For example, a group of competing optometrists agreed not to participate in an eye care network unless the network increased reimbursement rates for patients on its plan. Optometrists refused to treat patients covered by the network plan, and eventually the company increased reimbursement rates. The FTC said the optometrists` deal was illegal pricing and that their leaders made efforts to ensure that other optometrists were aware of and complying with the agreement. An agreement to restrict production, sale or production is just as illegal as direct pricing, because reducing the supply of a product or service drives up the price. For example, the FTC challenged an agreement between competing oil importers to restrict the supply of lubricants by refusing to import or sell those products in Puerto Rico. Competitors have tried to pressure lawmakers to levy an environmental filing tax for lubricants, warning of lubricant shortages and higher prices. The FTC argued that the conspiracy was an illegal horizontal agreement to restrict production, which was inherently likely to affect competition and had no countervailing efficiency that would benefit consumers. The structure of a market is also influenced by the extent to which those who buy in it prefer certain products to others. In some industries, products are considered identical by their buyers – for example, staple agricultural crops.
In others, products are differentiated in one way or another, so different buyers prefer different products. Remarkably, the criterion is subjective; Buyers` preferences may have little to do with tangible differences in products, but relate to advertising, brand names, and distinctive designs. The degree of product differentiation, reflected in the strength of buyers` preferences, ranges from low to fairly large and tends to be higher in rarely purchased consumer goods and “prestige goods”, especially those purchased as gifts. Even if oligopolies realize that they would benefit as a group if they acted as a monopoly, each individual oligopoly faces the private temptation to produce only a slightly higher amount and make a slightly higher profit – while relying on other oligopolists to keep their production low and prices high. If at least some oligopolistics give in to this temptation and start producing more, then the market price will fall. A small handful of corporate oligopolies could end up competing so fiercely that not all of them manage to make economic profits – as if they were perfect competitors. This situation is called fierce competition and is illustrated in Figure 1 for Qcc and Pcc. Since Pcc corresponds to the average cost, companies finally reach the break-even point. Q: Gas stations in my area have increased their prices by the same amount and at the same time. Is it a price agreement? It is useful to distinguish the associated ideas of market behavior and performance.
Market behaviour refers to the pricing policy pursued by sellers and other market policies, both in terms of their objectives and the way in which they coordinate and reconcile their decisions. Market performance refers to the final results of this policy – the ratio of selling price to cost, size of production, efficiency of production, progressivity of techniques and products, etc. A clear agreement between competitors to set prices is almost always illegal, whether prices are set at a minimum, maximum or specific range. Illegal pricing occurs when two or more competitors agree to take measures that result in an increase, decrease or stabilization in the price of a product or service without legitimate justification. Tariff plans are often developed in secret and can be difficult to discover, but an agreement can be discovered from “circumstantial evidence.” For example, if direct competitors exhibit an inexplicable pattern of identical contractual terms or pricing behavior as well as other factors (such as the absence of a legitimate business statement), illegal pricing may be the reason. Invitations to price coordination may also raise concerns, for example when a competitor publicly announces that it is ready to end a price war if its rival is willing to do the same and the conditions are so specific that competitors may consider it to be a joint price offer. An agreement is an organization that is the result of a formal agreement between a producer group of a good or service to regulate supply in order to regulate or manipulate prices. In other words, a cartel is a set of otherwise independent companies or countries that act together as if they were a single producer and can therefore set prices for the goods they produce and the services they provide without competition.
Figure 1. Profit maximization for an oligopoly. The profit-maximizing point for the collision of oligopolies is where MR = MC, where the price is Pc, just like in a monopoly. Due to bewildered competition, oligopolies can instead act as perfect competitors and shift the profit maximization point where demand and MC overlap, just like in perfect competition. It is located at the intersection of Qcc and Pcc. In the United States, as in many other countries, it is illegal for companies to collude because collusion is anti-competitive behavior that violates antitrust law. The Department of Justice`s Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission are responsible for preventing collusion in the United States. Oligopolistic companies, as already mentioned, were called “cats in a bag”.
The French detergent manufacturers we mentioned at the beginning of our discussion on oligopolies have chosen to “get comfortable” with each other. The result? A restless and weak relationship. When the Wall Street Journal reported on the case, he wrote: “According to a statement made by a Henkel executive to the Commission [of the French cartel], detergent manufacturers wanted to `limit the intensity of competition between them and clean up the market.` Nevertheless, a price war broke out between them in the early 1990s. During soap managers` meetings, some of which lasted more than four hours, complex pricing structures were established. “A [soap] manager remembered `chaotic` meetings where each party was trying to figure out how the other had circumvented the rules. Like many cartels, the soap cartel collapsed due to the very strong temptation for each member to maximize their own individual profits. How did this soap opera end? Following an investigation, French antitrust authorities fined Colgate-Palmolive, Henkel and Proctor & Gamble a total of 361 million euros ($484 million). A similar fate befell the ice cream makers. Ice packs are a commodity, a perfect replacement, usually sold in 7 or 22 pound bags. No one cares about the label on the bag. By agreeing to divide the ice cream market, control large geographical areas and set prices, ice cream manufacturers have moved from perfect competition to a monopoly model.
According to the agreements, each company was the sole supplier of bag ice cream for a region; there have been long-term and short-term profits. According to the court, “these companies illegally conspired to manipulate the market.” The fines totaled about $600,000 – a hefty fine given that an ice pack is sold for less than $3 in most parts of the United States. In non-collusive agreements, companies would try to improve their production or product in order to gain a competitive advantage. In a cartel, these companies have no incentive to do so. Monopoly and competition, fundamental factors in the structure of economic markets. In business, monopoly and competition mean certain complex relationships between companies in an industry. A monopoly implies the exclusive ownership of a market by a supplier of a product or service for which there is no substitute. In this situation, the supplier is able to determine the price of the product without fear of competition from other sources or through substitute products. It is generally believed that a monopolist chooses a price that maximizes profits.
Cartels have an adverse effect on the consumer, since their activity aims to increase the price of a product or service above the market price. However, their behavior also has a detrimental effect in other respects. Cartels deter new entrants and act as a barrier to entry. The lack of competition due to price fixing leads to a lack of innovation. A defendant may argue that there was no agreement, but if the government or a private party proves a simple price agreement, there is no defense against it. The defendants cannot justify their conduct by arguing that prices were reasonable for consumers, were necessary to avoid predatory competition or stimulated competition. A: No. Adjusting competitors` prices can be a good deal and often occurs in highly competitive markets. Each undertaking is free to set its own prices and may charge the same price as its competitors as long as the decision is not based on an agreement or coordination with a competitor. When oligopolistic firms think about how much to produce and what price to charge, they are tempted to work with other firms to act as if they were just a single monopoly. By acting together, oligopolistic companies can keep industrial production low, charge a higher price, and share profits with each other.
.