Markets, Monopolies and Moguls: The Relationship between Inequality and Competition

Abstract

Analysing private market research data, we estimate the degree of market concentration across 481 industries in the Australian economy. On average, the largest four firms control 36 per cent of the market. Some industries are considerably more concentrated. In department stores, newspapers, banking, health insurance, supermarkets, domestic airlines, Internet service providers, baby food and beer, the biggest four firms control more than 80 per cent of the market. We suggest ways in which high market concentration may increase inequality and discuss some policy ideas to address the problem.

Concentration Indices in Analysis of Competitive Environment: Case of Russian Banking Sector

“…As a result, the concentration of the first five banks in Russia is comparable to European levels. As Leigh & Triggs (2016) showed the market share of the four largest Australian banks is 94%. The Linda Index shows higher levels of concentration compared to the HHI, CR-3, CR-6.…”

“…companies are considered. In Russia, this indicator has been calculated and published in official statistics since 1992 for three (CR-3), four (CR-4), six (CR-6) and eight (CR-8) of the largest sellers (Knyazeva, 2007). The formula for concentration index can be represented as follows:…”

“…However, it is more appropriate to examine the values of this index for three or four large firms. In Knyazeva (2007) the following criteria for comparing market structures are distinguished:…”

“…According to international practice, the HHI value, close to zero, corresponds to the minimum concentration, HHI < 0,10 (or HHI < 1000)low level of concentration. In accordance with US law, the index value 0.10 ≤ HHI ≤ 0.18 (or 1000 ≤ HHI ≤ 1800) corresponds to the average concentration level, and HHI> 0.18 (or HHI> 1800) indicates a high level of market concentration (Knyazeva 2007). European legislation sets this limit at 0.2 (or 2000) (Guidelines, 2004).…”

Pacific seasonal workers: Learning from the contrasting temporary migration outcomes in Australian and New Zealand horticulture

“…The incentives for Australian growers have been to cut operating costs. This is partly the result of the monopsony power enjoyed by Coles and Woolworths, the country's two largest supermarket chains, which together control 73% of the Australian market and which in turn are supplied by 350 to 400 fresh food suppliers (Leigh, ).…”