Monopoly Economics Essay
Four required sections. 1,000 words minimum. Five credible sources. Two articles that approach monopoly from completely different angles — one theoretical, one empirical. Here’s how to tackle every section without losing the thread between them.
Two articles. Very different methods. Very different conclusions about what monopoly actually does. Gilbert and Newbery (1982) build a theoretical model to explain why monopolies don’t just persist — they actively engineer their own persistence through patent strategy. Yoon (2004) takes a measuring tape to Korean industries and asks how much monopoly actually costs society in concrete welfare terms. Putting those two conversations together is what the essay is asking you to do.
What This Guide Covers
Understanding What the Assignment Actually Wants
The four sections aren’t arbitrary. They’re designed to test whether you understand each article on its own terms, whether you can position them relative to each other intellectually, whether you can apply economic theory to both, and whether you understand what each one adds to the existing literature on monopoly. That’s four different intellectual tasks dressed up as one essay.
Theory → Empirics → Synthesis — That’s the Arc These Two Articles Create
Gilbert and Newbery (1982) work at the theoretical level — game theory, patent races, the conditions under which monopolists can rationally outbid entrants. Yoon (2004) works at the empirical level — actual data from Korean manufacturing, actual calculations of deadweight loss and rent-seeking costs. The Compare/Contrast and Main Contribution sections are where you’re expected to notice that relationship and say something intelligent about it.
What “mastery and accuracy of relevant economic concepts” means: Your professor isn’t looking for a book report. They want to see terms like deadweight loss, consumer surplus, rent-seeking, market power, patent races, Schumpeterian competition, welfare triangle, and profit replacement effect used correctly and in context. If you’re using economic vocabulary, make sure you’re using it accurately — a vague reference to “market inefficiency” when you mean deadweight loss will cost you points. A precise application of the concepts will earn them.How to Read Both Articles Before You Write
Don’t try to read every word of Gilbert and Newbery (1982) before writing. It’s a 12-page mathematical economics paper from 1982 — parts of it are dense formal modeling that isn’t relevant to the essay sections. Read strategically.
What to Focus On in Gilbert & Newbery (1982)
- The core argument: A monopolist values a patent more than an entrant does because the monopolist protects existing profits — the profit replacement effect. This is the central thesis. Make sure you understand it before writing Section 1.
- The mechanism: Because the monopolist’s gain from winning the patent (staying at monopoly profit instead of falling to duopoly profit) exceeds the entrant’s gain (going from zero to duopoly profit), the monopolist can rationally outbid any entrant in a patent race.
- The implication: This means monopoly can persist not because the incumbent is more innovative, but purely because it has more to lose. This is a critique of the Schumpeterian assumption that innovation naturally displaces incumbent firms.
- The limitations the authors acknowledge: The model assumes certain conditions about cost structures and patent protection that may not hold in all markets.
What to Focus On in Yoon (2004)
- The research question: How large are the welfare losses attributable to monopoly power in Korea’s manufacturing sector?
- The methodology: Yoon applies Harberger’s (1954) triangle method and includes rent-seeking costs (following Tullock and Posner) to calculate the full social cost of monopoly — not just the Harberger deadweight loss triangle but also the resources spent trying to obtain and maintain monopoly positions.
- The key finding: Welfare losses in Korea are economically meaningful — roughly 1% to over 4% of GDP depending on assumptions. This is higher than Harberger’s original U.S. estimates and challenges earlier claims that welfare losses from monopoly are negligible.
- The policy implication: Anti-monopoly regulation has real, quantifiable economic value in emerging and newly industrialized economies.
Section 3 (Analysis) asks specifically about monopoly’s effect on social welfare (from Yoon) and the sources of monopoly power (from the literature). Make sure you’re clear on: deadweight loss (the efficiency loss from a monopolist pricing above marginal cost, represented graphically as Harberger’s triangle); rent-seeking (resources spent competing for monopoly rents rather than creating value — Tullock, 1967; Posner, 1975); consumer surplus (the benefit to consumers beyond what they pay); and market power (the ability to set price above marginal cost). These aren’t peripheral — they’re the core vocabulary for Section 3.
Section 1: Summary of Major Findings
This section covers both articles in one section. Around 200–250 words is appropriate if you’re targeting exactly 1,000 words total — roughly equal space to each article.
Major Findings Only — Not Methodology, Not Background, Not Everything They Studied
The heading says “major findings” — not “summary of everything.” Students often spend too much space in this section explaining what monopoly is or describing the articles’ context. Your reader already knows the articles. Get to what each one actually found, and why that finding matters.
