What are the main differences between imperfect competition and monopoly market structures - Outline Example

It is a fact that monopolies are bad for the consumer market structures because they lead to an authoritative regime in place which can mean that there are no competitors and hence a great amount of one-man-rule that shall rule the roost in essence. What is most significant is the fact that monopolies and imperfect competition structures should be kept at a safe distance from the shores of any organization that wants to grow beyond its expectations. Also the consumers would be given the best possible space that they richly deserve and hence their predicaments would be taken care of, the sooner the better.

Perfect competition remains a much desired for act that industries would always like to have within their ranks but this is hardly the case as there is a great amount of significance on having monopolies and imperfect competition market structures – the result of which are severe prices meted out on to the consumers with no possible alternatives in sight. Moving on with the discussion, imperfect competition is in direct negation with perfect competition because the latter makes sure that the end consumers are given the best possible return on their money and their shopping realms are safeguarded in such a manner that they believe in trying different products and services which are available to them.

However what monopolies bring to the fore is nothing short of bad blood, where one organization believes in doing everything while the rest are just not present (Carlton 2005). The monopolistic competition demands a sense of responsibility on the part of the dominant and the sole player as it has to take steps which are essential for the up and coming firms and businesses and it must be kept in mind that the new companies are there to serve the customer better and in a new manner and the customers have every right to demand the very same.

They cannot be denied their due right just because a dominant player is bent upon ruining other’s sales and increasing its own in both the short term as well as the long run. A check and balance approach thus holds the key here and it is the responsibility of the government to control these measures, no matter how harsh the situations are and how stern the steps have to be taken. To quote as an example of monopolistic competition, Apple Inc was accused of having the same within its ranks. There was hue and cry that Apple Inc was forming a vertical monopoly with the signature DRM System, the iPod, iTunes and so on.

The pricing strategies were largely decided by the organizational heads and thus the market levels were discouraged from booming in essence. Non-pricing strategies were not made use of by Apple Inc which also formed up as an essential ingredient of the kind of monopolistic competition that the organization was bent upon doing. Monopolistic competition does not usually last for long since governmental interventions and consumer insights get the better of such tyrannical levels of competition. There is a more advanced and up to date value-added mechanism in place with the advent of competing players which eventually throng the market and get the biggest share.

Unquestionably, competition brings in expectations by the customers, end users and all those who depend a great deal on the said business. This is because competition has motivated them for so long now that the absence of competitive activity would mean a loss-loss exercise. This is generally an unacceptable phenomenon and needs to be taken care of by the people who matter the most within the helm of affairs in the organizational domains. Motivation will only take place when competition is sound enough to send shockwaves within the industrial domains and set the ball rolling as far as delivery of value and quality for the sake of end consumers is concerned.

This means that motivation will act as a reinforcing agent once the