Evaluation of Social Welfare Cost in Iranian Industries (Based on Harberger and Posner Approach)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Associate professor, University of Sistan and Baluchestan.

Abstract

The results of previous studies in Iran industry sector have revealed the fact that effective monopoly structure is dominant in more than 50% of activitiesinthe sector. The purpose of this study is to evaluate, the amount of social cost of such structure has imposed to society because of dominating effective monopoly structure in Iran industry sector. In this research, the calculations related to estimation the social cost of monopoly have been done in Iran industry in 2011, based on Posner and Harberger's indices. according to Harberger 's approach and first scenery,this index is calculated for monopoly industries, over7% of monopoly industry sale, is the social cost imposed to society.Also this ratio will be more than 26% according to Posner's index; i.e. in addition to welfare triangle, economic rent,and spend cost for monopoly power trade, social cost that monopoly industry imposes to society is about 26.7% of this sale if it is assumed as a sector of social cost.And, if basedon Harberger's approach and second scenery, this index is calculatedfor monopoly industry, more than 5.4% of monopoly industry sale, is the social cost imposed to society. This ratio, also, will be more than 23.9% based on Posner's index.

Keywords

References

1. خداداد کاشی، فرهاد (1379 ). انحصار، رقابت و تمرکز در بازارهای صنعتی ایران. (73-1367) فصلنامه شماره 15 پژوهشنامه بازرگانی.
2. خداداد کاشی،‌ فرهاد (1380 ). ارزیابی قدرت و حجم فعالیت‎های انحصاری در اقتصاد ایران. موسسه مطالعات و پژوهش‎های بازرگانی.
3.خداداد کاشی، فرهاد (1379). برآورد هزینه اجتماعی انحصار در بخش صنعت ایران. مجله پژوهشنامه بازرگانی، شماره 19.
4. شهبازی حبیب، کاوسی کلاشمی محمد (1388). برآورد رفاه از دست­رفته ناشی از وجود انحصار در صنعت تولید شیر ایران. اقتصاد کشاورزی و توسعه.
5. شهیکی تاش، محمدنبی و فیوضی اختیاری، نسیم (1388). برآورد هزینه رفاهی در بخش صنعت بیمه ایران. فصلنامه پژوهشهای اقتصادی ایران، شماره 32.
6. Brown, R. A.(1975) The Social Cost of Monopoly and Regulation, The Journal of Political Economy, 83(4), Pp. 807-828.
7. Basu, S., and Fernald, J.G. (1995). Are Apparent Productive Spillovers a Figment of Specification Error?. Journal of Monetary Economics, 36, 165-88.
8. Chen, J (2011), The Quiet Life of Monopolist: the Efficiency Losses of Monopoly Reconsidered, Springer-Verlag, 6(3), 389-412.
9. Comanor, W. S., Leibenstein .H (1969). Allocative Efficiency, X-Efficiency and the Measurment of Welfare Losses, Economica, New Series, 36(143), 304-309.
10. Cowling, K. & Muller, D. (1978). The social cost of monopoly Power. Economic Journal, 88, 727-748.
11. Ferguson, P.R. & Ferguson, G.J. (1994). Industrial Economics. Macmillan.
13. Hall, R., (1988) “The Relation between Price and Marginal Cost in U.S. Industry. Journal of Political Economy, 96(5), 921-947.
14.Gisser, M,( 1986) Price Leadership and Welfare Losses in U.S. manufacturing. The American Economic Review, 76(4), 756-767.
15. Kamien M., Schwartz N., (1982). Market Structure and Innovation. Cambridge University Press.
16. Posner, R. (1975). The social cost of monopoly & Regulation. Journal of political Economy, 83(4).
17. Bergeson, A., (1973). On Monopoly Welfare loss. American Economic Review, 63(5), 853-70
 18. Roeger, W., (1995). Can Imperfect Competition explain the Difference between Primal and Dual Productivity Measures? Estimates for US Manufacturing. Journal of Political Economy, 103, 316-30
19. Saving, Thomas R. (1970). Concentration and the Degree of Monopoly. International Economic Review, 11, 139-146.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics