Professional Documents
Culture Documents
doc
Page 1 of 19
341975489.doc
Page 2 of 19
341975489.doc
Economists concede that pure competition is rare in the real world, because
its conditions are hard to prevail. They nonetheless have analyzed it
intensively because of its potential role, if realized, in boosting economic
efficiency and benefiting the consumer.
Competitive structure has also been adopted as the standard against which
the freedom and openness of markets are measured, and as an ideal to be
approached as far as possible in restructuring of non-competitive markets.
Actual markets that are somewhat close to pure competition are the
international markets of some commodities such as wheat, cotton and
cement. I say somewhat because there are some large buyers and sellers
whose decisions affect the market.
Pure monopoly
For a market to be labeled as pure monopolistic, it has to meet the two
following conditions:
- Condition 1: There must be a single supplier, and
- Condition 2: The product (service) provided has no close substitutes.
The first Condition implies the existence of barriers to entry. For, the
absence of such barriers leads to a multiplicity of suppliers.
Pure monopoly is quite rare without state protection.1 The most common
examples nowadays are in the fields of public utilities and municipal
services such as water, electricity, transportation and communications.
Technically speaking, as the supplier and the industry are one and the same
under pure monopoly, the demand curve facing the monopolist slopes
downward to the right. Unlike competitors in pure competition, a monopolist
can set the price of his product. He/she, however, has to accept the quantity
buyers are willing take at that price. Conversely, she can fix the quantity she
wants to produce (or supply) but has then to accept the price at which this
can quantity will sell.
Monopolistic competition
Both pure competition and monopoly are rare in the real world. Most
existing markets are median structures containing elements of both
1
Among the rare examples of pure monopoly are De Beers in South Africa ( in diamonds) and for
sometime Canadas International Nickel Company,(in nickel) .
Page 3 of 19
341975489.doc
competition and monopoly. Two of the most prevalent in the real world are :
monopolistic competition and oligopoly.
In monopolistic competition:
- There are many suppliers each holding a small share of the market;
- Entry in the industry is easy,( because the minimum viable
investment is not large, etc.) , and
- There is product heterogeneity, i.e. real or perceived differences
among the products of different suppliers; so customers deem them
close but not full substitutes.
Difference among substitute products include quality differences ,both true
or perceived, brand name, packaging, sale terms and conditions, the time and
place where the product is supplied, and the suppliers conduct with the
customers.
Monopolistic competition is common in the retail industries, clothing,
food, furniture, fresh foods and home appliances. Medical, educational and
private services (e.g. haircutting) also fit under this market structure.
As product heterogeneity is a distinctive feature of this market type, its
meaning should be made more clear.
First: whether two products (or services) are similar or different is NOT in
the present context an objective fact that experts decide. Rather, it is
subjective, depending on customers' perception. For instance, two brands of
aspirin may in fact be medically identical (perfect substitutes), but if
consumers think they are different we count them economically as
heterogeneous
Second: What about a product - say a can of juice of a specific brand supplied by two sellers in two different places? Does it make any difference
if I buy it at a nearby modern supermarket, or at the old vegetable market ,
to which I may have to drive and forfeit a good deal of time. In addition, I
may miss the fragrances and soul-stirring melodies to which supermarkets
treat their customers! Thus circumstances surrounding the transactions lead
economists to treat the two identical cans as two close substitute but not
identical products, and may command different market price.
Page 4 of 19
341975489.doc
Page 5 of 19
341975489.doc
Page 6 of 19
341975489.doc
The Mlikis generally, Abu Yusuf from among the Hanafis, and Ibn
Taymiyyah from among the anbalis are a vocal minority who define
unlawful monopoly as: withholding commodities in a way that harms the
public. As such, their definition includes not only withholding the products
bought from the local market, but also those imported or saved from ones
own produce beyond ones familys needs. Besides, the scope of unlawful
monopoly is not restricted to victuals or even food products, but extends to
any product whose withholding is assessed as harmful to the general public.
Ibn Taymiyyah and his disciple Ibn Al-Qayyim, both late anbali jurists,
adopted this expansionist view. They also drew attention to another type of
unlawful monopoly they termed labour monopoly (itikr al-amal);
whereby a group of artisans supplying a commodity/service (e.g. bakers or
carpenters) collude at a time of high demand to force higher wages. Abu
anifa also, though otherwise sharing the majority restrictive view,
disallows real estate surveyors ( ) to form a cartel, as they would
then force people to pay them more.
