An Oligopoly Is Characterized By A Relatively Small Number

An Oligopoly Is Characterized By A Relatively Small Number Of Firms Of

An oligopoly is characterized by a relatively small number of firms offering a similar product or service. Oligopoly products may be branded, as in soft drinks, cereals, and athletic shoes, or unbranded, as in crude oil, aluminum, and cement. The main distinction of oligopoly is that the number of firms is small enough that actions by any individual firm on price, output, product style, quality, introduction of new models, and terms of sale have an impact on the sales of other firms in the industry. Review the Table 12.1 (Attached image) (pg. 416), select a dominant single firm, duopoly firm, and triopoly firm and discuss if you foresee any weaknesses in the three firms you selected that would allow entrance into this market or if one of the firms has enough strength to become a monopoly? At least 500 Words.

Paper For Above instruction

Oligopolies represent a market structure characterized by a small number of firms that dominate the industry, each holding significant market power and influencing market dynamics through their strategic interactions. This essay explores specific examples of a dominant firm, duopoly, and triopoly, analyzing potential vulnerabilities in their structure that could allow new entrants to penetrate their markets. Additionally, it evaluates whether any of these firms possess sufficient strength to evolve into a monopoly, exercising near-complete control over the industry.

Referring to the provided Table 12.1, the dominant single firm identified is often a market leader with substantial market share, such as Apple Inc. in the smartphone industry. Apple’s dominance is facilitated by its brand loyalty, patent portfolio, and control over the supply chain. Nonetheless, potential weaknesses include high product prices that may invite competitors offering cheaper alternatives, and over-reliance on a narrow product range that competitors could replicate or improve upon, thereby eroding Apple's unique position.

In the duopoly segment, consider the case of Boeing and Airbus in the commercial aircraft manufacturing industry. While Boeing maintains a substantial market share, its vulnerabilities include dependence on the cyclicality of airline capital expenditure and susceptibility to government trade policies. If new entrants develop innovative aircraft technologies or infrastructure support, they could challenge the duopoly's dominance. Boeing’s reliance on large-scale capital investments also constrains its agility and increases risk exposure to economic downturns.

The triopoly example involves the soda industry with Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Keurig Dr Pepper. Coca-Cola and PepsiCo enjoy strong brand recognition and distribution networks, but a significant weakness lies in their reliance on carbonated soft drinks, which face declining demand amid health-conscious trends. An entrant offering healthier beverage options or alternative delivery methods could carve out a niche, disrupting the established triopoly.

While these firms are dominant within their respective markets, they are not invulnerable. Barriers to entry such as high capital requirements, economies of scale, brand loyalty, and access to distribution channels protect these firms from new entrants. However, technological advances and changing consumer preferences can weaken these barriers over time. For instance, the rise of electric vehicles poses a threat to traditional automobile manufacturers like Toyota and General Motors, potentially diluting their market power and enabling new entrants to challenge their dominance.

Despite their strength, none of the selected firms currently possess the unavoidable market power required to establish a monopoly. A true monopoly requires not only dominant market share but also the absence of viable substitutes and high barriers to entry that prevent any new competitors from forming. Given the dynamic nature of these industries, technological innovation, regulatory changes, and shifting consumer behaviors continuously erode even the most formidable firms' market positions.

In conclusion, analyzing the weaknesses and strengths of a dominant firm, duopoly, and triopoly reveals that market entry remains feasible under specific circumstances, such as technological innovation, consumer preference shifts, and anti-trust interventions. While these firms hold substantial influence today, it is unlikely that any of them have enough market power to evolve into a pure monopoly, given the ongoing competitive pressures and structural barriers within their industries.

References

• Besanko, D., Dranove, D., Shanley, M., & Schaefer, S. (2017). Economics of Strategy (7th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
• Perloff, J. M. (2016). Microeconomics (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
• Stiglitz, J. E., & Walsh, C. E. (2006). Economics (4th ed.). W.W. Norton & Company.
• Pindyck, R. S., & Rubenfeld, D. H. (2013). Microeconomics (8th ed.). Pearson.
• Krugman, P. R., & Wells, R. (2018). Microeconomics (5th ed.). Worth Publishers.
• Katz, M. L., & Rosen, H. S. (2011). Microeconomics (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Friedman, M. (2002). Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press.
• Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. Free Press.
• Baumol, W. J., Blinder, A. S. (2015). Economics: Principles and Policy (13th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• OECD. (2020). Competition Policy in the Digital Age. OECD Publishing.