{"id":51979,"date":"2012-11-13T10:00:56","date_gmt":"2012-11-13T15:00:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.lclark.edu\/hart-landsberg\/?p=1219"},"modified":"2012-11-05T17:00:32","modified_gmt":"2012-11-05T22:00:32","slug":"the-growth-of-monopoly-power","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/socimages\/2012\/11\/13\/the-growth-of-monopoly-power\/","title":{"rendered":"The Growth Of Monopoly Power"},"content":{"rendered":"

Cross-posted at Reports from the Economic Front<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Market advocates have had their way for years now and one of the consequences has been the growing dominance of industry after industry by a select few powerful corporations.\u00a0 In short, unchecked competition can and does produce its opposite: monopoly.<\/p>\n

As John Bellamy Foster, Robert W. McChesney, and R. Jamil Jonna explain<\/a>:<\/p>\n

This [development] is anything but an academic concern. The economic defense of capitalism is premised on the ubiquity of competitive markets, providing for the rational allocation of scarce resources and justifying the existing distribution of incomes. The political defense of capitalism is that economic power is diffuse and cannot be aggregated in such a manner as to have undue influence over the democratic state. Both of these core claims for capitalism are demolished if monopoly, rather than competition, is the rule.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The chart\u00a0below highlights the rise, especially since the 1980s, in both the number and percentage of U.S. manufacturing industries in which four firms account for more than 50% of sales.<\/p>\n

Number and Percentage of U.S. Manufacturing Industries in which Largest Four Companies Accounted for at Least 50 Percent of Shipment Value in Their Industries, 1947-2007:<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

As the table\u00a0below shows, the concentration of market power is not confined to manufacturing.<\/p>\n

Percentage of Sales for Four Largest Firms in Selected U.S. Retail Industries:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Industry (NAICS code)<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a01992<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0\u00a0 1997<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0\u00a0 2002<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0\u00a0 2007<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Food & beverage stores (445)<\/td>\n\u00a015.4<\/td>\n\u00a0\u00a0 18.3<\/td>\n\u00a0\u00a0 28.2<\/td>\n\u00a0\u00a0 27.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Health & personal care stores (446)<\/td>\n\u00a024.7<\/td>\n\u00a0\u00a0 39.1<\/td>\n\u00a0\u00a0 45.7<\/td>\n\u00a0\u00a0 54.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
General merchandise stores (452)<\/td>\n\u00a047.3<\/td>\n\u00a0\u00a0 55.9<\/td>\n\u00a0\u00a0 65.6<\/td>\n\u00a0\u00a0 73.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Supermarkets (44511)<\/td>\n\u00a018.0<\/td>\n\u00a0\u00a0 20.8<\/td>\n\u00a0\u00a0 32.5<\/td>\n\u00a0\u00a0 32.0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Book stores (451211)<\/td>\n\u00a041.3<\/td>\n\u00a0\u00a0 54.1<\/td>\n\u00a0\u00a0 65.6<\/td>\n\u00a0\u00a0 71.0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Computer & software stores (443120)<\/td>\n\u00a026.2<\/td>\n\u00a0\u00a0 34.9<\/td>\n\u00a0\u00a0 52.5<\/td>\n\u00a0\u00a0 73.1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

As impressive as these concentration trends may be, they actually understate the market power exercised by leading U.S. firms because many of these firms are conglomerates and\u00a0active in more than one industry.\u00a0 The next chart\u00a0provides some flavor for overall concentration trends by showing the growing share of total business revenue captured by the top two hundred U.S. corporations.\u00a0 Notice the sharp rise since the 1990s.<\/p>\n

Revenue of Top 200 U.S. Corporations as Percentage of Total Business Revenue, U.S. Economy, 1950\u20132008:<\/em>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

These are general trends.\u00a0 Here, thanks to Zocalo<\/a> (which draws on the work of Barry Lynn), we get a picture of the market dominance of just one corporation\u2013Procter and Gamble.\u00a0 This corporation controls:<\/p>\n