How would one argue that there is no such things as a natural monopoly? What factor are involved?
I would make a case that natural monopolies do not exist base on evaluation of the classic examples of "natural monopolies": transportation, telephone, port facilities, electricity.
Alternatives always exist, and the existance of structural alternatives create competitive forces.
This is NOT directly involved with the question, but it MIGHT be useful anyways.
Natural monopoly is when one large firm can supply to the whole market at a lower average cost than a number of small firms.
_______________________________________
The features of a Monopoly are that they are the only supplier of a product. There is no competition and this allows them to make abnormal profits. There are no homogenous products as a monopoly will try to make a variety of different products to stop other firms copying it. Monopolies are also price makers - which means that they can influence the price by restricting supply. There is also imperfect information in the market - consumers don't have all the information on the price and the products. (e.g. a monopoly can sell a product to a group of consumers at a high price, whilst hiding the fact that they are selling to another group of consumers a lower price. This would not be possible in a perfect market). Monopolies also create barriers to entry to stop other firms entering the market.
_______________________________________
A firm is a pure monopoly only if it is the only supplier of a good or service.
To argue that there is no such thing as a natural monopoly, one would need to examine the factors involved and evaluate the classic examples of so-called natural monopolies, such as transportation, telephone, port facilities, and electricity.
Firstly, an argument against the existence of natural monopolies could be made based on the availability of alternatives. Even in industries traditionally considered natural monopolies, there are often structural alternatives that can introduce competition and disrupt the monopoly.
For example, in the transportation industry, there are various modes of transportation available, such as cars, buses, trains, and airplanes. While one particular mode may dominate, the existence of alternatives provides consumers with choices and competitive options. Similarly, in the case of telephone services, with the advancement of technology, alternatives like cellular networks and internet-based communication platforms have emerged, challenging the monopoly status of traditional landline providers.
Additionally, advancements in technology and infrastructure can play a significant role in breaking down natural monopolies. For instance, the rise of renewable energy technologies has led to the possibility of decentralized electricity generation, reducing reliance on centralized power plants and opening up opportunities for competition.
Another factor to consider is the existence of regulatory frameworks. Regulations can be implemented to ensure fair competition and prevent monopolistic behavior, thereby mitigating the extent of natural monopolies. Antitrust laws, for example, aim to promote competition, protect consumer interests, and prevent the abuse of market power.
It is important to note that the concept of a natural monopoly is based on the idea that a single large firm can supply to the entire market at a lower average cost than multiple smaller firms. However, this assumption may not hold true in all cases, especially with advancements in technology, changes in market dynamics, and regulatory interventions.
To summarize, arguing against the existence of natural monopolies involves examining the presence of alternatives, technological advancements, regulatory frameworks, and market dynamics. By evaluating these factors, one can challenge the notion of natural monopolies and highlight the potential for competition and choice in even traditionally monopolistic industries.