Oligopoly and monopoly: essence, characteristics, advantages and disadvantages. Types of monopolies: natural, artificial, open, closed

The market economy is a complex and dynamic system, with many connections between sellers, buyers and other participants business relations. Therefore, markets, by definition, cannot be homogeneous. They differ in a number of parameters: the number and size of firms operating in the market, the degree of their influence on the price, the type of goods offered, and much more. These characteristics define types of market structures or otherwise market models. Today it is customary to distinguish four main types of market structures: pure or perfect competition, monopolistic competition, oligopoly and pure (absolute) monopoly. Let's consider them in more detail.

The concept and types of market structures

Market Structure- a combination of characteristic industry features of the organization of the market. Each type of market structure has a number of characteristics that are characteristic of it, which affect how the price level is formed, how sellers interact in the market, and so on. In addition, the types of market structures have varying degrees of competition.

Key characteristics of types of market structures:

the number of sellers in the industry;
firm sizes;
number of buyers in the industry;
type of goods;
barriers to entry into the industry;
availability of market information (price level, demand);
the ability of an individual firm to influence the market price.

The most important characteristic of the type of market structure is level of competition, that is, the ability of a single seller to influence the general market situation. The more competitive the market, the lower this possibility. Competition itself can be both price (change in price) and non-price (change in the quality of goods, design, service, advertising).

Can be distinguished 4 main types of market structures or market models, which are presented below in descending order of the level of competition:

perfect (pure) competition;
monopolistic competition;
oligopoly;
pure (absolute) monopoly.

table with comparative analysis The main types of market structure is shown below.

Table of the main types of market structures

Perfect (pure, free) competition

perfect competition market (English "perfect competition") - characterized by the presence of many sellers offering a homogeneous product, with free pricing.

That is, there are many firms on the market offering homogeneous products, and each selling firm, by itself, cannot influence the market price of this product.

In practice, and even on a global scale national economy Perfect competition is extremely rare. In the 19th century it was typical for developed countries, but in our time, only agricultural markets, stock exchanges or the international currency market (Forex) can be attributed to markets of perfect competition (and even then with a reservation). In such markets, a fairly homogeneous product (currency, stocks, bonds, grain) is sold and bought, and there are a lot of sellers.

Features or conditions of perfect competition:

number of sellers in the industry: large;
size of firms-sellers: small;
goods: homogeneous, standard;
price control: none;
barriers to entry into the industry: practically absent;
competitive methods: only non-price competition.

Monopolistic competition

Monopolistic competition market (English "monopolistic competition") is characterized large quantity sellers offering a diverse (differentiated) product.

In conditions of monopolistic competition, entry to the market is fairly free, there are barriers, but they are relatively easy to overcome. For example, in order to enter the market, a firm may need to obtain a special license, patent, etc. The control of firms-sellers over firms is limited. The demand for goods is highly elastic.

An example of monopolistic competition is the cosmetics market. For example, if consumers prefer Avon cosmetics, they are willing to pay more for it than for similar cosmetics from other companies. But if the price difference is too big, consumers will still switch to cheaper counterparts, such as Oriflame.

Monopolistic competition includes food and light industry markets, medicines, clothes, footwear, perfumery. Products in such markets are differentiated - the same product (for example, a multi-cooker) from different sellers (manufacturers) can have many differences. Differences can manifest themselves not only in quality (reliability, design, number of functions, etc.), but also in service: the availability of warranty repairs, free shipping, technical support, payment by installments.

Features or features of monopolistic competition:

number of sellers in the industry: large;
size of firms: small or medium;
number of buyers: large;
product: differentiated;
price control: limited;
access to market information: free;
barriers to entry into the industry: low;
competitive methods: mainly non-price competition, and limited price.

Oligopoly

oligopoly market (English "oligopoly") - characterized by the presence on the market of a small number of large sellers, whose goods can be both homogeneous and differentiated.

Login to oligopolistic market difficult, entry barriers are very high. The control of individual companies over prices is limited. Examples of an oligopoly are the automotive market, cellular communication, household appliances, metals.

The peculiarity of an oligopoly is that the decisions of companies about the prices of a product and the volume of its supply are interdependent. The situation on the market strongly depends on how companies react when the price of products is changed by one of the market participants. Possible two kinds of reaction: 1) follow reaction- other oligopolists agree with the new price and set prices for their goods at the same level (follow the initiator of the price change); 2) reaction of ignoring- other oligopolists ignore price changes by the initiating firm and maintain the same price level for their products. Thus, an oligopoly market is characterized by a broken demand curve.

Features or oligopoly conditions:

number of sellers in the industry: small;
size of firms: large;
number of buyers: large;
goods: homogeneous or differentiated;
price control: significant;
access to market information: difficult;
barriers to entry into the industry: high;
competitive methods: non-price competition, very limited price competition.

Pure (absolute) monopoly

Pure monopoly market (English "monopoly") - characterized by the presence on the market of a single seller of a unique (having no close substitutes) product.

