Natural Monopoly Market Regulation

The assignment examines the unique characteristics of a natural monopoly market, emphasizing its inherent scale economies. It delves into various pricing strategies employed by regulators to prevent exploitation by these monopolies. These strategies include marginal or socially efficient pricing, average cost pricing, and price cap regulation. The essay contrasts these approaches and analyzes their effectiveness in ensuring market efficiency.

Running head: REGUALTION; NATURAL MONOPOLY
Regulation; Natural Monopoly
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

1REGULATION; NATURAL MONOPOLY
Introduction
In economic terms, market represents exchange relation between buyers and sellers.
Depending on several aspects of market such as how many buyers and sellers presence in the
market, what type of product the specific market sold, size of the market determines specific
category of market. Most commonly used market classification is based on the buyers and sellers
in the market. Efficient allocation of resources depends on specific structure of the market. The
less is market power the more efficient is allocation. In this regard, market power is highest for a
seller operating in a monopoly market, a market characterized by a single seller and numerous
buyers. A monopoly market in its general form is less efficient than a competitive market.
A related form of pure monopoly is natural monopoly. The difference between pure
monopoly and natural monopoly is that in the presence of a pure monopolist, competition is
more preferred to a single seller. However, in a natural monopoly market the presence of single
seller entails maximum efficiency. This is because the natural monopolist operates at a point in
average cost curve, such that scale benefit can be enjoyed. In the natural monopoly market, need
for government regulation is realized to ensure an efficient pricing.
Analysis
Monopoly and perfect competition
In a standard monopoly market, equilibrium combination of price and quantity is derived
from the profit maximization condition. In the monopoly market, control of price is in the hand
of monopolist. The point where revenue from selling marginal quantity matches with the cost of
producing marginal quantity is considered as profit maximizing point (Currie, Peel, & Peters,
2016). Price in the monopoly market exceeds marginal cost generating profit for the monopolist.

2REGULATION; NATURAL MONOPOLY
Figure 1 shows condition in the monopoly market. Profit of the monopolist is shown by the
shaded region.
Figure 1: Monopoly market Condition
(Source: As created by the Author)
The mechanism in a competitive market is opposite. Price and output in the competitive
market is determined by the with free market supply demand condition. The demand curve here
is identical with marginal benefit curve and marginal social cost is identical with market supply
curve (Askari, Iqbal & Mirakhor, 2015). Therefore, matching of supply and demand shows
parity between marginal social benefit and marginal social cost and hence is socially efficient.
Market situation with a monopoly and competition is compared in the following figure.

3REGULATION; NATURAL MONOPOLY
Figure 2: Comparing monopoly and competitive market
(Source: as created by the Author)
The supply curve or marginal social cost curve is the marginal cost curve the monopolist.
Price and quantity in the monopoly market is Pm and Qm and that of a competitive market is Pc
and Qc respectively. It is clearly seen from the diagram that Pm>Pc and Qm<Qc. The loss to the
society in operation of monopolist and resulted low output and high price is indicated as the
deadweight loss to the society (Wang, 2016).
Natural monopoly
From the earlier discussion, it is clear that the position of a single seller in the monopoly
market is not socially desirable. The status of a single supplier is retained by creating entry
barrier in the market. Natural monopoly is a market where natural barrier restricts entry of new
seller in the market (Yang & Ng, 2015). The natural barriers refer to conditions where other

4REGULATION; NATURAL MONOPOLY
firms itself do not take interest to enter in the market because of a very high fixed cost.
Government often crates regulatory barriers to entry in order to retain the efficiency of the
market with a single supplier.
Average fixed cost and average variable cost together constitute average total cost. If
fixed cost is high then with increase in output level it falls at a faster rate because fixed cost does
not increase with an increase in output. As a result, average total cost falls with an increase in the
range of output (Barreto, 2013). This is exactly the situation in a natural monopoly market. The
natural barrier exists in terms of high fixed cost. With a high fixed cost, total average fixed cost
is rapidly falling. This generates benefits of economics scale for the monopolist. In the presence
of economics of scale the monopolist can operate anywhere in the falling part of average cost
curve.
The single seller in the natural monopoly market has scope for maximizing profit as like
a pure monopolist. The profit can be much greater for natural monopolist because of scale
efficiency. The natural monopolist here charges same price output combination as is obtained for
a general monopoly market. This gives rise to the need for regulatory price in a natural
monopoly market. Socially efficient price is that price obtained from the pricing condition
similar as that in a competitive market (Cowing & McFadden, 2015). However, it is not possible
always to go with a competitive price as this imposes an additional burden of loss. Henceforth,
the regulators chose next best alternative strategy.
Natural Monopoly Pricing and regulation
There are three types of pricing option in a natural monopoly market. First, the natural
monopoly market without any regulation is considered. When there is no administrative control

