Advertisement

The Review of Austrian Economics

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 43–58 | Cite as

The myth of natural monopoly

  • Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Article

Keywords

Public Finance Natural Monopoly 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Richard T. Ely,Monopolies and Trusts (New York: MacMillan, 1990), p. 162.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    John Bates Clark and Franklin Giddings,Modern Distributive Processes (Boston: Ginn & Co., 1888), p. 21.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Herbert Davenport,The Economics of Enterprise (New York: MacMillan, 1919), p. 483.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    James L. Laughlin,The Elements of Political Economy (New York: American Book, 1902), p. 71.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Irving Fisher,Elementary Principles of Economics (New York: MacMillan, 1912), p. 330.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E.R.A. Seligman,Principles of Economics (New York: Longmans, Green, 1909), p. 341.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ibid., p. 97.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simon Patten, “The Economic Effects of Combinations,”Age of Steel (Jan. 5, 1889): 13.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Franklin Giddings, “The Persistence of Competition,”Political Science Quarterly (March 1887): 62.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    David A. Wells,Recent Economic Changes (New York: DeCapro Press, 1889), p. 74.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    George Gunton, “The Economics and Social Aspects of Trusts,”Political Science Quarterly (Sept. 1888): 385.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. W. Coats, “The American Political Economy Club,”American Economic Review (Sept. 1961): 621–37.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thomas J. DiLorenzo, “The Origins of Antitrust: An Interest-Group Perspective,”International Review of Law and Economics (Fall 1985): 73–90.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burton N. Behling, “Competition and Monopoly in Public Utility Industries” (1938), in Harold Demsetz, ed.,Efficiency, Competition, and Policy (Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1989), p. 78.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    George T. Brown,The Gas Light Company of Baltimore: A Study of Natural Monopoly (Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1936).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ibid., p. 5.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ibid., p. 31.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ibid. p. 31.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ibid., p. 47.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ibid., p. 52.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ibid., p. 75.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ibid., p. 106. Emphasis added.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Horace M. Gray, “The Passing of the Public Utility Concept,”Journal of Land and Public Utility Economics (Feb. 1940): 8.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    Ibid., p. 9.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
    Ibid., p. 15.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ibid., p. 11.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    George Stigler and Claire Friedland, “What Can Regulators Regulate? The Case of Electricity,”Journal of Law and Economics (October 1962): 1–16.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gregg A. Jarrell, “The Demand for State Regulation of the Electric Utility Industry,”Journal of Law and Economics (October 1978): 269–95.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Demsetz,Efficiency, Competition, and Policy, p. 81.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Murray N. Rothbard,Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, 1977), pp. 75–76.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Murray N. Rothbard,Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1993), p. 619.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ibid., p. 620.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ibid., p. 548.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Edwin Chadwick, “Results of Different Principles of Legislation and Administration in Europe of Competition for the Field as Compared With Competition Within the Field of Service,”Journal of the Statistical Society of London 22 (1859): 381–420.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Harold Demsetz, “Why Regulate Utilities?”Journal of Law and Economics (April 1968): 55–65.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
  40. 40.
  41. 41.
    Steve Hanke and Stephen J. K. Walters, “Privatization and Natural Monopoly: The Case of Waterworks,”The Privatization Review (Spring 1987): 24–31.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Walter J. Primeaux, Jr.,Direct Electric Utility Competition: The Natural Monopoly Myth (New York: Praeger, 1986), p. 175.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    “California Eyes Open Electricity Market,”The Washington Times ,May 27, 1995, p. 2.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    The following information is from Toni Mack, “Power to the People,”Forbes, June 5, 1995, pp. 119–26.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ibid., p. 120.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ibid., p. 126.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Thomas Hazlett, “Duopolistic Competition in Cable Television: Implications for Public Policy,”Yale Journal on Regulation 7 (1990).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
  49. 49.
  50. 50.
  51. 51.
    Thomas Hazlett, “Private Contracting versus Public Regulation as a Solution to the Natural Monopoly Problem,” in Robert W. Poole, ed.,Unnatural Monopolies: The Case for Deregulating Public Utilities (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1985), p. 104.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Pacific West Cable Co. v.City of Sacramento, 672 F. Supp. 1322 1349–40 (E.D. Cal. 1987), cited in Hazlett, “Duopolistic Competition.”Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Thomas Hazlett, “Duopolistic Competition in Cable Television.”Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Adam D. Thierer, “Unnatural Monopoly: Critical Moments in the Development of the Bell System Monopoly,”Cato Journal (Fall 1994): 267–85.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ibid., p. 270.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
  57. 57.
    G. H. Loeb, “The Communications Act Policy Toward Competition: A Failure to Communicate,”Duke Law Journal 1 (1978): 14.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Thierer, “Unnatural Monopoly: Critical Moments in the Development of the Bell System Monopoly,” p. 277.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Gray, “The Passing of the Public Utility Concept,” p. 10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Ludwig von Mises Institute 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas J. DiLorenzo
    • 1
  1. 1.the Sellinger School of Business and ManagementLoyola CollegeUSA

Personalised recommendations