Question:
Are free markets assumed to be perfectly competitive?
Sam123
2014-05-18 06:44:56 UTC
Is it correct to say that free markets assume perfect competition and that's why they may result in an efficient allocation of resources?
Six answers:
anonymous
2014-05-18 06:53:28 UTC
No, the threshold for a competitive free-market is 35 million consumers.



If you have less consumers, there's not enough room to truly be competitive, and not develop Monopolies, so you need to regulate, or you end up in a fixed-market.
anonymous
2014-05-18 19:00:30 UTC
No, the allocation of resources should be optimized both in the case of perfect and imperfect competition. The perfect competition is a hypothetical model to compare what the first best is.
anonymous
2016-02-14 15:00:50 UTC
One of the main attractions of trading Binary Options is that there is of course an element of skill involved in you choosing just which Assets or Forex Options to trade, and if you are the type of investor who likes to keep their finger on the pulse, and are the type of person who religiously reads all of the latest financial news sorties then they are regular and repeated profits to be made by successfully trading Binary Options online. Read here https://tr.im/Bfg2p
anonymous
2014-05-18 09:03:18 UTC
Market freedom can be thought as an absence of legal constraints and requirements on production, consumption and transactions. If the government does not intervene, it's a free market. On the other hand, perfect competition is an economic environment defined by the behavior of the parties involved. In such markets, prices are left out of the decision space -- it's the typical "price-taker" assumption of your textbooks.



These are working definitions which we could use as a first step to answer your question. However, I would argue that your approach takes an unnecessary detour through a highly simplified model of human agency. Indeed, as you might have noted, perfect competition rules out pricing decisions by making them external to the model. Obviously, pricing decisions do occur as the fact of existing prices in even fiercely competitive environment may testify.



So, instead of building our house on sand by using the unnecessary assumption of "price-taking" behaviors, we'll right away ask about the efficiency of resource allocation resulting from a free market. As your argument puts it, it is a conditional statement: if markets are free (as defined above), then the resources employed in this market are efficiently allocated. We then need to be specific about what "efficiently allocated" means. Typically, we take Pareto's criterion: a market is efficient if and only if every mutually beneficial trade opportunity has been depleted. There are other ways to say the same thing by invoking preferences, but this one captures the essence of it -- and we'll use Pareto's criterion.



Without alerting you about the impending spoiler, the answer is not: market freedom does not guarantee an efficient allocation of resources. To prove this, I need only one counter-example. To be fair, I'll rule out public goods, external effects and information problems and I'll single out the case of increasing returns to scale. Increasing returns to scale is a situation where multiplying every input by a constant more than multiply the output by this constant (e.g., twice every input may lead to 4 times as many output). The nice thing about such a situation is that, for some values of output, the marginal cost is lower than the average cost -- the average cost per unit is greater than the cost induced by the last unit.



Regardless of the market arrangement we are looking at, the Pareto efficient allocation of resources is when the marginal cost of producing a good is matched by the marginal value consumers attribute to the good. But if the demand is such that the relevant interval of production is one where increasing returns to scale applies, pricing at the marginal cost leads to negative profits. In the long run, the number and size of firms involved will shrink until each firm acquires enough market power -- that is, until they can influence pricing enough -- so that they can charge at least the average cost.



It's the textbook case of a "natural monopoly," though it could as well lead to an oligopoly. In that situation, the allocation is not efficient. There is, as introduction-level graphics put it, a "dead weight loss" because some transactions which would constitute a Pareto improvement (make at least one person better off without making anyone less worst off) do not take place. And this is just one example.



However, as your question involved "free market" implies "efficient allocation," I needed only to show at least one instance where "free market" implies "inefficient allocation."
A
2014-05-18 08:37:18 UTC
Yes, free markets are entirely competitive.



Governments grant corporate charters, subsidies and monopolies. These things cannot exist without government intervention into an economy.



Free markets have rarely existed in reality, since government power is influenced by the rich to give their companies special treatment. This is what left-wingers don't understand: government regulation is often designed to benefit certain companies. The more regulation, the more certain powerful companies will benefit.
Kiron Kang
2014-05-19 01:21:30 UTC
Extract http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/a2-micro-perfect-competition.html

Perfect competition – a pure market

Perfect competition describes a market structure whose assumptions are strong and therefore unlikely to exist in most real-world markets. Economists have become more interested in pure competition partly because of the growth of e-commerce as a means of buying and selling goods and services. And also because of the popularity of auctions as a device for allocating scarce resources among competing ends.

Assumptions for a perfectly competitive market

Many sellers each of whom produce a low percentage of market output and cannot influence the prevailing market price.

Many individual buyers, none has any control over the market price

Perfect freedom of entry and exit from the industry. Firms face no sunk costs and entry and exit from the market is feasible in the long run. This assumption means that all firms in a perfectly competitive market make normal profits in the long run.

Homogeneous products are supplied to the markets that are perfect substitutes. This leads to each firms being “price takers” with a perfectly elastic demand curve for their product.

Perfect knowledge – consumers have all readily available information about prices and products from competing suppliers and can access this at zero cost – in other words, there are few transactions costs involved in searching for the required information about prices. Likewise sellers have perfect knowledge about their competitors.

Perfectly mobile factors of production – land, labour and capital can be switched in response to changing market conditions, prices and incentives.

No externalities arising from production and/or consumption.

Evaluation – Understanding the real world of imperfect competition!