Absolute or pure monopoly is the exact opposite of perfect competition. A monopoly is a one-seller market. There is no competition. The monopolist has full market power: it sets and controls prices, decides how much goods to offer to the market. In a monopoly, the industry is essentially represented by just one firm. Barriers to market entry (both artificial and natural) are virtually insurmountable.

The legislation of many countries (including Russia) fights against monopolistic activity and unfair competition (collusion between firms in setting prices).

Pure monopoly, especially on a national scale, is a very, very rare phenomenon. Examples are small settlements (villages, towns, small towns), where there is only one shop, one owner of public transport, one railway, one airport. Or a natural monopoly.

Special varieties or types of monopoly:

natural monopoly- a product in an industry can be produced by one firm at a lower cost than if many firms were engaged in its production (example: public utilities);
monopsony- there is only one buyer in the market (monopoly on the demand side);
bilateral monopoly- one seller, one buyer;
duopoly– there are two independent sellers in the industry (such a market model was first proposed by A.O. Kurno).

Features or monopoly conditions:

number of sellers in the industry: one (or two, if we are talking about a duopoly);
company size: various (usually large);
number of buyers: different (there can be both a multitude and a single buyer in the case of a bilateral monopoly);
product: unique (has no substitutes);
price control: full;
access to market information: blocked;
barriers to entry into the industry: virtually insurmountable;
competitive methods: absent as unnecessary (the only thing is that the company can work on quality to maintain the image).

Galyautdinov R.R.

Among market structures, an oligopoly, or a structure characterized by the presence of several sellers in the market, occupies a significant place. In other words, oligopolistic structures include such markets where from 2 to 24 sellers are concentrated. If there are two sellers, then this is a duopoly, or special case oligopoly, because it is no longer a monopoly. The upper limit is conditionally limited to 24 economic entities, since the countdown of monopolistic competition structures begins with the number 25.

Relationship types

According to the concentration of sellers in the same market, oligopolies are divided into dense and sparse. Dense oligopolies conditionally include such sectoral structures that are represented on the market by 2-8 sellers. Market structures that include more than 8 business entities are sparse oligopolies. This kind of gradation makes it possible to evaluate the behavior of enterprises in a dense and sparse oligopoly in different ways. In the first case, due to a very limited number of sellers, various kinds of collusion are possible with respect to their coordinated behavior on the market, while in the second case this is practically impossible.

Based on the nature of the products offered, oligopolies can be divided into ordinary and differentiated. An ordinary oligopoly is associated with the production and supply of standard products. Many standard products are produced in an oligopoly - these are steel, non-ferrous metals, building materials. Differentiated oligopolies are formed on the basis of the production of a diverse range of products. They are typical for those industries in which it is possible to diversify the production of goods and services offered. The level of density of the oligopolistic structure of the market is measured by the number of enterprises in a particular industry and their shares in the total sales of the industry within the national economy. Thus, by varying the number of enterprises, it is possible to determine the degree of concentration of production, and, consequently, supply in the studied branch of social production.

At the same time, it should be emphasized that it would be imprudent to focus on the scale of only the national economy. Oligopolistic structures can be formed both at the regional and local levels of management. Thus, due to the specifics of the possibilities for the consumption of ready-made concrete in local markets (a district, a small city), oligopolistic structures are also formed, as well as at the regional level in the supply of, for example, bricks.

However, at whatever level we consider oligopolies, we should not forget about two important points: intersectoral competition and product imports. The strength of the oligopoly is reduced by the supply of products by enterprises of other industries that have approximately the same consumer properties as the products of the oligopolists (for example, gas and electricity as a source of heat, copper and aluminum as a raw material for the manufacture of electrical wires). The weakening of the oligopoly is also facilitated by the import of similar goods or their substitutes. Both of these factors can contribute to the formation of more competitive structures compared to purely sectoral market structures.

The advantage of using this indicator is that it avoids the problem of assessing profitability and marginal costs for the industry.
Numerous studies have established that the coefficient q is, on average, quite stable over time, and firms with a high value of it usually have unique factors of production or produce unique goods, i.e., these firms are characterized by the presence of monopoly rent. Firms with small values of q operate in competitive or regulated industries.
Papandreou monopoly power index based on the concept cross elasticity residual demand, i.e. demand for the goods of this firm. A necessary condition for the exercise of monopoly power is a weak influence on the volume of sales of a given firm by the prices of other firms in the same market.
A. Papandreou in 1949 proposed the so-called penetration coefficient, showing how many percent the company's sales volume will change when the competitor's price changes by one percent:

Where Qdi is the volume of demand for the goods of the firm with monopoly power; Pj is the price of a competitor (competitors); lj is the coefficient of limited capacity of competitors, measured as the ratio of a potential increase in output to an increase in the volume of demand for their product, caused by a decrease in price.
The value of the concentration of sellers in the market is extremely important for determining the market structure. However, the concentration of sellers in itself does not determine the level of monopoly power - the ability to influence the price.
Only with sufficiently high barriers to entry into the industry can the concentration of sellers be realized in monopoly power - the ability to set a price that provides a sufficiently high economic profit.