5REGULATION; NATURAL MONOPOLY
over the prices charged in the market, the monopolist is free to choose profit maximizing output
level and charge price higher than otherwise situation (Shahriar, 2017). The situation of an
unregulated natural monopoly market is presented in the figure below.
Figure 3: Unregulated Natural Monopoly
(Source: As created by the Author)
Without any regulatory framework, natural monopolist choose the equilibrium point
where gain from addition sells expressed by marginal revenue curve matches with the cost for
that additional unit expressed by marginal cost curve (Rubinfeld & Pindyck, 2013). Point E
shows such a price output combination. Profit of the unregulated natural monopolist is the area
showing the difference between total revenue and total cost.
Regulation

6REGULATION; NATURAL MONOPOLY
In an unregulated situation, the natural monopolist may deceive buyers who are solely
dependent o the monopoly supplier by serving them a low output at a very high price. It is the
responsibility of regulators to ensure that an optimum quantity is sold at an affordable price in
the market. First best choice for the society is to choose price by rule of marginal pricing. In a
competitive market, price is determined by the level of marginal cost (Basso, Figueroa &
Vásquez, 2017). As marginal cost curve is the social benefit curve, price is actually equals to the
social benefit received and hence is socially optimal. In competitive market, price thus derived is
only sufficient to recover total cost of production and generates only normal profit. The situation
is however different for natural monopoly market.
A distinguishing feature of natural monopoly market is the falling average cost. At the
falling ranges of average cost marginal cost is always below the average cost. Therefore, if price
is determined with marginal cost price rule then it is not possible for the monopolist to recover
total cost of production with earned total revenue. Therefore, this type of pricing results in a loss
for the monopolist (Belleflamme & Peitz, 2015). The loss area is shown in figure 4. Marginal
cost pricing though efficient but ends with a loss to the monopolist.
If regulators forced the monopolist to implement this pricing rule then the loss should be
accounted and some alternative should be offered to fulfill loss. The monopolist may sort to a
price discriminatory strategy. Price discrimination is also called two part pricing. Under this
strategy, the monopolist charges two different prices in two parts of the market. The buyers
having a lower elasticity are offered the good at a high price whereas consumers with a higher
elasticity are served with a high price (Crapis et al., 2016). Two part pricing maximizes
monopolist’s revenue as the monopolist here is able to grab maximum consumer and producer
surplus. Another alternative policy the monopolist can chose is to charge a fixed fee, which the

7REGULATION; NATURAL MONOPOLY
buyers have to pay once. After paying the fixed fee, price is charged equal to the marginal cost
(Dahl, 2015).
However, leaving the monopolist to recover loss itself is again subject to inefficiency.
Hence, for charging marginal cost pricing proper support from government is needed to cover
loss. The government or regulator has to make direct payment to the monopolist an amount
equivalent to loss called subsidy. Payment for subsidy is made out of government revenue.
Therefore, to make subsidy payment government has to increase the tax rate. Increasing tax rate
crates distortion in the society (Ifrach, Maglaras & Scarsini, 2011). In figure 4 socially efficient
price and quantity is denoted as PE and QE.
Figure 4: Different pricing strategy under natural monopoly
(Source: As created by the Author)

8REGULATION; NATURAL MONOPOLY
Sometimes it may happen that the distortion crates from increase taxation are greater than
the deadweight loss resulted in an unregulated monopoly market. In this situation, regulation is
proved highly inefficient. The next best alternative is to charge price following average pricing
rule. Here, price is determined by equating it with average cost of production. Since, natural
monopolist makes production to the left of average cost curve, marginal cost never equals
average cost. When price is set equals to the average cost then revenue earned from total sales
exactly matches with the total cost of producing these units. The monopolist here can only earn
normal profit as like competitive firm (Holzhacker, Krishnan & Mahlendorf, 2015). Therefore,
this can be also considered as an efficient operation point. Corresponding price and quantity
under such a scenario is indicated as Pr and Qr respectively. As shown from the figure, the area
of total revenue and total cost are same and there is only normal profit for the monopolist.
Regulating price by using average cost seems to have efficiency over marginal cost
pricing, as there is no additional burden on government budget generated from the loss because
of operating at a point lower than the average cost. The regulation based on costs of the
monopolist is known as the cost plus regulation. The general method here is to have a record on
the cost of the market. The regulators face challenges in implementing cost plus regulation
because the monopolist never reveals true production cost. The general tendency of the
monopolist is to reveal an overestimated figure of cost. In addition, when pricing is dependent on
the estimated cost, then the monopolist bothered least about high cost. The burden of high cost
can easily transfer to customers in terms of a high price (Revesz, 2017). In recent days,
application of cost plus regulation has reduced. Regulators now rely on an alternative price
setting mechanism know as price cap regulation. As the name suggests, it is a mechanism where
a cap or ceiling is set on market price. The price is set for a certain period. In order to increase

