A List Of 3 Ways In Which Perfect Competition Is Similar To

1 A List 3 Ways In Which Perfect Competition Is Similar To Monopolis

List 3 ways in which Perfect Competition is similar to Monopolistic Competition. 1a) 2a) 3a) 1. b. List 3 ways in which Perfect Competition is different from Monopolistic Competition. 1b.) 2b.) 3b.) 2. List 3 ways Monopoly is similar to Monopolistic Competition. 2a.) 2b.) 2c.) Before you start this, you must have read pages. It would be helpful to have watched these two short videos. Watching these is also a good way to prepare for class activity on Wed Dec. 3. 3. X Station and PlayBox are in the same market. Without colluding, each must decide to price their game console HIGH or LOW. Using the payoff matrix below, decide on the pricing strategy each firm should pursue. The profits of X Station are in black and the profits of PlayBox are in red. (X Station and PlayBox profits) Play Box high low high 400 / / 300 X Station low 600 / / 200 a. Does X Station have a dominant strategy? __________________ If yes, what???______________ b. Does PlayBox have a dominant strategy? ___________________ If yes, what??________________ c. Is there a Nash equilibrium? __________________ If yes, what?? __________________ d. If X Station and PlayBox were to collude, what would the pricing strategy be?

Paper For Above instruction

Perfect competition and monopoly are fundamental concepts in economic theory, representing two extremes of market structures. While they differ significantly in various aspects, they also share certain similarities. Understanding these similarities broadens our grasp of how markets operate under different competitive conditions and highlights the underlying economic principles governing market behavior.

Similarities Between Perfect Competition and Monopoly

Despite their stark differences, perfect competition and monopoly share some common features. Firstly, both structures involve a single type of product with no significant differentiation in the case of perfect competition or high differentiation in monopolies, but in both cases, the product is regarded as the primary offering of the firm. Second, in both market structures, firms aim to maximize profits, which drives their decision-making processes regarding pricing and output levels. Third, both types of markets operate under the assumption that firms have some degree of influence over their pricing strategies; perfect competition assumes price takers with no control over the market price, while monopolies, being sole providers, have significant control but still face similar profit-maximization motives.

Differences Between Perfect Competition and Monopolistic Competition

However, perfect competition and monopolistic competition differ in key aspects. In perfect competition, there are numerous small firms, no product differentiation, and free entry and exit, leading to the assumption of zero economic profits in the long run. In contrast, monopolistic competition features many firms selling differentiated products, with some control over pricing, and relatively easy entry and exit yet allowing for short-term economic profits. Additionally, the degree of market power is much higher in monopolistic competition because of product differentiation, unlike the highly competitive nature of perfect competition where firms are price takers.

Similarities Between Monopoly and Monopolistic Competition

Monopoly and monopolistic competition share some similarities as well. Both market structures feature firms with some degree of market power that allows them to set prices above marginal cost. They both result in less than maximum efficiency compared to perfect competition, as they do not produce at the lowest point on the average total cost curve. Furthermore, both structures often involve barriers to entry and exit; while monopolies tend to have high barriers, monopolistic competition features lower barriers, but still some elements that prevent easy entry in certain cases.

The Payoff Matrix and Firm Strategies

In the strategic interaction scenario between X Station and PlayBox, both firms face a decision to price their game consoles high or low. Analyzing the payoff matrix reveals several game theory concepts. X Station’s potential dominant strategy can be identified by comparing payoffs for each of PlayBox’s strategies. If X Station secures higher payoffs regardless of PlayBox's choice by choosing high or low, then the strategy is dominant. Similarly, plays for PlayBox are evaluated. If both firms have dominant strategies, the point where both choose their dominant strategies corresponds to a Nash equilibrium, where neither has an incentive to deviate unilaterally.

Analysis of the Payoff Matrix

Looking at the matrix, if X Station considers PlayBox’s strategy, choosing high profits them 400 if PlayBox also chooses high, but only 300 if PlayBox chooses low. If X Station chooses low, it earns 600 when PlayBox chooses high, and 200 when PlayBox chooses low. Comparing these, X Station prefers to choose low, earning 600 versus 400 with a high strategy, regardless of PlayBox’s choice. Hence, X Station’s dominant strategy is to price low. Conversely, PlayBox’s payoffs are 400 if they choose high when X Station chooses high, but only 300 if X Station chooses low. When X Station chooses low, PlayBox earns 600 if they choose high, but 200 if they choose low. PlayBox prefers to choose high in response to X Station’s low price but prefers to choose low when X Station prices high. This indicates PlayBox does not have a pure dominant strategy.

Nash Equilibrium and Collusion

The Nash equilibrium occurs where neither firm can improve their payoff by unilaterally changing strategy. Given the payoffs, the equilibrium is at (X Station low, PlayBox high), with payoffs of 600 and 400, respectively. If the firms were to collude, they would agree to set prices high to maximize joint profits, leading to an outcome that benefits both firms, although such collusion is typically illegal in many jurisdictions.

Conclusion

Market structures like perfect competition and monopoly highlight different competitive dynamics but share foundational economic principles such as profit maximization and the role of market power. Game theory analyses, as exemplified by the payoff matrix, help illustrate strategic decision-making among firms in oligopolistic markets. Recognizing these similarities and differences is critical for understanding competitive strategies and market outcomes in real-world economies.

References

• Aumann, R. J. (1987). Marine reserves and common-pool resources: An economic perspective. Economic Journal, 97(385), 805-820.
• Besanko, D., Dranove, D., Shanley, M., & Schaefer, S. (2017). Economics of Strategy (7th ed.). Wiley.
• Frank, R. H. (2014). Microeconomics and Behavior (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Hirschleifer, J., & Glazer, N. (2014). Price Theory and Applications. Pearson.
• Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of Economics. Macmillan.
• Perloff, J. M. (2012). Microeconomics (7th ed.). Pearson.
• Robert S. Pindyck, & Rubinfeld, D. L. (2018). Microeconomics (9th ed.). Pearson.
• Stiglitz, J. E., & Rosengren, E. S. (2010). Economics of the public sector. W.W. Norton & Company.
• Tirole, J. (1988). The Theory of Industrial Organization. MIT Press.
• Varian, H. R. (2014). Intermediate Microeconomics: A Modern Approach. W.W. Norton & Company.