24. Monopolistic competition. Costs of monopolistic competition. Non-price competition, advertising.
Monopolistic competition is a market structure that approaches in its characteristics to a competitive market, but contains elements of a monopoly. She's different a large number sellers and buyers, insignificant barriers to entry and exit, the heterogeneity of the product produced and the presence of a large number of imperfect substitute products. Demand for the products of firms is quite elastic, but still decreases, market power is small.
Monopolistic competition resembles perfect competition in that, due to low barriers to entry and fluctuations in demand
long run equilibrium industry is achieved at zero economic profit (LRAC=P).
Monopolistic competition is similar to monopoly in that price exceeds marginal cost (P>MS), a optimal output does not match efficient(minimum LRAC - Fig. 5.4).

To benefits monopolistic competition is the fact that it stimulates the production of a very wide range of various consumer goods and services.
Non-price competition - method of competitive struggle, which is not based on price rivalry with competitors, in this case the rivalry is based on technical superiority, high quality and reliability of products, more effective methods sales, expanding the types of services provided and guarantees to customers, payment terms and other methods. At the same time, it is taken into account that the impact of scientific achievements on the nature and quality of manufactured products has now increased, as well as the social role and importance of trade advertising .
Product differentiation (heterogeneity) is manifested in the different quality of goods and the methods of their pre-sale and after-sales service, in various conditions of sale, in advertising, trademarks and signs, etc.

25. Oligopoly: character traits, advantages, disadvantages. Cournot model. Analysis of the oligopolistic market in game theory.
Oligopoly is a market structure in which there are several sellers, each of which has such a large share of the total sales in the market that a change in the quantity offered by each of the sellers leads to a change in price. Under an oligopoly, each firm knows that at least some of its competitors' decisions depend on its own behavior, and therefore, when making a decision, it must take this circumstance into account.
There are several types of oligopoly:
- "uncoordinated" oligopoly, which excludes contacts between firms to establish a common price and production quotas.
-"cartel"(collusion) oligopolists, is a collusion to establish such an agreed level of prices and sales volumes in order to maximize the profits of the entire industry as a whole.
- play by the rules is a compromise between an "uncoordinated" oligopoly and a cartel. These rules can be unspoken, for example, price leadership or an unspoken accepted market price.
Characteristic features of an oligopoly. Limited number of market participants and their strong interdependence (by definition). The struggle of firms is focused on increasing market share. High probability of "hard" prices (price war) and non-price competition. The widespread mergers and acquisitions of firms, as the most effective way capturing a larger market share. The desire for collusion or "playing by the rules." The presence of significant barriers to entry into the industry, which different shape: economies of scale, cost savings due to accumulated experience, product fame, advertising campaign, product complexity, multiple product models, capital-labor ratio, etc.
Advantages
Favorable price competition among oligopoly participants is possible for the consumer, in which he can get access to cheaper goods, or better ones, if one of the oligopoly participants relies on the quality of the product and its advertising.
Due to the presence of competition of a higher order, the industry can develop more dynamically. Oligopolistic participants, seeking to capture a larger market share, reduce prices, improve product quality, increase production volume, striving for profits from scale. All this has a positive effect on the industry as a whole.
Flaws
The possibility of collusion can lead to high prices and low output, and as a result, to the crisis in the industry. The need for antitrust regulation.
Cournot theory(Augustine Cournot French economist, 1838) - the theory of oligopolistic pricing. Considering the interaction of oligopolists, he showed that each firm prefers to produce such a quantity of products that maximizes its profit. At the same time, he proceeded from the fact that the volume of goods sold by competitors remains unchanged. Cournot made two main conclusions:
1. For any industry, there is a certain and stable balance between the volume of sales and the price of the goods.
2. The equilibrium price depends on the number of sellers. With a single seller, a monopoly price arises. As the number of sellers increases, the equilibrium price falls until it approaches marginal cost.
Thus, the Cournot model shows that competitive equilibrium is achieved the more, the more the number of sellers increases. Many economists have postulated that firms expect their rivals to react to changes in prices or sales volumes. The Cournot model, which allows the opponent to do nothing (the volume of his sales is fixed), has been criticized.
Analysis of the oligopolistic market in game theory. It is often pointed out that oligopoly is really a game of character - a game in which, just like in chess or poker, each player must anticipate the opponent's moves - his bluffs, counter-moves, counter-bluffs - as much as possible. The Founders of Game Theory John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern, 1944, "Game Theory and Economic Behavior." Since the nature of pricing and the quantity of goods produced depends on the strategy of the player in the oligopolistic market, many complex oligopoly games have been developed by economists and mathematicians. Games differ in how much each player knows about the actions of the other, how many times the game is repeated, what is the number of players, the cost structure. Games have also been developed in which the participants used a "mixed strategy", varying their reaction to the actions of competitors on a random basis. These studies have yielded many interesting results applicable to individual cases without leading to any general conclusions. Some games are Nash-resolved, some are not. Some approach the competitive model as the number of firms increases, some do not. Some result in an efficient resolution (either from a player's or market's point of view), some do not. Game theory continues to be an active field of oligopoly research.