Characteristics of unlawful monopoly
Restrictionists and expansionists agree that for monopoly to be unlawful,
the purchase and withholding of products must put the general public in a
straitened situation. This happens when the monopolist buys at a time of
high prices for reselling when prices become still higher. Conversely, buying
products when they are plentiful and cheap, to sell them later when dear at
higher prices, is not unlawful monopoly, but a commendable act.3
The major difference between the majority restrictive and the minority
expansive views focuses on the commodities that may be subject to
monopoly ( victuals vs. any commodity ) not on actions deemed
monopolistic. Thus Imam Mlik, and Ab Ysuf in some reports, both
among the minority, do not regard withholding ones harvest or imported
products as monopolistic.4 However, Ibn Rushd, a prominent Mliki jurist,
deems the withholding of ones harvest in times of dearth an unlawful
monopoly.
Famine situations
Ibn Hazm , question No.1568; also Al-Nawawi, pp. 130-31; and imam Malik as in
footnote 8 below.
4
Al-Duri, p.290n.
3
Page 7 of 19
341975489.doc
It is important to note that throughout this article, the discussion and all
juristic opinions are meant for normal situations. In case of famine or
impending starvation, all jurists agree explicitly that withholding food in
excess of one's family needs is prohibited. Public authority can then force
holders of excess food to sell it at normal prices, or to extend it as loan-inkind to be repaid later.
Monopoly of a class- of-goods (IHTIKAR al-sinf)
According to Ibn Al-Qayyim, this happens when the general public are
prevented from selling a certain class of goods, with trading exclusively
restricted to some people. Importers of such goods have to sell to the
exclusive buyers, who then set the prices at which they sell to the public.
Ibn Al-Qayyim condemns such behavior as mischief on earth and raininhibiting injustice.5 Abu Ishaq Al-Shatibi also prohibits restricting to
specific people the exclusive right to provide a particular job or service
(such as slaughtering animals).6 This type of monopoly has been condemned
and disallowed by expansionists and restrictionists alike.
Ibn Al-Qayyims strong condemnation of a-class-of-goods monopoly
reflects his perception that it is a grand sin. In modern economic terms, such
monopoly creates an unjustified barrier to entry into a particular
market/industry. Depriving people of freedom of entry to any market without
legitimate reason is thus a grand economic sin.
Ibn Al-Qayyim seems to be aware that occasionally such monopoly
may be inevitable. If so, he suggests state intervention, to fix prices
at normal levels", adding that ".. jurists are unanimous that suppliers
must then be restrained from buying and selling except at such
normal prices. A modern instance will be seen in the forthcoming
discussion about public utilities.
III- Comparisons and integration of views
The common denominator: Monopoly is outlawed for harm
Having highlighted the differences above, it is time to bring up the common
denominator not only among jurists but economists as well.
5
6
Ibn Al-Qayyim, Al-uruq al-akmah (p. 207), adopted from Ibn Taymiyyahs Al-isbah (pp. 24-25).
Al-Shib, Al-fatw: (p. 137). See also Al-Lounshirsis, 11/126-127.
Page 8 of 19
341975489.doc
Page 9 of 19
341975489.doc
Criterion (A) relates to market demand, and implies that it is price inelastic,
as is usual in necessities and major conveniences.
Criterion (B) relates to supply. The location condition implies that supply
has low or zero price elasticity in the short run. Under each of the other three
conditions, local supply is reduced (the supply curve shifts the left) by the
amount withheld by the monopolist.
The dual criteria thus obtain in a market with low price elasticity in both
demand and supply. Analytically, a given reduction in supply leads to higher
price increase the more inelastic the demand or the supply curves. Thus
when both are inelastic, price increases even more, putting the public in a
straitened situation.
Clearly, the jurists' logic is economically impeccable.
A comparison between jurists and economists concepts of monopoly
Classical jurists observed more than ten centuries ago a world where
productive units were small, numerous and generally competitive. Monopoly
then was largely the result of local commercial behavior, within regular
commercial activity.
The industrial revolution in the 18th Century brought economies of scale,
mass production, and persistent innovation, all connected with production,
giving rise to the non-competitive market structures analyzed by modern
economists.
Whereas classical jurists focused on commercial monopolistic actions
directed at socially important products, modern economists focus on market
structures that motivate and facilitate monopolistic producer behavior in
many kinds of products.
From an economists perspective, monopolistic decisions as regards
quantity, quality and selling price are mostly taken by the producers rather
than the vendors. The monopolistic policies espoused these days by many
pharmaceutical and computer software companies exemplify this.
What is a monopolistic institution?
To economists, a monopolistic institution is simply an institution
producing /selling any product in a market which is not purely competitive.
An institution that can select the price at which to sell, or whose actions can
influence the market price, is not purely competitive, but monopolistic to
some degree. This applies in different degrees to all market structures except
pure competition.
Page 10 of 19
341975489.doc
Page 11 of 19
341975489.doc
12
341975489.doc
13
The International Fiqh Academy approved patents without addressing their monopolistic aspect
(Resolution no.43(5/5) ,on 15-12-1988).
14
15
An important partial alternative to patents, which where applicable is both more just
and more efficient, has been suggested by J.E. Stiglitz..
Page 13 of 19
341975489.doc
Sharkey, p. 603.
See Baumol for a lucid exposition of the case of electricity and telephone networks.
Page 14 of 19
341975489.doc
Page 15 of 19
341975489.doc
(2) The larger that number, the closer that market approaches the
competitive ideal in price and quantity. Public policy can help
approach such ideal in several ways including:
(a) Encouraging an increase in the number of firms, if no
significant loss of efficiency is expected.
(b) Facilitating imports.
(c) Facilitating exports so more firms can survive.
5. Monopoly of a class- of-goods in developing countries
A modern mutation of this type of monopoly is now a common form of
corruption in developing countries. It is easy to see why.
For if the public authority wants to grant financial favor to someone, it can
get him paid from the public treasury. But this is a direct cost to the treasury,
and more importantly, faces legal and publicity hurdles. By granting that
someone a monopoly of some class-of-goods, the burden is stealthily
shifted to the general public by increasing their cost of living, in amount
equal to the above-average profits of the monopoly.
Granting such monopoly is often done in exchange for illegal favors,
outright bribe, or sharing in the fruits of that monopoly. To cover things up,
this type of corruption can infect the public licensing process, which is now
required to start any business. Many apply, only a few favorites get a
license, with the remaining applications still under consideration.
In another mutation, certain economic activities are publicly disallowed , but
a blind eye is turned to the lucky few who engage undisturbed in the
disallowed activities, while the prohibition is strictly enforced on others.
The socio-economic costs of this type of monopoly-cum-corruption go far
beyond increases in the cost of living to the public. Other high dynamic
Page 16 of 19
341975489.doc
341975489.doc
References - Arabic
Ibn Hazm : Al-Muhalla, Al-Muneeriyyah Printers, Cairo,n.d.
Ibn Taymiyyah, T. (n.d), Al-asbah aw wadhfat al-ukmah alislmiyyah. Al-Madnah al-Munawwarah: Al-Maktabah alilmiyyah.
Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah (1955), Ilm al-mawqiayn (Ed.
Mohammed Muy al-dn Abdulamd). Cairo: Al-Maktabah altijriyyah al-kubr.
Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah (n.d), Al-uruq al-hakmah f al-siysah
al-shariyyah (Ed. Mohammed Ghazi). Cairo: Maktabat al-Madani.
Al-Azim Abadi, Abu Al-Tayyib, Awn Al- Maabood Sharh Sunan Abi
Dawood. AlSalafiyya Bookshop, AlMadinah al-Munawwara.
Jmi Al-fiqh Al-Islm (2000), Compact Disc (Entry: Sharikah).
Cairo: arf Co.
Al-Baaji, Sulaiman Al-Muntaqa fi Sharh Al- Muwatta. Dar Al_Kitab
Al- Arabi, Beirut.
Al-Duri, Qahtan (1989), Al-Itikr: fal f al-idrah al-mliyyah f
al-islm (Vol.1). Amman: Royal Academy of Islamic Civlization
Research (Al-Majma Al-Malak li-buth al-adhrah alislmiyyah).
Al-Lounshirsis, Al-Miyr al-Murab. Beirut.
Al-Sallami, Muhammad Al-Mukhtaar. (1988), Tadd arb altujjr. Journal of International Islamic Fiqh Academy, Session 5, No.
5(4), pp. 2773-92.
Mahboob,Abdel Hameed,' Alsooq wal Asaar fi Iqtisaad Islami..".
Journal of Social Sciences,Kuwait Univ.,Vol. 20 ,1,Summer 1992.
Al_Nawawi, Yahya Muhyi-Aldeen bin Sharaf, Al-Fatawa. Edited by
Muhammad Al-Najjar,Cairo: Dar Al-Salaam publishers,n.d.
Page 18 of 19
341975489.doc
References English
Baumol, William (1996), Rules for Beneficial Privatization, Islamic
Economic Studies, Vol. 3 No. 2, Muharram 1417 (June 1996), pp.1-34.
Pass C. and J. Sparkes (1980), Monopoly, 2nd edition, London,
Heinmann.
Sharkey W.W. (1987) Natural Monopoly in The New Palgrave
Dictionary of Modern Economics, Macmillan Press Limited, London.
Stiglitz, Joseph E. (March 2007): "Prizes, Not Patents, published by
Project Syndicate, online,
Vickers, J. (1994), Concepts of Competition, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Page 19 of 19