For Gilbert & Newbery (1982): The major finding is the profit replacement effect and its implication — that an existing monopolist will rationally outbid potential entrants in patent races, causing monopoly to persist even when entrants might develop equally efficient innovations. This challenges the conventional view that innovative competition naturally erodes monopoly power. Name the mechanism, state the finding, note the implication. That’s enough for a summary paragraph.For Yoon (2004): The major finding is the measured scale of welfare losses from monopoly in Korea. State the finding: welfare losses are substantial, ranging from approximately 1% to over 4% of GDP, depending on whether rent-seeking costs are included. Note that these estimates are larger than Harberger’s original U.S. estimates. Mention the policy implication: the results support stronger anti-monopoly enforcement in newly industrialized economies.
Critical: paraphrase everything. The assignment explicitly prohibits copying sentences from the articles. Understand the finding, close the article, and write about it in your own words. The test isn’t whether you can reproduce what they said — it’s whether you understood it well enough to explain it differently.
Section 2: Compare/Contrast
This is the most intellectually demanding section. Students who just write “Gilbert and Newbery studied patenting while Yoon studied Korea” haven’t done the work. The comparison needs to be conceptual — what do these two papers say about the same topic (monopoly) from different angles?
A strong Compare/Contrast paragraph doesn’t just list differences. It shows what you learn by reading both articles together that you wouldn’t get from reading either one alone. The combined insight here is that the self-perpetuating logic of monopoly (Gilbert & Newbery) makes Yoon’s welfare cost estimates even more economically significant — because if monopoly doesn’t compete itself away, those welfare losses accumulate over time rather than being corrected by market forces. That’s an analytical synthesis, not just a contrast.
Section 3: Analysis — Monopoly’s Effect on Social Welfare and Sources of Power
Section 3 combines two sub-questions: what Yoon finds about social welfare, and what the literature says about sources of monopoly power. These need to flow as one analytical section — not two disconnected answers.
Deadweight Loss + Rent-Seeking = The Full Cost of Monopoly
Yoon (2004) doesn’t just calculate the classic Harberger triangle — the welfare cost that arises when a monopolist prices above marginal cost, reducing output and creating allocative inefficiency. He also incorporates rent-seeking costs, following Tullock (1967) and Posner (1975), who argued that the social cost of monopoly extends beyond the deadweight loss triangle to include the resources wasted competing for monopoly positions.
How to explain this in the essay: Explain that Harberger’s (1954) original estimates of U.S. welfare losses from monopoly were surprisingly small — often cited as less than 1% of GDP — which led some economists to conclude that monopoly’s welfare costs were negligible. Yoon’s contribution is partly methodological: by including rent-seeking costs and applying the analysis to Korea rather than the U.S., he demonstrates that welfare losses are substantially larger than Harberger’s estimates suggest. This has direct implications for anti-monopoly policy — if welfare costs are small, intervention is hard to justify; if they’re large, the case for regulation is much stronger.Key economic concepts to use correctly: Consumer surplus (the benefit consumers gain beyond what they pay), producer surplus, deadweight loss (the net welfare destroyed when monopoly reduces output below the competitive level), and rent-seeking (socially unproductive expenditure aimed at obtaining or defending monopoly rents). Don’t use these loosely — use them in context with precise definitions.
Patents, Barriers, Scale Economies, and Strategic Behavior — The Literature’s Full Answer
This part asks about the literature broadly — not just these two articles. Your three additional sources should contribute here. The economic literature identifies multiple sources of monopoly power, and your essay should cover at least three or four with enough depth to demonstrate understanding.
Patents and intellectual property protection: Governments grant legal monopolies through patents to incentivize innovation. Gilbert and Newbery (1982) specifically examine how incumbents exploit this mechanism strategically through preemptive patenting — acquiring patents not to use them but to prevent rivals from entering. This is a source of monopoly power rooted in legal institutions, not economic efficiency.Natural monopoly and economies of scale: Industries with high fixed costs and declining average costs (utilities, railroads, telecommunications infrastructure) naturally tend toward single-firm production. Here, monopoly emerges from technology rather than strategy.
Control over essential inputs: Firms that control scarce natural resources or key infrastructure (think early Standard Oil, De Beers and diamonds) can maintain monopoly through resource ownership rather than innovation or strategy.
Strategic barriers and network effects: Firms can create artificial barriers through predatory pricing, exclusive contracts, or by establishing network effects that make it costly for consumers to switch to rivals. Network effects are particularly relevant in digital markets — a point worth noting given how the literature has evolved since Gilbert and Newbery wrote in 1982.
Regulatory and government-granted exclusivity: Beyond patents, governments sometimes grant exclusive operating licenses or create regulatory conditions that effectively shield incumbents from competition. Yoon (2004) situates Korean monopoly power partly in the context of industrial policy — government intervention that deliberately concentrated market power in certain sectors.
