Purpose. Understanding the level of competition in markets is critical for managers in their decision-making process. The numerous methods available for assessing competition can complicate this process. This article aims to summarize the existing methods for evaluating competition and identify the relationships between their evaluation criteria.
Design/methodology/approach. This paper reviews and synthesizes techniques for assessing market competition that have been developed by researchers over the past several decades. The study employs a range of research methods, including analysis, synthesis, generalization, analogy, comparison, systematization, and graphical methods, to determine the relationships between different assessment criteria. This approach ensures a thorough examination of the methods and provides a robust framework for understanding their applicability.
Findings. The study identifies and reviews prominent methods for assessing market competition, analyzing market structure, and calculating the market power of enterprises. These methods, proposed by scholars since the inception of this field, reveal that existing techniques can be categorized into distinct groups based on their evaluation criteria. The analysis highlights that despite the apparent simplicity of some formulas, calculating indicators related to market power remains challenging due to difficulties in obtaining accurate and objective data on profitability and, particularly, on the costs incurred by competitors. The most accessible and frequently used indicators are those derived from market structure analysis and concentration assessments. These methods are prevalent in practical applications, especially in anti-monopoly legislation, due to their effectiveness in assessing competitive dynamics and market power.
Practical implications. Understanding the factors that determine market competition and shape an enterprise's market power will enable management to make quick and effective decisions regarding new products and markets. The presented correlation of various competition assessmentmethods and their structuring will assist in selecting the appropriate assessment method and avoid unproductive expenditure of time and resources on additional research.
Originality/value. The structures and groupings of competition assessment methods provided in this paper offer a new, more comprehensive perspective on market concentration and market power. This perspective not only enhances the understanding of these concepts but also reflects their impact on enterprise profitability. The findings contribute to the ongoing development and refinement of both existing and novel methods for assessing market competition, thereby advancing the field.
1. Cavalleri, M., Eliet, A., & McAdam, P. et al. (2019). Concentration, market power and dynamism in the
euro area. European Central Bank. Retrieved from https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/
ecb.wp2253~cf7b9d7539.en.pdf (in English).
2. U.S. Department of Justice & Federal Trade Commission. (2023, December 18). Merger guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2023_merger_guidelines_fina... (in English).
3. Linda, R. (1976). Methodology of concentration analysis applied to the study of industries and markets. Commission of the European Communities (in English).
4. Pindyck, R. S. (1984). The measurement of monopoly power in dynamic markets (Working paper 1540-84). Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management (in English).
5. Lerner, A. P. (1934). The concept of monopoly and the measurement of monopoly power. The Review of Economic Studies, 1(3), 157–175. DOI https://doi.org/10.2307/2967480/ (in English).
6. Miller, P. J. (1955). Measures of monopoly power and concentration: Their economic significance. In Business concentration and price policy (pp. 119–140). National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. (in English).
7. Zouboulakis, M. S. (2023). A. G. Papandreou‟s academic economic thought 1943–1963. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 45(3), 486–502. DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837222000281 (in English).
8. Bain, J. S. (1948). Pricing, distribution, and employment economics of an enterprise system (Revised ed.). New York : Henry Holt and Company (in English).
9. Gerasymenko, A., Borovyk, Iu., & Afendikova, S. (2017). The methodology of competition assessment. Economic Annals-XXI, 165(5-6), 52–55. DOI https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V165-11 (in English).
10. Kwoka, J. E. (1977). Large firm dominance and price-cost margins in manufacturing industries. Southern Economic Journal, 44(1), 183–189. DOI https://doi.org/10.2307/1057315 (in English).
11. Larson, D. A. (1972). Constrained sales maximization and the Bain and Lerner monopoly indices: Another case of divergence. Nebraska Journal of Economics and Business, 11(1), 53–61. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40472409 (in English).
12. Rhoades, S. A., & Cleaver, J. M. (1973). The nature of the concentration: Price/cost margin relationship
for 352 manufacturing industries: 1967. Southern Economic Journal, 40(1), 90–102. DOI
https://doi.org/10.2307/1056296 (in English).
13. Herfindahl, O. C. (1950). Concentration in the steel industry (Ph.D. dissertation). Columbia University (in English).
14. Hirschman, A. O. (1945). National power and the structure of foreign trade. University of California Press (in English).
15. Rosenbluth, G. (1955). Measures of concentration. In Business concentration and price policy (pp. 57–99). National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. (in English).
16. Horvath, J. (1970). Suggestion for a comprehensive measure of concentration. Southern Economic Journal, 36(4), 446–452. DOI https://doi.org/10.2307/1056855 (in English).
17. Kryveshko, O. V. (2020). Evaluation of the impotence of competitive advantages. Efektyvna ekonomika, 2.
Retrieved from http://www.economy.nayka.com.ua/?op=1&z=7656. DOI https://doi.org/10.32702/2307-2105-
2020.2.64 (in English).
18. Sheffrin, A. (2002). Predicting market power using the residual supply index. Presented to FERC, Market Monitoring Workshop, December 3-4, 2002, 1–16 (in English).
19. Twomey, P., Green, R., Neuhoff, K., & Newbery, D. (2004). A review of the monitoring of market power: The possible roles of TSOs in monitoring for market power issues in congested transmission systems. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0504, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge, 1–99 (in English).
20. Krykavskyi, Ye. V., & Chukhrai, N. I. (2001). Promyslovyi marketynh: Pidruchnyk [Industrial marketing: Textbook]. Lviv : NU “Lvivska Politekhnika” (in Ukrainian).
21. Omelianenko, T. V., Barabas, D. O., & Vakulenko, A. V. (2006). Upravlinnia konkurentospromozhnistiu pidpryiemstva: Navch.-metod. posib. dlia samost. vyvch. dysts. [Management of enterprise competitiveness: Educational and methodological guide for self-study of the discipline]. Kyiv : KNEU (in Ukrainian).
22. Tarnavska, N. P. (2008). Upravlinnia konkurentospromozhnistiu pidpryiemstv: Teoriia, metodolohiia, praktyka [Management of enterprise competitiveness: Theory, methodology, practice]. Ternopil : Ekonomichna dumka (in Ukrainian).
23. Terebukh, A. A. (2013). Hospodarski rishennia na promyslovykh pidpryiemstvakh: Formuvannia, realizatsiia ta ekonomichna efektyvnist [Business decisions in industrial enterprises: Formation, implementation, and economic efficiency]. Lviv : Vydavnytstvo Lvivskoi politekhniky (in Ukrainian).
24. Krykavskyi, Ye. V., & Pokhylchenko, O. A. (2012). Kontseptsiia klastera u formuvanni potentsialu konkurentozdatnosti derevoobrobnykh pidpryiemstv [The concept of a cluster in forming the competitiveness potential of woodworking enterprises]. Lviv : Vydavnytstvo Lvivskoi politekhniky (in Ukrainian).
25. Petrovych, I. M., Kryveshko, O. V., & Stupak, I. O. (2012). Stratehichne upravlinnia konkurentospromozhnistiu promyslovoho pidpryiemstva [Strategic management of industrial enterprise competitiveness]. Lviv : Vydavnytstvo Lvivskoi politekhniky (in Ukrainian).
26. Gerasymenko, A. H. (2014). Rynkova vlada: Dzherela, masshtaby, naslidky [Market power: Sources, scales, consequences]. Kyiv : KNTEU (in Ukrainian).