It is often said that perfect competition is a market structure that belongs to out-dated textbooks and is not worthy of study! Clearly the assumptions of pure competition do not hold in the vast majority of real-world markets, for example, some suppliers may exert control over the amount of goods and services supplied and exploit their monopoly power.

On the demand-side, some consumers may have monopsony power against their suppliers because they purchase a high percentage of total demand. Think for example about the buying power wielded by the major supermarkets when it comes to sourcing food and drink from food processing businesses and farmers. The Competition Commission has recently been involved in lengthy and detailed investigations into the market power of the major supermarkets.

In addition, there are nearly always some barriers to the contestability of a market and far from being homogeneous; most markets are full of heterogeneous products due to product differentiation – in other words, products are made different to attract separate groups of consumers.

Consumers have imperfect information and their preferences and choices can be influenced by the effects of persuasive marketing and advertising. In every industry we can find examples of asymmetric information where the seller knows more about quality of good than buyer – a frequently quoted example is the market for second-hand cars! The real world is one in which negative and positive externalities from both production and consumption are numerous – both of which can lead to a divergence between private and social costs and benefits. Finally there may be imperfect competition in related markets such as the market for key raw materials, labour and capital goods.

Adding all of these points together, it seems that we can come close to a world of perfect competition but in practice there are nearly always barriers to pure competition. That said there are examples of markets which are highly competitive and which display many, if not all, of the requirements needed for perfect competition. In the example below we look at the global market for currencies.

Currency markets - taking us closer to perfect competition;

The global foreign exchange market is where all buying and selling of world currencies takes place. There is 24-hour trading, 5 days a week.

Trading volume in the Forex market is around $3 trillion per day – equivalent to the annual GDP of France! 31% of global trading takes place in London alone.

Most trading in currencies is ‘speculative.’

The main players in the currency markets are as follows:

Banks both as “market makers” dealing in currencies and also as end-users demanding currency for their own operations.

Hedge funds and other institutions (e.g. funds invested by asset managers, pension funds).

Central Banks (including occasional currency intervention in the market when they buy and sell to manipulate an exchange rate in a particular direction).

Corporations (for example airlines and energy companies who may use the currency market for defensive ‘hedging’ of exposures to risk such as volatile oil and gas prices.)

Private investors and people remitting money earned overseas to their country of origin / market speculators trading in currencies for their own gain / tourists going on holiday and people traveling around the world on busine

Why does a currency market come close to perfect competition?

Homogenous output: The "goods" traded in the foreign exchange markets are homogenous - a US dollar is a dollar and a euro is a euro whether someone is trading it in London, New York or Tokyo.

Many buyers and sellers meet openly to determine prices: There are large numbers of buyers and sellers - each of the major banks has a foreign exchange trading floor which helps to "make the market". Indeed there are so many sellers operating around the world that the currency exchanges are open for business twenty-four hours a day. No one agent in the currency market can, on their own influence price on a persistent basis - all are ‘price takers’. According to Forex_Broker.net "The intensity and quantity of buyers and sellers ready for deals doesn't allow separate big participants to move the market in joint effort in their own interests on a long-term basis."

Currency values are determined solely by market demand and supply factors.

High quality real-time information and low transactions costs: Most buyers or sellers are well informed with access to real-time market information and background research analysis on the factors driving the prices of each individual currency. Technological progress has made more information immediately available at a fraction of the cost of just a few years ago. This is not to say that information is cheap - an annual subscription to a Bloomberg or a Reuter’s news terminal will cost several thousand dollars. But the market is rich with information and transactions costs for each batch of currency bought and sold has come down.

Seeking the best price: The buyers and sellers in foreign exchange only deal with those who offer the best prices. Technology allows them to find the best price quickly.

What are the limitations of currency trading as an example of a competitive market?.

imitations of currency trading as an example of a competitive market?

Firstly the market can be influenced by official intervention via buying and selling of currencies by governments or central banks operating on their behalf. There is a huge debate about the actual impact of intervention by policy-makers in the currency markets.

Secondly there are high fixed costs involved in a bank or other financial institution when establishing a new trading platform for currencies. They need the capital equipment to trade effectively; the skilled labour to employ as currency traders and researchers. Some of these costs may be counted as sunk costs – hard to recover if a decision is made to leave the market.

Despite these limitations, the foreign currency markets take us reasonably close to a world of perfect competition. Much the same can be said for trading in the equities and bond markets and also the ever expanding range of future markets for financial investments and internationally traded commodities. Other examples of competitive markets can be found on a local scale – for example a local farmers’ market where there might be a number of farmers offering their produce for sale.

internet and perfect competition

Advances in web technology have made markets more competitive. It has reduced barriers to entry for firms wanting to compete with well-established businesses – for example specialist toy retailers are better able to battle for market share with the dominant retailers such as ToysRUs and Wal-Mart.

One of the most important aspects of the internet is the ability of consumers to find information about prices for many goods and services. There are an enormous number of price comparison sites in the UK covering everything from digital cameras to package holidays, car insurance to CDs and jewellery.

That said the price comparison web sites themselves have come under criticism. For example the sites offering to compare hundreds of different motor insurance policies or mortgage products draw information from the insurance and mortgage brokers but might use limiting assumptions about the different types of consumers looking for the best price – the result is a range of prices facing the consumer that don’t accurately reflect their precise needs – and consumers may only realise this when, for example, they make a claim on an insurance policy bought over the internet which turns out not to provide the specific cover they needed.

And in the market for price comparison sites there is monopoly power too! Moneysupermarket.com currently has around 40% of the overall comparison site market, with Confused.com its nearest rival with a share of about 10%.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...