Monopoly and the materials supply industries of the UK

Lowe, J G (1987) Monopoly and the materials supply industries of the UK. Construction Management and Economics, 5(1), pp. 57-71. ISSN 01446193

Abstract

The materials supply industries of the UK provide some good illustrations of uncompetitive market structures. The purpose of this paper is to analyse selected materials supply industries so as to highlight the reasons for this particular market structure and the extent to which the construction industry has suffered because of this and is likely to suffer in the future. This paper identifies a number of industries within the materials supply sector where the degree of competition is limited and outlines the reasons for this but concludes that while there is potential for abuse of monopoly power, this does not appear to have been unduly misused at this time. The paper then considers whether this apparent lack of abuse stems from countervailing factors or is simply a product of the current depressed state of the UK construction industry and thus whether abuse could emerge should demand increase in the future. The paper concludes that undue advantage has not been taken of monopoly power due to the potential for countervailing power on the part of the customers, the potential for import penetration, and fear of adverse legislative or administrative action from the Government or the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and that a modest increase in construction demand might not provoke a major price spiral.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: building materials; government policy; market structure; monopoly
Index terms: competition, import, merger, government policy, construction demand, building material, penetration, construction industry
Subjects: industry analysis, market analysis, economic analysis, building materials, public policy, business
Topics: Business Strategy, Research Practice, Governance, Design Practice
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here