans from banks, finding that CUs behave as a competitive fringe resulting in lower bank rates (as opposed to potential oligopolists).
Collusive agreements reduce the total number of decision units operating in the downstream and upstream markets and, thus, the corresponding number of oligopolists in each of them.
Refusing peering can be seen as anti-competitive: refusing peering is to make the peering arrangement an entry barrier with a few oligopolists using their market power to decide the peering arrangement.
such markets, where it may be possible for oligopolists to reach a
Not all oligopolists rely on the exercise of monopsony, but a large and growing contingent of today's largest firms are built to do just that.
There are theoretical reasons to believe that capacity rationalization by oligopolists, constrained by a competitive fringe, is preferable.