Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:21:47.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Monopsony, Dominant Buyers, and Oligopsony

from Part III - Monopsony

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2022

Roger D. Blair
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Christine Piette Durrance
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
Tirza J. Angerhofer
Affiliation:
Duke University, North Carolina
Get access

Summary

Monopsony is the inelegant term that refers to a market in which there is a single buyer (or employer) of a well-specified good or service. Provided that the supply of inputs is positively sloped, the monopsonist may have market power. Profit maximization will lead the monopsonist to depress the price of the input by reducing its purchases, which harms input suppliers and also consumers. Although it is somewhat counterintuitive, this apparent cost saving does not result in lower output prices. In this chapter, we will show how the exercise of monopsony power has deleterious economic effects in both the input market and the output market. We also extend our discussion to dominant buyers and oligopsonists. We observe monopsony in many health insurance markets. Dominant health insurers generally represent a large share of business for health care providers. This allows an insurer to depress reimbursement rates for health care providers by adjusting the quantity of the services that it buys. Those lower reimbursement rates may lead to a reduction in the availability and quality of care for patients.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abelson, Reed. (2021). Doctors Accuse United Healthcare of Stifling Competition. New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/health/unitedhealthcare-lawsuit.html.Google Scholar
American Medical Association. (2020). Competition in Health Insurance: A Comprehensive Study of US Markets. www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-10/competition-health-insurance-us-markets.pdf.Google Scholar
Angerhofer, Tirza J., and Blair, Roger D.. (2020). Collusion in the Labor Market: Intended and Unintended Consequences. CPI Antitrust Chronicle: May II. www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/collusion-in-the-labor-market-intended-and-unintended-consequences/.Google Scholar
Austin, D. Andrew, and Hungerford, Thomas L.. (2010). The Market Structure of the Health Insurance Industry. Congressional Research Service. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40834.pdf.Google Scholar
Bhaskar, V., Manning, Alan, and To, Ted. (2002). Oligopsony and Monopsonistic Competition in Labor Markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16: 155174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, Roger D., and Durrance, Christine Piette. (2008). The Economics of Monopsony. In Collins, W. Dale, ed., Issues in Competition Law and Policy. Chicago: American Bar Association, 393408.Google Scholar
Blair, Roger D., and Harrison, Jeffrey L.. (1992a). Cooperative Buying, Monopsony Power, and Antitrust Policy. Northwestern University Law Review 86: 331367.Google Scholar
Blair, Roger D., and Harrison, Jeffrey L.. (1992b). The Measurement of Monopsony Power. Antitrust Bulletin 37: 133150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, Roger D., and Harrison, Jeffrey L.. (2010). Monopsony in Law and Economics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, Roger D., and Lopatka, John E.. (2008). Predatory Buying and the Antitrust Laws. Utah Law Review 2: 415469.Google Scholar
Blair, Roger D., and Romano, Richard E.. (1997). Collusive Monopsony in Theory and Practice: The NCAA. Antitrust Bulletin 42: 681719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission. (2010). Horizontal Merger Guidelines. www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/804291/100819hmg.pdf.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Jonathan. (2013). Monopsony 2013: Still Not Truly Symmetric. The Antitrust Source. www.wsgr.com/a/web/191/jacobson-0413.pdf.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Jonathan, and Dorman, Gary. (1991). Joint Purchasing, Monopsony, and Antitrust. Antitrust Bulletin 36: 179.Google Scholar
Lerner, Abba. (1934). The Concept of Monopoly and the Measurement of Monopoly Power. Review of Economic Studies 1: 157175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×