26. Typology of cooperative behavior of oligopolists: cartel, conspiracy.
Under an oligopoly, firms with strategic behavior try to find one form or another of cooperation.
Cartel is an agreement between several enterprises that establishes for all participants the volume of production, prices for goods, the conditions for hiring labor, the exchange of patents, the delimitation of sales markets and the share of each participant in the total volume of production and sales. Its purpose is to increase prices (above the competitive level), but not to limit the production and supply and marketing activities of participants. At first glance, the resemblance of a cartel to a monopoly is obvious. But a cartel very rarely, unlike a monopoly, controls the entire market, because it is forced to take into account the policy of non-cartelized enterprises. In addition, cartel members have a rather powerful temptation to deceive their partners by lowering prices or actively advertising their product, which creates conditions for capturing a part of the market. As a result, many cartels are a temporary market structure and are rare. In addition, the legislation of many countries considers cartel practices illegal and counteracts them. various methods. A classic example of the formation and existence of a cartel agreement so far is, for example, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which in different periods its history controlled from 25% to 60% of the oil production of industrialized countries. The impossibility of fully and constantly using the cartel for the interaction of oligopolistic firms forces them to go to tacit economic agreements, a secret economic policy in the field of changing prices and delimiting spheres of influence. Such cooperation can manifest itself both through the special economic policy of oligopolistic firms in the form of "price rigidity" or "leadership in pricing", and through special organizations such as "patent pools" (or consortiums). However, for the reasons listed above, the most commonly developed forms of oligopoly are those in which there is no formal agreement between firms to control the market.
“Game by the rules” is a compromise between an “uncoordinated” oligopoly and a cartel. These rules can be unspoken, for example, price leadership or a tacitly accepted single market price.

27. Goals and methods of antimonopoly regulation. Problems of its implementation in the Russian economy.
Antitrust regulation- it is purposeful state activity carried out on the basis and within the limits permitted by the current legislation, to establish and implement the rules for conducting economic activities in commodity markets with purpose protecting fair competition and ensuring the efficiency of market relations.
Regulatory methods :
-Antitrust laws. Development of laws. Rigidity of control over the implementation of laws by the state.
- Stimulation by the state of the development of effective demand for all categories of consumers: the population, industrial demand. This will lead to the development of production, an increase in the number of producers and the development of competition.
- Control of the activities of natural monopolies, control of prices for their goods and services. They cannot behave like commercial structures. The price should be set at a level that maximizes the receipt of GDP growth (mainly through the development of the real sector of the economy).
-State measures to implement antimonopoly legislation: accelerated consideration in court, the responsibility of judges for violation of the deadlines for considering antimonopoly cases.
The development of antimonopoly regulation is very important for the development of the Russian economy, where the degree of market monopolization is higher than in states with a historically established market economy. The Russian economy inherited from the Soviet economy a high level of concentration of production in many sectors of the economy. In Russia, natural monopolies also have great market power, operating in the basic sectors of the economy - the electric power industry and transport. Thus, RAO UES of Russia controls 98% of electricity consumers, RAO GAZPROM controls 94% of the domestic gas market, and the Ministry of Railways controls 77% of cargo turnover.

Page 16, total pages: 33

Historically, Russian industry has developed primarily as a large-scale industry. This state of affairs had already developed in Tsarist Russia, sharply intensified in the Soviet economy due to the roll in the creation of giant factories, and was inherited by modern Russia. Currently, competitive relations have been formed in a number of industries, at the same time, there are monopolized industries and industries with an oligopolistic structure.

Many modern Russian oligopolies began to operate in the market as the "heirs" of the Soviet largest enterprises, which usually included a parent plant and several related or supporting industries. In the Soviet economy, many types of products were produced by a single or a few manufacturers. For example, in mechanical engineering, a third of the product range of the industry at the end of the 1980s was produced by a single enterprise, and about a third - by two enterprises, i.e. a third of the Soviet engineering markets were monopoly markets, and another third were duopoly. 2 The state production and economic system of the USSR was a single national economic complex with coordinated, as far as possible on the basis of the compilation of intersectoral balances, the pace and proportions of development.

The presence of large factories in the absence of large firms was a feature of the USSR economy. This phenomenon was not typical for economically developed countries, where large corporations included many enterprises, often located in several countries. In the process of privatization, the trend characteristic of the Russian economy remained: large factories, but small firms. In the course of the redistribution of property, a trend is formed that is characteristic of economically developed countries: the consolidation of firms.

The instability of oligopolistic markets is largely determined by the instability of ownership relations in oligopolistic enterprises. The historically short period of existence of the current oligopolistic structures, constant changes in the balance of power between them, caused by changes in the external and internal conditions of functioning, determine the processes of moving objects of property and spheres of influence from one oligopolist to another.

It is noteworthy that the primary distribution of property took place not so much on the basis of natural selection in the course of competition, but through bureaucratic channels. The primary redistribution of property in Russia did not automatically lead to the formation of an effective owner, since the rules and norms of efficient management were not provided to minimize the amount of transaction costs. The amount of transaction costs depends on how clearly and unambiguously the delimitation of property rights, their exclusive imputation and use is carried out, and, consequently, on the possibility of preventively excluding unwanted interference by third parties in the use of these rights. Russia is characterized by a weaker specification of property rights than in developed countries. Lack of specificity of property rights, its repeated redistribution leads to a decrease in the responsibility of property subjects.

In the post-socialist countries, at the initial stage of systemic transformations, the opinion was widespread that the most important cause of the crisis that broke out in them was the dominance of state property. With the speedy privatization, hopes were pinned for a quick exit from the crisis and an improvement in the financial situation of enterprises. However, privatization, as in Russia, did not lead to an increase in the efficiency of enterprises.

In this case, the opinion of representatives of institutionalism is confirmed, according to which it is not the form of ownership, but the type of organization and management, the presence of a real competitive environment that determine the level of economic efficiency of production and the financial situation of enterprises. From the point of view of increasing the efficiency of the functioning of enterprises, according to S. Malle, the main goal of privatization is "the optimal distribution of responsibility for the results of production activities." 3

A characteristic feature of the process of the subsequent (late 90s of the XX century) redistribution of property in Russia was the use of legal gaps or illegal methods, such as the use of additional share issues, from the distribution of which minority shareholders were excluded; artificial increase in debt with subsequent assignment of debts; feigned company reorganizations; manipulation of the register of shareholders in order to exclude "unwanted" from participating in decision-making; initiation of bankruptcy proceedings for insignificant debts for the introduction of controlled external management. In Russia, there was a situation when, according to G.Ya. Yavlinsky, “... a relatively small but influential group of players used the existing chaos to consolidate their personal position by acquiring even more attractive assets and establishing their own “corporate” form of social contract regarding the provision of property rights 4 .

Modern Russia is characterized by a rather high level of ownership concentration. As noted in the World Bank report "Memorandum on the economic situation Russian Federation. From the economy in transition to the economy of development”, the modern Russian economy is characterized by the concentration of ownership in the hands of a few major players. 5 In the report of the Accounts Chamber on the results of privatization, expert assessments are given that in Russia “currently there is the highest level of concentration of private property in the world. That is, a situation has developed that slows down the processes of achieving the competitiveness of the Russian economy. Formation of a layer of small and medium-sized owners and entrepreneurs who are in developed democratic states driving force economic development and a pillar of political stability, did not take place”. 6

At the national level, a high level of concentration of ownership can lead to the fact that a few private interest groups will play a dominant role in shaping economic policy, while the role of state institutions will be reduced. Oligopolistic structures have better economic indicators compared to the non-monopolized sector due to their greater adaptability to operate in imperfect economic conditions. In this case, the thesis is confirmed that the less developed the market, the more advantages large firms have, since they better cope with risks and financial difficulties and are more effective lobbyists. "When several private agents control most cash flow or workforce, it is easier for them to lobby for their interests, bribe or blackmail government officials in order to influence the activities of legal, political or regulatory institutions. Imperfect economic conditions are the "conductor" along which the concentration of ownership at the level of enterprises merges with the concentration of ownership at the national level (including between industries). This is because the relative size of firms can disrupt competition.” 7

Foreign oligopolists did not remain aloof from the processes of redistribution of property in Russia. They had great advantages in the loan capital market, because they relied on the incomparably more developed money market of the West, which provided them with a sufficient amount of money. Russian enterprises that operated in the 90s of the twentieth century under severe financial constraints experienced a lack of financial resources not only for expansion, but also for conducting current production activities and became the object of acquisitions.

Let us pay attention to such an objective factor that contributes to the displacement of domestic oligopolists from the market when their foreign competitors enter the Russian domestic market, such as higher efficiency, in particular, productivity. A comparison of the data led to the conclusion that in such oligopolistic industries as aircraft manufacturing, automotive, civil and transport engineering, the rocket and space industry, petrochemistry, the labor productivity of oligopolists from economically developed countries is from 2 to 30 times higher than that of Russian oligopolists. The leading Russian oil and gas and steel oligopolists are several times behind the world leaders in terms of sales volume. Thus, Lukoil's sales volume is 7 times less than that of Exxon-Mobil and 1.5 times less than that of the Brazilian Petrobras. The metallurgical Severstal lags behind ArcelorMittal from Luxembourg by 8 times and from the Brazilian Gerdau by 1.7 times, in the chemical industry Uralkali from the German BASF by 100 times, but also from the Saudi Saudi Basic Industries by 27 times. The Russian Sberbank is almost 11 times behind the American Citygroup, and 2.5 times behind the Chinese ICBC. eight

The weakness of Russian oligopolists is especially noticeable if we compare individual Russian and foreign companies that are close in terms of turnover, including those from developing countries. The leading oil company in Russia, Lukoil, has 3.6 times less output per employee than the Brazilian state-owned Petrobras. The Russian Severstal is 3.5 times less productive than the Chinese Shanghai Baosteel Group Corporation, 4 times less than the Brazilian Gerdau and more than 20 times less than the Japanese Nippon Steel. In the chemical industry, Uralkali is 24 times less productive than the Saudi company SABIC. The Russian leader in the automotive industry, AvtoVAZ, is 7 times inferior to the Indian automotive corporation Mahindra & Mahindra. Sberbank is 2.4 times less efficient than the Chinese Bank of China, and 8 times less efficient than the Brazilian Banco do Brasil. With three times less turnover, Sberbank employs 240,000 people, while the Brazilian bank has 83,000. 9

