THEORETICAL FOUNDATION AND METHODS FOR ASSESSMENT COMMODITY MARKET POWER ASYMMETRY

Cover Page

Abstract


The study aims to clarify the theoretical and methodological details of the commodity market power asymmetry structure. Based on the Industrial Markets Theory, Neoinstitutional Economic Theory and Organizational Field Theory we clarified the concept of the commodity market. Also we proved that inequality in market conditions is a generic feature of any market system with limited competition. The theoretical model of research bases on a scientific review of approaches. We did the terminological analysis of categories “dominant position”, “market power” and “bargaining power”, as well as the identification of the market inequality sources. As a result we suggested the definition “power asymmetry of the commodity market.” The main research result is developing an unified method for assessing of the commodity market power asymmetry. This method includes a three-step assessment of an influence one of the market participant on all stakeholders.


S V Orekhova

Principal contact for editorial correspondence.
bentarask@list.ru
Ural State University of Economics 8 Marta str., 62, Yekaterinburg, Russia, 620000

Candidate of sciences (Economics), associate professor of the department of business economics at Ural State University of Economics

E V Kislitsyn

kev@usue.ru
Ural State University of Economics 8 Marta str., 62, Yekaterinburg, Russia, 620000

Senior lecturer of the Department of Statistics, Econometrics and Informatics at Ural State University of Economics

  • On the protection of competition: Federal law of 26.07.2006 N 135-FZ in ed. from 03.07.2016. (In Russ).
  • Avdasheva S.B. Kolichestvo protiv kachestva ekonomicheskogo rosta: effektivnost’ ispol’zovaniya resursov v rossiyskoy promyshlennosti v 1997—2001 // Rossiyskiy zhurnal menedzhmenta. 2003. № 2. P. 51—78. (In Russ).
  • Alchan A., Demsec G. Proizvodstvo, stoimost’ informacii i ekonomicheskaya organizaciya // Vehi ekonomicheskoy mysli. Vol. 5: Theory of branch markets. 2003. P. 280—317. (In Russ).
  • Karagezyan U.V. Vlastnaya asimmetriya i nekonkurentnoe povedenie firm na potrebitel’skih rynkah // Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seria 3: Economika, ekologiya. 2016. № 1(34). P. 26—31. (In Russ).
  • Larionova N.I., Rehlickaya Ya.S. Rynochnaya vlast’ i metody ee ocenki // Vestnik MarGTU. 2010. № 3. P. 33—40. (In Russ).
  • Ledyaev V.G. Vlast’: konceptual’ny analiz. Moscow: Encyclopedia of Russian political, 2001. (In Russ).
  • Lozhnikova A.V. Fenomen rentabel’nosti v rentnoy ekonomike // Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2010. № 339. P. 123—126. (In Russ).
  • Naumov V.N. Rynochnaya vlast’ kak instrument upravleniya kanalami sbyta. Upravlenie kanalami distribucii. 2011. № 1. P. 30—43. (In Russ).
  • Oleynik A.N. Konstituciya rossiyskogo rynka: soglasie na osnove pessimizma. SOCIS. 2003. № 9. P. 30—41. (In Russ).
  • Orekhova S.V. Metologicheskie osnovy opredeleniya institucional’no’ slozhnosti rynka. Upravlenets. 2015. № 4(56). P. 24—35. (In Russ).
  • Radaev V.V. Sovremennye ekonomiko-sociologicheskie koncepcii rynka. In: Radaev V.V., Dobryakova M.S., editors. The analysis of markets in modern economic sociology. Moscow: Publishing house state University higher school of Economics, 2008. (In Russ).
  • Radaev V.V. Komu prinadlezhit vlast’ na potrebitel’skih rynkah: otnosheniya roznichnyh sete’ i postavshchikov v sovremenno’ Rossii. Moscow: Publishing house state University higher school of Economics, 2011. (In Russ).
  • Tirol Zh. Rynki i rynochnaya vlast’: Teoriya organizacii promyshlennosti. St. Petersburg: Economic School, 2000. (In Russ).
  • Williamson O.I. Ekonomicheskie instituty kapitalizma. St. Petersburg: Lenizdat, 1996.
  • Chaika A.I. Rost torgovyh setey kak faktor usileniya vlastnoy asimmetrii v sisteme tovarodvizheniya potrebitel’skogo rynka. Inzhenerny vestnik Dona. 2013. Vol. 25. № 2. P. 2. (In Russ).
  • Bain J.S. Industrial Organization, 2nd edn. New York: John Wiley, 1968.
  • Borenstein S., Bushnell J., Kahn E., Stoft S. Market power in California electricity markets. Utilities Policy, 1995.
  • Brown J., Lusch R., Nicholson С. Power and Relationship Commitment: Their Impact on Marketing Channel Member Performance // Journal of Retailing. 1995. No. 71 (4). P. 363—392.
  • Coase R. The Nature of the Firm // Economica. 1937. Vol. 4. No. 16. Р. 386—405.
  • David A.K., Wen F. Market power in electricity supply // IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. 2001. No. 16 (4). P. 352—360.
  • Falk J. Determining market power in deregulated generation markets by measuring price — cost margins. The Electricity Journal 1998; 11 (6): 44—50.
  • Gintis H., Bowles S. Democracy and capitalism: property, community, and the contradictions of modern social thought. New York, 1986.
  • Hingley M.K. Power to All Our Friends? Living with Imbalance in Supplier — Retailer Relationships // Industrial Marketing Management. 2005. No. 34. P. 848—858.
  • Landes W.M. Market Power in Antitrust Cases // Harvard Law Review. 1991. No. 5. Р. 35—54.
  • Lindenberg E. Tobin’s q Ratio and Industrial Organization // Journal of Business. 1981. No. 54. P. 1—32.
  • Mann M. Seller concentration, barriers to entry and rate of return in thirty industries, 1950—1960 // Rev. Econ. Statist. 1966. Vol. 48. P. 300.
  • Newbery D.M. Power markets and market power // Energy Journal. 1995. No. 16 (3). P. 41—66.
  • Pfeffer J., Salancik G. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Harper and Row: N.Y., 1978.
  • Salinger M.А. Tobin’s q, Unionization, and the Concentration-Profits Relationship // The Rand Journal of Economics. 1984. No. 15. P. 159—170.
  • White L.J. A Market Definition Paradigm for Monopolization Cases // Working paper, Stern School of Business. 1999. No. 3. Р. 34—49.

Views

Abstract - 34

PDF (Russian) - 17


Copyright (c) 2017 Orekhova S.V., Kislitsyn E.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.