Section 4: Main Contribution to Knowledge
This section asks specifically about what each article contributes to existing knowledge — not what they found, but how they moved the field forward. That requires you to know what the field looked like before they wrote.
Gilbert & Newbery’s Contribution
Before Gilbert and Newbery (1982), the dominant view — rooted in Schumpeterian competition theory — held that incumbent monopolists would eventually be displaced by innovators who developed better products or processes. Competition in innovation was seen as the natural corrective to monopoly. Gilbert and Newbery challenged this directly. Their contribution is demonstrating that a monopolist can rationally prevent competitive entry not by being more innovative but by having greater financial incentive to acquire patents preemptively. This reframes monopoly persistence from a failure of competition to an endogenous strategic outcome within the patent system itself — with significant implications for how we design intellectual property law and competition policy.
Yoon’s Contribution
Yoon’s (2004) contribution is methodological and empirical. Harberger’s (1954) original welfare triangle calculations produced surprisingly small estimates of monopoly’s cost to the U.S. economy, leading several economists to conclude that monopoly was not a significant welfare problem. Yoon extends this line of research in two ways: by incorporating rent-seeking costs into the welfare calculation, and by applying the analysis to a newly industrialized economy (Korea) where industrial concentration was partly policy-driven. His larger welfare loss estimates challenge the “monopoly doesn’t matter much” conclusion that some economists drew from Harberger, and provide quantitative evidence that anti-monopoly policy has economically meaningful stakes — particularly in developing and emerging economies.
The assignment says “how does the research from each article deal with the concept of monopolies differently, compared to existing literature?” This phrasing means you need a before/after framing: what was the existing literature’s view, and what did this article change or add? If your Section 4 just restates what the articles found without referencing what came before them (Schumpeter, Harberger, Tullock, Posner), you’re not fully answering the question.
Finding Your Three Additional Peer-Reviewed Sources
You have two assigned articles. You need at least five sources total. That means three more — and they need to be peer-reviewed journal articles, not textbooks, websites, or sources without authors and years.
Go to the Literature These Articles Cite — That’s Your Short List
The most efficient way to find relevant peer-reviewed sources is to look at what Gilbert and Newbery (1982) and Yoon (2004) themselves cite. Several of those citations are foundational papers that will strengthen your essay directly.
Harberger, A. C. (1954). Monopoly and resource allocation. American Economic Review, 44(2), 77–87. The original welfare triangle paper. Essential for Section 3’s discussion of deadweight loss. Yoon builds directly on this methodology.Tullock, G. (1967). The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies, and theft. Western Economic Journal, 5(3), 224–232. Introduced the concept that rent-seeking expenditures are part of monopoly’s social cost — directly relevant to Yoon’s methodology.
Posner, R. A. (1975). The social costs of monopoly and regulation. Journal of Political Economy, 83(4), 807–827. Extended Tullock’s rent-seeking argument. Referenced in the welfare loss literature Yoon engages.
Reinganum, J. F. (1983). Uncertain innovation and the persistence of monopoly. American Economic Review, 73(4), 741–748. A direct response to Gilbert and Newbery — argues that with uncertain innovation outcomes, the incumbent advantage weakens. Good for the Compare/Contrast or Contribution sections.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Note: this is a book, not a journal article, but it’s the foundational text for competitive dynamics and creative destruction that Gilbert and Newbery are responding to. Check whether your professor accepts books.
Harberger (1954), Tullock (1967), and Posner (1975) are all classic papers available through JSTOR. Your university library almost certainly has JSTOR access. Search the author’s last name and year, and you’ll find them quickly. For journal articles specifically, Google Scholar also works — filter by date and look for links to full PDFs or institutional access through your library.
Managing the 1,000-Word Requirement Across Four Sections
1,000 words across four sections means roughly 250 words per section. That’s a tight constraint. Every sentence has to carry weight — no padding, no restating what you just said, no long setup paragraphs before you get to the point.
| Section | Approximate Target | What That Space Is For |
|---|---|---|
| Summary of Major Findings | 200–250 words | ~100 words per article — core finding, mechanism, implication |
| Compare/Contrast | 200–250 words | Conceptual comparison — method, focus, context, combined insight |
| Analysis | 300–350 words | This section covers two sub-questions — it needs more space than the others |
| Main Contribution | 200–250 words | ~100 words per article — what the literature said before, what each article changed |
The requirement explicitly says 1,000 words “not including abstract, title and reference pages.” Your word processor’s word count function typically counts the whole document. Exclude the title page content, abstract, and reference list from your count. Only the body text — the four sections — needs to reach 1,000 words. Most students writing this assignment comfortably hit 1,100–1,200 words in the body when all four sections are properly developed.
APA Requirements for This Essay
The assignment links to the Purdue OWL as the APA reference. Use APA 7th edition unless your program specifies otherwise.
