Essays on Monopoly and Perfect Market Structures Coursework

Tags: Monopoly
Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Monopoly and Perfect Market Structures" is a good example of marketing coursework.   Market structures influence the rate and nature of economic growth in an economy. In this case, the existence of diverse marketing structures, influence the adopted government policies, stakeholders behaviours as well as increased commitment levels. To this effect, in order for the stakeholders to develop appropriate decision structures, it is imperative to establish and understand the market structures accordingly. In this regard, among the common market structures include perfect competition, oligopoly, and monopoly markets. Over time, scholars have argued that the diverse market types have diversified effects and implications in their adoption.

To this effect, in order to create an understanding of these structures, it is important to evaluate each one of them based on their practical application in the market (Lee, 2011, p. 664). In this regard, this essay seeks to establish the distinguishing factors between a monopoly and perfect competition market. As such, it reviews the practical market structures in the Australian economy. With respect to the monopoly market structure, the essay reviews the Australian social service industry while under perfect competition it reviews the Australian healthcare industry.

In its analysis, the essay lists out the market characteristics common in various market platforms. As such, it discusses how each market structure is impacted by these structures differently. Finally, the essay offers a concluding remark on the established distinguishing characteristics. Discussion Theory of a Firm The theory of a firm argues that a firm is an industrial unit that serves a respective market in the industry. In this case, firms are described as definitive functional units developed to serve the market. Therefore, the theory argues that in order for an industry to develop must have a minimum of a firm with no set maximum. Under a monopoly market, there exists a single firm in an industry, with many buyers.

Consequently, customers are required and forced to acquire goods and services from a single market supplier in the industry. Therefore, based on this approach, there exists no distinction between the industry and the firm. Thus, the firm represents’ the industry and the industry represents the firm. To this effect, the firm operational policies and management frameworks act as the industry management frameworks of operation.

Therefore, there are no separately developed industry guidelines. Instead, the market adopts the firms’ guidelines and undertakes them as the industrial policy and operational requirements. Therefore, under a monopoly, the market perceives the firm and the industry as co-joined. This characteristic can be evidenced in the Australian social services industry. Oner (2013, p. 48) states that in this industry, the government is the sole provider of social services and amenities. As such, the government is mandated with the development of policies and guidelines for the provision and entitlement to these healthcare services.

In this case, the social services department develops its operational framework in services provision. However, due to the lack of alternative or competing market suppliers, the developed framework serves as the industry framework for social services provision. On the contrary, the perfect competition market operates under a clear distinction between firms and the industry. Under a perfect competition market, there as many suppliers in the market as there are buyers. In this case, no single organization claims the development of industrial policies.

In this case, industry policies are developed through inclusive and consultative approaches onto the market. In this case, firms take up the overall market-developed policies to determine and develop appropriate structures and policies. The developed policies are based o the overall interests of the stakeholders as well as the third parties in the market. This is evidenced in the Australian healthcare industry. In this industry, the market is governed and regulated through policies and frameworks developed by healthcare associations such as the Australian healthcare and Hospitals association.

This is a confederation organization for the respective healthcare services providers in the Australian market. In it is the representative body that aids in the development and establishment of appropriate policies and operational framework in the industry. Therefore, in the Australian healthcare industry, there is a definite difference between the healthcare organization and the industry frameworks. This analysis reveals the existing industry distinction difference between the industry and the respective organizations.


Ashton, J.K. 2001, "A test of perfect competition in the UK retail-banking deposit market,” The Service Industries Journal, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 119-132.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014, “Consumer Price Index, Australia, Dec 2013.” [Online]. Available at

Becker, B. & Wald, A. 2010, "Challenges and success factors of air cargo revenue management", Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, vol. 9, no. 1-2, pp. 171-184.

Domney, M.D., Wilson, H.I.M. & Er, C. 2005, "Natural monopoly privatization under different regulatory regimes: A comparison of New Zealand and Australian airports", The International Journal of Public Sector Management, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 274-292.

Ferguson, M.E. & L, B.T. 2006, "The Effect of Competition on Recovery Strategies,” Production and Operations Management, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 351-368.

Lee, T. 2011, "Endogenous market structures in non-cooperative international emissions trading,” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 663-675.

Ohlin, J, 1998, “Will Privatisation and Contracting Out Deliver Community Services?” Parliament of Australia, 15.

Oner, E. 2013, "Simultaneous Effects of Supply and Demand Elasticity with Market Types on Tax Incidence (Graphical Analysis of Perfect Competition, Monopoly and Oligopoly Markets)", International Journal of Economics and Finance, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 46-55.

Pires, C.P. & Jorge, S. 2012, "Limit pricing under third-degree price discrimination,” International Journal of Game Theory, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 671-698.

Predescu, A., Predescu, I., Toader, S.A. & Ungureanu, M.A. 2009, "The Power's Mechanism of A Monopoly in A Market Economy", Annales Universitatis Apulensis : Series Oeconomica, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 722-731.

Rasekh, A., Afshar, A. & Afshar, M.H. 2010, "Risk-Cost Optimization of Hydraulic Structures: Methodology and Case Study", Water Resources Management, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 2833-2851.

Riley, G., 2012, “Price Takers and Price Makers-Pricing Power”. [Online] Available at [Accessed 12 April 2014].

Schubert, T. 2010, "Marketing and Organizational Innovations in Entrepreneurial Innovation Processes and their Relation to Market Structure and Firm Characteristics", Review of Industrial Organization, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 189-212.

Sun, J. 2011, "Study on the financial supervision and anti-monopoly regulation of integration of industry and finance -- in view of confronting global financial crisis and mitigating domestic financial risks", Frontiers of Law in China, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 284-315.

Tseng, K. 2006, "Monopoly Pricing under Demand Uncertainty in Dynamic Markets: Pricing Hedge Strategy", Journal of Accounting, Finance & Management Strategy, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 74-87.

Willems, B. 2002, "Modeling Cournot competition in an electricity market with transmission constraints", The Energy Journal, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 95-125.

Yahanpath, N. 2011, "A brief review of the role of shareholder wealth maximization and other factors contributing to the global financial crisis", Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 64-77.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us