9REGULATION; NATURAL MONOPOLY
profit share within the caped price, the monopolist has to reduce cost. To increase profit the cost
saving advanced technologies are employed in the production by the monopolist, which
enhances production efficiency (Sappington & Weisman, 2016). Additionally, more investment
is made for innovation and installing advanced technology. Here lies the efficiency of price cap
regulation. However, in cost plus regulation price is determined based on the estimated cost and
hence, only cost information is required here. For price cap regulation, setting an appropriate
price becomes a difficult task. The ceiling price should neither be too high nor be too low. The
price should be a realistic one so that no parties face loss from the transaction and an efficient
exchange is made in the marketplace.
Conclusion
The essay discusses different pricing strategy that can be undertaken in a natural market.
Some inherent characteristics of natural monopoly market distinguish it from a pure monopoly
market. The natural monopoly market is known for exhibiting scale of production in the market
operation. However, when left regulated the natural monopolist can take advantage of its
monopoly power and charges a high price. Then regulation becomes necessary to ensure
efficiency in the market. The regulators have two pricing strategies. One is marginal or socially
efficient pricing and other is average pricing rule. Regulation under cost plus mechanism is
dependent on monopolist cost and often fails to ensure efficient pricing. An alternative means of
regulation is regulating price by setting a ceiling on it known as price cap regulation.

10REGULATION; NATURAL MONOPOLY
References
Askari, H., Iqbal, Z., & Mirakhor, A. (2015). Key Microeconomic Concepts. Introduction to
Islamic Economics: Theory and Application, 95-124.
Barreto, H. (2013). The Entrepreneur in Microeconomic Theory: Disappearance and
Explanaition. Routledge.
Basso, L. J., Figueroa, N., & Vásquez, J. (2017). Monopoly regulation under asymmetric
information: prices versus quantities. The RAND Journal of Economics, 48(3), 557-578.
Belleflamme, P., & Peitz, M. (2015). Industrial organization: markets and strategies. Cambridge
University Press.
Cowing, T. G., & McFadden, D. L. (2015). Microeconomic modeling and policy analysis:
Studies in residential energy demand. Elsevier.
Crapis, D., Ifrach, B., Maglaras, C., & Scarsini, M. (2016). Monopoly pricing in the presence of
social learning. Management Science.
Currie, D., Peel, D., & Peters, W. (Eds.). (2016). Microeconomic Analysis (Routledge Revivals):
Essays in Microeconomics and Economic Development. Routledge.
Dahl, C. (2015). International Energy Markets: Understanding Pricing, Policies, & Profits.
PennWell Books.
Holzhacker, M., Krishnan, R., & Mahlendorf, M. D. (2015). The impact of changes in regulation
on cost behavior. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(2), 534-566.

11REGULATION; NATURAL MONOPOLY
Ifrach, B., Maglaras, C., & Scarsini, M. (2011). Monopoly pricing in the presence of social
learning.
Revesz, R. L. (2017). Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Structure of the Administrative State: The
Case of Financial Services Regulation. Yale J. on Reg., 34, 545.
Rubinfeld, D., & Pindyck, R. (2013). Microeconomics. Pearson Education.
Sappington, D. E., & Weisman, D. L. (2016). The price cap regulation paradox in the electricity
sector. The Electricity Journal, 29(3), 1-5.
Shahriar, Q. (2017). ECON 321 Section 01 Intermediate Microeconomic Theory.
Wang, S. (2016). Microeconomic Theory (Book). Browser Download This Paper.
Yang, X., & Ng, Y. K. (2015). Specialization and economic organization: A new classical
microeconomic framework (Vol. 215). Elsevier.