Relationship Between Monopoly Pricing And Demand Elasticity

PDF Version

When a firm has no rivals, it enjoys the rare freedom to pick its own price. Yet that freedom is not unlimited. A monopolist still faces consumers who can buy less, delay purchases, or turn to indirect substitutes. The great secret to finding the profit-maximising price is understanding how strongly quantity demanded reacts to price—what economists call price elasticity of demand. The tighter the reaction, the smaller the markup a monopolist can safely impose; the looser the reaction, the larger the cushion between cost and price.

What Is Price Elasticity of Demand?

Elasticity measures percentage responsiveness. If a 1 percent rise in price shrinks quantity by 2 percent, demand is said to be elastic with an elasticity of −2. If the same 1 percent rise cuts quantity by only 0.3 percent, demand is inelastic with an elasticity of −0.3. An elasticity whose absolute value is greater than one signals that consumers are highly sensitive; an absolute value below one signals that they are not. Because price changes and quantity changes move in opposite directions, elasticity is always negative, though we often quote its absolute value for convenience.

Marginal Revenue: Seeing Beyond the Sticker Price

For a competitive firm each extra unit sold brings in exactly the market price. A monopolist does not enjoy that simplicity. To sell one more unit, it must lower the price not just on that unit but on all the units it was already selling. The extra revenue from the marginal unit—called marginal revenue—is therefore lower than the new price. A bit of calculus shows that marginal revenue equals the price multiplied by one plus the reciprocal of elasticity. Because elasticity is negative, the reciprocal term subtracts from one, pushing marginal revenue below price.

Marginal Revenue Meets Marginal Cost

A monopolist maximises profit where marginal revenue equals marginal cost. Substituting the elasticity-based expression for marginal revenue into that equality and rearranging yields the celebrated Lerner formula: the percentage markup of price over marginal cost equals the inverse of the absolute value of elasticity. If demand is inelastic with an absolute elasticity of 0.25, the firm can in theory charge a markup of 400 percent. If elasticity is a more elastic −3, the permitted markup falls to roughly 33 percent. Elasticity, not corporate greed, is the mathematical throttle on monopoly power.

Examples

The Patented Orphan Drug

Consider a pharmaceutical firm that produces a life-saving orphan drug at a marginal cost of USD 20 per dose. Because no close substitutes exist, market studies reveal an elasticity of −0.2. The Lerner rule implies a potential markup of five-times cost, so a profit-maximising price is near USD 100. If regulators impose a price cap at USD 40, far below the unconstrained monopoly optimum, the elasticity at that lower price can shift: patients may become even less sensitive because the drug now looks cheap in relative terms, which could drive quantities well above the levels implicit in the firm’s original forecast.

The Regional Cable-Internet Provider

A small town is served by a single cable-internet operator whose marginal cost of an additional subscriber is essentially the cost of customer service and a modem—say USD 8 per month. Because consumers can do without ultra-fast speeds by tethering mobile data or visiting the public library, surveys put the elasticity at −2. Applying the Lerner relation, the permissible markup is roughly 50 percent. That suggests an optimal price of around USD 16 per month above marginal cost, or USD 24 in total. Should a rival fibre network enter the market, elasticity would rise in absolute terms, shrinking the feasible markup and driving price toward cost.

A mountain resort owns the only ski lift in the area. On crowded holiday weekends skiers are determined to hit the slopes regardless of cost, so elasticity hovers around −0.4. On mid-week days, however, the mountain competes with office obligations and Netflix, raising elasticity to −1.8. Following the same pricing logic, the resort can charge a much higher markup on weekends than weekdays. A USD 90 holiday ticket and a USD 45 Tuesday ticket may both satisfy the marginal-revenue-equals-marginal-cost rule, even if the underlying cost of running the lift changes little across days.

Peak-Versus-Off-Peak Ski Tickets

How Monopolists Estimate Elasticity in Practice

Textbook formulas would be useless if firms had no way to gauge the elasticity that feeds them. Monopolists therefore turn into data sleuths. They comb through historical price changes and corresponding sales patterns, run limited-scope experiments such as trial discounts in a single city, and commission conjoint studies that ask consumers to reveal trade-offs among features and prices. Modern machine-learning methods can even detect micro-elasticities for different customer segments, enabling the firm to practise segment-specific—or “third-degree”—price discrimination where legal.

Common Misconceptions Debunked

One frequent misunderstanding is that a monopolist “always” prices in the inelastic region of demand. The truth is subtler: the optimal price can fall either into the elastic or inelastic region depending on where marginal cost lies. Digital goods with near-zero marginal cost, for instance, can yield maximum profit at low prices that keep demand elastic but make up for the small markup through sheer volume. Another myth is that elasticity is exogenous. In fact, it often changes once the firm moves the price, especially when psychological reference points or budget constraints influence consumers.

Policy Implications: When Regulators Step In

Because the Lerner formula offers a direct link between elasticity and markup, regulators use it as a diagnostic tool. If they can estimate cost and price, they can infer an “implicit” elasticity under which the observed markup would be legal. If that implied elasticity seems implausibly small—say, −0.1 in a market where substitutes clearly exist—regulators may conclude the firm enjoys excessive market power. Antitrust fines, price ceilings, or compulsory licensing can then narrow the gap between price and cost.

Conclusion

The essence of monopoly pricing reduces to a single ratio: the markup equals the inverse of elasticity. Every pricing analyst in a monopolistic firm, every antitrust lawyer, and indeed every economics student should internalise that one relationship. It explains why life-saving drugs can be dear, why weekday ski passes can be cheap, and why cable bills fall the moment fibre rolls into town. In the end, elasticity is the gravitational constant of the monopolist’s universe. Master its measurement, watch it evolve with market conditions, and you hold the key to either unlocking monopoly profits or safeguarding the public from their excesses.