Skip to main content

The myth of natural monopoly

The Review of Austrian Economics volume 9, pages 43–58 (1996)Cite this article

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Richard T. Ely,Monopolies and Trusts (New York: MacMillan, 1990), p. 162.

    Google Scholar 

  2. John Bates Clark and Franklin Giddings,Modern Distributive Processes (Boston: Ginn & Co., 1888), p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Herbert Davenport,The Economics of Enterprise (New York: MacMillan, 1919), p. 483.

    Google Scholar 

  4. James L. Laughlin,The Elements of Political Economy (New York: American Book, 1902), p. 71.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Irving Fisher,Elementary Principles of Economics (New York: MacMillan, 1912), p. 330.

    Google Scholar 

  6. E.R.A. Seligman,Principles of Economics (New York: Longmans, Green, 1909), p. 341.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ibid., p. 97.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Simon Patten, “The Economic Effects of Combinations,”Age of Steel (Jan. 5, 1889): 13.

  9. Franklin Giddings, “The Persistence of Competition,”Political Science Quarterly (March 1887): 62.

  10. David A. Wells,Recent Economic Changes (New York: DeCapro Press, 1889), p. 74.

    Google Scholar 

  11. George Gunton, “The Economics and Social Aspects of Trusts,”Political Science Quarterly (Sept. 1888): 385.

  12. A. W. Coats, “The American Political Economy Club,”American Economic Review (Sept. 1961): 621–37.

  13. Thomas J. DiLorenzo, “The Origins of Antitrust: An Interest-Group Perspective,”International Review of Law and Economics (Fall 1985): 73–90.

  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. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Ibid., p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ibid., p. 31.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ibid. p. 31.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ibid., p. 47.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ibid., p. 52.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ibid., p. 75.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ibid., p. 106. Emphasis added.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Horace M. Gray, “The Passing of the Public Utility Concept,”Journal of Land and Public Utility Economics (Feb. 1940): 8.

  25. Ibid.

  26. Ibid., p. 9.

  27. Ibid.

  28. Ibid., p. 15.

  29. Ibid., p. 11.

  30. George Stigler and Claire Friedland, “What Can Regulators Regulate? The Case of Electricity,”Journal of Law and Economics (October 1962): 1–16.

  31. Gregg A. Jarrell, “The Demand for State Regulation of the Electric Utility Industry,”Journal of Law and Economics (October 1978): 269–95.

  32. Demsetz,Efficiency, Competition, and Policy, p. 81.

  33. Murray N. Rothbard,Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, 1977), pp. 75–76.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Ibid., p. 620.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ibid., p. 548.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Harold Demsetz, “Why Regulate Utilities?”Journal of Law and Economics (April 1968): 55–65.

  39. Ibid.

  40. Ibid.

  41. Steve Hanke and Stephen J. K. Walters, “Privatization and Natural Monopoly: The Case of Waterworks,”The Privatization Review (Spring 1987): 24–31.

  42. Walter J. Primeaux, Jr.,Direct Electric Utility Competition: The Natural Monopoly Myth (New York: Praeger, 1986), p. 175.

    Google Scholar 

  43. “California Eyes Open Electricity Market,”The Washington Times ,May 27, 1995, p. 2.

  44. The following information is from Toni Mack, “Power to the People,”Forbes, June 5, 1995, pp. 119–26.

  45. Ibid., p. 120.

  46. Ibid., p. 126.

  47. Thomas Hazlett, “Duopolistic Competition in Cable Television: Implications for Public Policy,”Yale Journal on Regulation 7 (1990).

  48. Ibid.

  49. Ibid.

  50. Ibid.

  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. Pacific West Cable Co. v.City of Sacramento, 672 F. Supp. 1322 1349–40 (E.D. Cal. 1987), cited in Hazlett, “Duopolistic Competition.”

  53. Thomas Hazlett, “Duopolistic Competition in Cable Television.”

  54. Adam D. Thierer, “Unnatural Monopoly: Critical Moments in the Development of the Bell System Monopoly,”Cato Journal (Fall 1994): 267–85.

  55. Ibid., p. 270.

  56. Ibid.

  57. G. H. Loeb, “The Communications Act Policy Toward Competition: A Failure to Communicate,”Duke Law Journal 1 (1978): 14.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Thierer, “Unnatural Monopoly: Critical Moments in the Development of the Bell System Monopoly,” p. 277.

  59. Gray, “The Passing of the Public Utility Concept,” p. 10.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. the Sellinger School of Business and Management, Loyola College, USA

    Thomas J. DiLorenzo (professor of economics)

Authors
  1. Thomas J. DiLorenzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

DiLorenzo, T.J. The myth of natural monopoly. Rev Austrian Econ 9, 43–58 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01103329

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01103329

Keywords

  • Public Finance
  • Natural Monopoly