An important factor is the often lower quality of domestic oligopolistic products. For example, the automotive giant KAMAZ has already stopped the assembly line three times during the current crisis, despite the almost permanent provision of large amounts of liquidity to it. The reason for the stops is the lack of demand, overstocking. And no matter how much additional liquidity is provided to KAMAZ, it will not be able to launch the conveyor if there are no prospects for selling the products. The same is true for other corporations. ten

At the beginning of the 21st century, another stage of redistribution of ownership to oligopolistic enterprises is observed. The oligopolistic industries, in which the majority of enterprises are mainly owned by Russian citizens, include some enterprises in machine building and the raw materials industries. There are also oligopolistic industries in which both domestic and foreign enterprises operate. These industries include the automotive industry, a number of enterprises in the raw materials industries. At the same time, whole areas of activity appear, in which Russian manufacturers are practically not represented. For example, in the Russian information technology market, foreign oligopolists compete mainly - IBM, Microsoft, Motorola, Intel, etc.

Characteristic for modern stage is the buying up of shares of machine-building enterprises by large metallurgical companies and organizations controlled by them, including as a result of bankruptcies of machine-building enterprises, the merging into groups of enterprises of various sub-sectors of machine-building under the auspices of large machine-building corporations, etc. Centralization is realized not only through the founding of giant companies, but also as a result of mergers and acquisitions. The consolidation of firms occurs not only as a result of intra-industry, but also inter-industry associations of capital.

Intra-industry mergers and acquisitions (i.e. those in which the buyer and seller are engaged in the production and sale of competing products, and the merger of which leads to an increase in economic concentration) accounted for about 40% of all transactions and actions subject to state control over economic concentration . The share of intra-industry mergers and acquisitions is especially high in machine building (more than 60%), food industry (more than 60%), electric and thermal power engineering (more than 75%), communications (100%), which indicates increasing concentration in these industries. eleven

The desire of companies to create a single production and technological complex necessitates the inclusion in the association of organically complementary enterprises that, in this moment may even be unprofitable, since the most important quality of an enterprise that is part of the group is its ability to complement other elements of the system. Thus, ensuring the effective functioning of the company as a system and its further balanced development comes to the fore. Such a concentration of production, which is not always relevant from the point of view of competition law, is of significant geopolitical interest, especially when the acquisitions are carried out compactly, in one or several adjacent administrative territories. World Bank experts note that a large group of holdings is emerging in Russia, which began to separate from their main industries, expand their business activities and compete on an economy-wide scale, creating industries and sub-sectors that are moving further and further away from their original type of activity. Some view this phenomenon as a desirable precondition for a faster restructuring of the entire economy, while others believe that financial-industrial groups have a stranglehold on entire sectors of the economy or regions. 12

During the period of economic crisis, there are opportunities for the real inclusion of the state in the number of owners of oligopolistic structures, an increase in the share of foreign capital in the ownership structure of oligopolistic enterprises. The crisis of 2008-2010 gave impetus to new redistributive processes of ownership, including for oligopolistic enterprises.

A specific feature of the 2008 crisis (unlike the crisis of 1997-1998) is the active participation of the state in the process of property redistribution. The current situation is diametrically opposed to the period of loans-for-shares auctions (November - December 1995), when the government, in order to replenish the budget, provided the oligopolists with shares in 12 large Russian enterprises (YUKOS, LU-KOIL, Surgutneftegaz, Sibneft, " Norilsk Nickel, Novolipetsk Iron and Steel Works, etc.), but in no case were the “pseudo-credits” returned, which meant the actual privatization of these blocks of shares at many times lower prices. In 2008, the state showed its readiness to refinance foreign loans of state-owned companies and the private sector, the default on which could lead to the loss of national control over strategic assets. Scientists predict an increase in the state's share in the corporate sector in 2009-2010 from 3-4 to 9-10% only at the expense of allocated funds for interventions in the stock market. 13

Thus, to date, there has been a separation of three types of oligopolists according to the form of ownership: oligopolists with state participation in ownership in the banking sector; leading private companies in the fuel and energy complex, engineering enterprises, large diversified corporations; branches of the largest foreign oligopolists. In an effort to ensure sustainability during the economic crisis, oligopolists in different areas behave differently.

Oligopolists of the first group force consumers to accept new price levels and actively use administrative resources.

The position of the oligopolists of the second group is more complicated. They are faced with the task of maintaining control over assets when applying for state assistance (GAZ, AvtoVAZ). During the economic crisis of 2008-2010, oligopolists resorted to various methods to receive state assistance. N. Krichevsky and V. Inozemtsev identify the following methods of pressure by Russian oligarchic structures on state authorities during a crisis in order to obtain financial support: the threat of negative consequences of the transfer of control over assets to foreign creditors; insistence on inclusion in the lists of strategic enterprises and participation in the distribution of funds allocated for the implementation of the government's anti-crisis program; obtaining guarantees for projects that suit the bureaucrats; pressure on the state through provoking protests. 14 The condition for the further development of oligopolists of this group should be an increase in the efficiency of functioning, a decrease in the level of transaction and transformation costs.

