Chapter 13/Limiting Market Power: Regulation and Antitrust
5. Some people argue that there is no need for government regulation in the area of health
and safety. Agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration are redundant, they say. Competition among firms for
customers and for labor will compel them to have safe products and safe working
conditions—if not, they would quickly lose their sales and their work force. Do you agree
with this argument?
Suggested Answer: These are vital as far as society is concerned. Competition sometimes
makes firms adopt unethical practices. Cost-cutting pressures may tempt companies to
6. Is there any valid reason for a regulatory agency actually preventing a competitive firm
from entering a market?
Suggested Answer: Students could come up with various reasons like national security,
7. Some people argue that one of the biggest faults of the regulatory system is the extensive
time delay. When conditions in an industry change, the regulatory agency may take
months and even years to change its rules and regulations. The process of public hearings
and administrative cases is overly cumbersome and time consuming. Others argue that
the time delays are beneficial. For example, a company may know that eventually the
agency will act to remove any excess profits, but in the meantime any efficiencies it can
achieve will cause its profits to rise, and so it has an incentive to manage its resources
carefully. Do you agree that regulatory agencies should be in no hurry to come to new
decisions?
Suggested Answer: Some may agree with this line of thought. Nevertheless, the power of
the government or another firm to haul a company into court on antitrust charges is an
8. How may firms collude in the setting of prices and the carving up of markets, without
their representatives actually getting together and talking?
Suggested Answer: Tacit collusion, where firms, without ever meeting, try to do undo
competition by maintaining prices near monopoly levels and hoping their competitors do
9. Some people argue that monopolies hinder innovation, because without competition,
firms are under no pressure to improve their products and services. Others argue that
monopoly promotes innovation because the prospect of monopoly profits is what gives
people the incentive to invest in risky, innovative ventures. How do you assess this
argument?
Suggested Answer: Student answers will vary. A monopoly firm may see no need for
reducing the cost through innovation, as there are no rivals in the market. Therefore, the