Title page: Paper title (centered, bold, title case), your name, institution, course name and number, instructor name, due date. No running head required for student papers in APA 7th edition.
Abstract: Own page, 150–250 words, no indent, “Abstract” as centered bold heading. Summarize the essay’s purpose and main findings.
Section headings: The four required headings (Summary of Major Findings, Compare/Contrast, Analysis, Main Contribution) are Level 1 APA headings — centered and bold.
In-text citations: (Gilbert & Newbery, 1982) and (Yoon, 2004) — both articles have two or two authors respectively. Use & inside parentheses, “and” in running text. For three or more authors in additional sources: (Tullock, 1967) — one author; (Posner, 1975) — one author.
Reference list: Alphabetical, hanging indent, DOI as https://doi.org/ hyperlinks where available. Gilbert and Newbery are a two-author journal article: Gilbert, R. J., & Newbery, D. M. G. (1982). Preemptive patenting and the persistence of monopoly. The American Economic Review, 72(3), 514–526. Note: the assignment cites the journal as “The American Economic Review” with volume 72, issue 3 — use those exactly.
Mistakes That Cost Points on This Essay
Using Generic “Monopoly Is Bad” as Economic Analysis
Statements like “monopoly reduces competition and hurts consumers” without naming the economic mechanism — deadweight loss, allocative inefficiency, reduced consumer surplus — don’t demonstrate mastery of economic concepts. The rubric explicitly requires accurate use of relevant economic theory.
Name the Mechanism, Not Just the Outcome
Explain that when a monopolist prices above marginal cost, output falls below the socially optimal level, destroying the welfare that would have been captured as consumer and producer surplus in a competitive market — a loss measured by Harberger’s (1954) welfare triangle. That’s economic analysis, not opinion.
Comparing the Articles Only on Surface Features
“Gilbert and Newbery studied patents while Yoon studied Korea” is a surface observation, not a conceptual comparison. It tells the reader nothing about the different theoretical frameworks, methodological approaches, or what each paper’s findings imply about monopoly as an economic phenomenon.
Compare on Theory, Method, and Implication
One article uses game-theoretic modeling to show monopoly is self-reinforcing; the other uses applied welfare analysis to quantify how much that self-reinforcement costs society. That pairing — explanation of persistence plus measurement of cost — produces a richer understanding than either article alone.
Citing Only the Two Assigned Articles
Five sources minimum is a hard requirement. The two assigned articles bring you to two. You need three more with authors and publication years. Harberger (1954) and Tullock (1967) are both directly relevant, citable in multiple sections, and findable through JSTOR.
Use Additional Sources to Add Depth, Not Just Count
Harberger (1954) supports Section 3’s discussion of welfare losses. Tullock (1967) and Posner (1975) add the rent-seeking dimension that makes Yoon’s methodology make sense. Reinganum (1983) adds context to Gilbert and Newbery’s contribution. These aren’t padding — they’re substantively relevant to the essay’s analytical tasks.
Writing the Contribution Section as a Second Summary
Section 4 asks what each article contributes to knowledge — not what it found. If your Main Contribution section reads like a repeat of Section 1, it hasn’t answered the question. Contribution means: what was already known, what was missing, and what this article provided that changed or advanced the conversation.
Frame Each Contribution as a Response to Prior Literature
Gilbert and Newbery responded to Schumpeterian optimism about creative destruction. Yoon responded to Harberger’s small welfare loss estimates and extended them to a different economic context. Frame each contribution in terms of what it was pushing back against or extending — that’s what “contribution to knowledge” means in an academic context.
Pre-Submission Checklist
Frequently Asked Questions
Need Help Writing Your Economic Analysis Essay?
Comparative economics essays, peer-reviewed source research, APA formatting, and full essay writing — our economics writing team works with students across microeconomics, industrial organization, and policy analysis courses.
Economics Writing Service Get StartedThe Thread That Runs Through This Essay
This assignment works best when you write it with a consistent thread running through all four sections. That thread is: monopoly is both strategically self-sustaining (Gilbert & Newbery) and economically costly (Yoon) — and the fact that it’s self-sustaining is precisely what makes the cost persistent rather than temporary.
Section 1 introduces both articles on their own terms. Section 2 shows how they fit together. Section 3 applies economic theory to explain what Yoon found and what produces monopoly power in the first place. Section 4 explains why both articles mattered to the field when they were published — what gaps they filled, what assumptions they challenged.
Start with Section 1 — it forces you to understand each article precisely. Then write Section 4 before writing Section 2, counterintuitively. Knowing what each article contributed makes the comparison in Section 2 more intellectually grounded. Then write Section 3, which sits between the two articles in its scope and relies on both plus your additional sources.