The position of the third group of oligopolists is relatively favorable. Using the "stream of competencies" obtained free of charge from the parent company, they can strengthen their positions in the Russian market by ousting Russian oligopolists.

Thus, in modern conditions, Russia is characterized by a process of constant redistribution of ownership of oligopolistic enterprises that form the basis of the national economy. The task of the authorities in an unstable economic situation should be related to preventing the establishment of control of foreign capital in the strategic sectors of the national economy, as well as preventing the ruin of oligopolists that are budget-forming or strategically important enterprises.

Of course, in order to preserve the oligopolistic companies that form a significant part of the consolidated budget, it is necessary to provide them with state support. All economically developed countries adhere to a similar policy in relation to the largest national companies. At the same time, it is necessary to separate the interests of the state from the interests of oligopolistic structures and, when providing financial support, convert aid into controlling stakes; not provide support to offshore holding structures; start buying up the debts of oligopolists at discounts; conduct comprehensive audits of the activities of owners and management for previous years; initiate bankruptcy procedures and the introduction of bankruptcy administration. This will make it possible to preserve the country's largest oligopolistic companies without prejudice to national interests.

The market is characterized by oligopolistic relations. An oligopoly in the economy is a kind of middle link that allows, on the one hand, to control and manage all the largest enterprises, and on the other hand, to create conditions for entering a competitive environment in the future. In any case, the topic is very relevant for Russia, because it is in our country that there are plenty of examples to study.

What is an oligopoly

Let us consider in more detail how this type differs from others. An oligopoly in a market economy is a meeting place for a small number of producers and many buyers. As a rule, the number of firms does not exceed 10-12 units. The most interesting thing is that an oligopolistic market can have both monopolistic and competitive features, depending on the behavior of its main participants.

You need to understand that when there are only a few large players on the market, they have only two behaviors: in the first, they cooperate and solve pricing issues together, and in the other, they compete and consider each other the worst enemies. In the first case, we are talking about "secret agreements", when the leaders over a cup of coffee or in a steam room simply agree on what kind of game to play. in the second model of behavior do not always benefit manufacturers, but reducing the cost of products or improving their quality attracts new potential customers.

Characteristic features of an oligopoly

Oligopolies in the modern economy have their own specific features. There are only a few of them:

1. There are only a few leading firms on the market. Usually they occupy approximately the same share in such a way that their power cannot be called a pure monopoly.

2. If we consider the graph, then the demand curve for each individual firm will have a falling character, from which we can conclude that the market is not competitive.

3. Home hallmark is that any action on the part of one of the manufacturers will not go unnoticed by competitors. If even the most important participant raises the price, its competitors will be forced to take similar actions or provoke demand for their products. At the same time, unlike in a competitive market, it is difficult to predict the behavior of buyers. An oligopoly in the economy is always an impetus to improve quality or reduce prices.

4. Often standardized products are produced in an oligopolistic market. Thus, manufacturers can only play price wars, since they cannot change the quality or type of products. At the same time, another subtype - a differentiated oligopoly (for example, the automotive industry) - allows for large-scale races between manufacturing firms for consumer attention.

5. Any oligopoly can be characterized by the concentration of production. The higher the value of this indicator, the less competition in the market. The degree of concentration can be calculated using the Herfindahl-Hirschman index.

Features of entering the market

It is very difficult for young firms to enter a market in which there are only a few large manufacturers. And this is not surprising. Oligopolies in the Russian economy have firmly strengthened their status, and their names appear on an international scale. As a rule, all industries that can be called oligopolistic are those where there are limited resources, complex technologies, and large equipment.

It is clear that it will be very difficult for a young company not only to start operations, because this requires huge investments, but also to continue to work at a competitive level. When the name "Lukoil" is on everyone's lips, it will be difficult to surpass it. In world practice, there are only two examples of successful entry into the oligopolistic market of a new company. These are Volkswagen in the USA and AvtoVAZ in Russia. And then, it was possible only with the condition state support, so we are not talking about normal competition here.

Oil production market in Russia

The role of oligopolies in the modern Russian economy can be clearly seen in the example of the oil production market. This is one of the most striking examples of how a few major players can pursue a policy of "secret agreements".

To begin with, consider which firms appear on this market and what segment they occupy. For this we need the following figure.

As can be seen from this figure, only 11 Russian companies produce almost 90% of oil. Of these, four own a 60% stake. They become the biggest players, dictating their terms. The distribution of production capacities in Russia is shown in the following figure.

What is really happening in the oil market

Oligopolies in the Russian economy, and in particular in the oil industry, behave like monopolists. In particular, there are vertically integrated systems that fully control the entire process from oil production, its refining and to sale to end consumers both on the external and internal markets.

