The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management

Living Edition
| Editors: Mie Augier, David J. Teece

Monopoly Rents

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2_430-1
  • 97 Downloads

Abstract

Monopoly rents are earned by firms that are able to restrict supply and/or increase prices without fear of attracting competitors. The difference between price and long-run marginal cost is a measure of the economic rent, and the sum of the difference across all units sold is the total monopoly rent. This can be higher if price discrimination is possible. There are a number of ways in which monopoly rents can be secured, such as government grant of monopoly, through patents, through (illegal) anticompetitive conduct or collusion. In practice, monopoly rents are often hard to identify and measure.

Keywords

Price Discrimination Advanced Economy Government Grant Economic Rent Perfect Competition 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Chamberlin, E.H. 1933. The theory of monopolistic competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Demsetz, H. 1973. Industry structure, market rivalry, and public policy. Journal of Law and Economics 16: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fisher, F.M., and J.J. McGowan. 1983. On the misuse of accounting rates of return to infer monopoly profits. American Economic Review 73: 82–97.Google Scholar
  4. Gallini, N.T. 2002. The economics of patents: Lessons from recent U.S. patent reform. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16: 131–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Porter, M. 1980. Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  6. Scherer, F.M., and D. Ross. 1990. Industrial market structure and economic performance, 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  7. Teece, D.J. 1984. Economic analysis and strategic management. California Management Review 26: 87–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Teece, D.J., and M. Coleman. 1998. The meaning of monopoly: Antitrust analysis in high-technology industries. The Antitrust Bulletin 43: 801–857.Google Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Berkeley Research Group, LLCEmeryvilleUSA