As noted by the Antimonopoly Committee, the activity of the main players in this market is by no means transparent. Theoretically, the price of petroleum products should be formed under the influence of many external and internal factors, but in reality it is significantly overestimated, and, as calculations show, gasoline could cost 20% cheaper without harming producers. There is a conspiracy in which the main participants agree on a price and sell it on the domestic market.

Mobile operator market in Russia

If we consider the role of oligopolies in the modern Russian economy, then another good example shows the market of mobile operators. Competition here has long ceased to be exclusively price. For the right to attract the attention of the buyer, real wars are fought, sometimes even

Consider what is the state of affairs and which players are in the lead.

As can be seen from the figure, the Big Three, which includes MTS, VimpelCom (Beeline) and MegaFon, hold the majority of the market. Recent times Tele 2 is increasing its turnover, although access to the most profitable sites in Moscow and St. Petersburg is still closed for it. As statistics show, over the past year, there has been an outflow of customers from all operators by several percent. At MTS the number of clients decreased by 0.1%, at MegaFon - by 0.3, and at Beeline - by as much as 2.6%.

How does oligopoly manifest itself in the market of cellular operators

The "Big Three" controls almost the entire market of cellular operators. New technologies such as 3G and 4G Internet are in their power. In principle, the place of the oligopoly in the modern Russian economy can be seen from the way the operators behave. In 2006, the "big three" were involved in a major scandal and were accused of conspiring against regional operators. It was during that period that a merger of some small companies or their complete disappearance was observed.

In 2010, the Antimonopoly Service fined the largest market leaders for deliberately inflating tariffs for the provision of roaming services. Each company was fined, which amounted to 1% of their revenue received for their actions. The total income of the FAS amounted to 8.1 million rubles. One has only to calculate how many billions of rubles the companies themselves received.

"Big Three" and "Tele 2"

In 2006, the Swedish operator Tele 2 abruptly appears on the scene. It was formed back in 2001, but the persistent ones prevented it from settling in the central regions. Thanks to cunning manipulations with the shares of regional operators, in just one year, Tele 2 managed to secure competitive advantages in 13 regions. Further, the company pursued a very aggressive pricing policy, which allowed it to win back 4.3% of the market. It was a breakthrough that the main players in cellular communications could not fail to notice.

The "Big Three" began to interfere with "Tele 2" in every possible way, and completely non-competitive methods were used. So, a request was made to the Ministry of Internal Affairs from one deputy, after which all Tele 2 stations and offices began to be carefully checked to see if they were functioning correctly.

But the Swedish company did not retreat and the main goal was to conquer Krasnodar Territory. The "big three" could not allow this, and they had to cut prices by one and a half times in order to adequately resist the competitor. This example clearly shows the role of oligopolies in the modern economy. We are not talking about fair competition at all, and if new company wants to survive and gain a foothold here, you need to have very strong support either from the state or from more influential companies.

Oligopoly and its place in a market economy

All economists agree on a single point of view: oligopolies are needed modern world and market economy. And although such a market is sometimes difficult to control, sometimes there are real wars against competitors, there are still positive aspects for the formation of a healthy economic system. Namely:

1. First of all, large firms have significant finances that can be directed to the development of the industry, scientific and technical developments.

2. It follows from the first point that since there is money and it is possible to invest in development, the product will become more profitable for the buyer, and thus, it is possible to bypass competitors. Oligopoly in the economy is the most powerful engine of progress.

3. In a field where only giants exist, there is no such destructive force of competition as in a free market. There are low prices and high quality products.

4. Another advantage is barriers to entry. Only well-funded firms can compete with leaders.

Disadvantages of oligopolies

Almost all the advantages are the negative aspects that arise in the realities of the modern economy.

Let's start with the fact that leading firms are completely unafraid of competitors and behave willfully, doing whatever they please. They confirm the legality of their actions by secret agreements so that others act in a similar way. By colluding, they play buyers, forcing them to buy low-quality products at a higher price. And people have no choice, because the oligopoly in the modern economy is akin to a monopoly: either buy or stay (for example) without gasoline.

Although oligopolies can influence scientific and technological progress, and only they can do this, large firms are in no hurry to introduce new technologies and invest in development. Everything is explained by the fact that, again, the company is in no hurry, because it knows: they will buy anyway. Until all the previously invested money is paid off, nothing new will develop.

Consequences of market oligopolization

The negative attitude towards monopoly and oligopoly in the economy is clearly unjustified. Perhaps this is due to the fact that in our country there is too much distrust and too many of those who want to profit from the money of ordinary people. But in fact, the big ones in one industry are needed by the economy.

First of all, it is connected with the scale of activity. This is reflected in fixed costs. For small firms, almost all costs are variable. But in large industries, due to scale, you can save on the introduction of some new technologies. For example, the development of a new drug will cost $600 million, but these costs will be carried over for years until the problem is solved, and the costs can be added to the cost of already manufactured products, and the price will not change much.

Conclusion

Oligopoly in the economy is a very powerful tool for development scientific and technological progress. If you correctly direct the channel along which you need to move, then all the shortcomings and negative sides observed in the current situation in our country.