Response to Questions. With regards to your independent Client variable.-have you made any changes to your measurements plans since writing the Phase 2 report? Consider the following aspects.
-dimensions
-validity
With regards to your dependent variable, have you ma.de any changes to your measurements plans
Since writing the Phase 2 report? Consider the following aspects.
-dimensions
-index, scale (what type?), or typology
-accuracy vs. prec.1s1on
-validity
Have you made any changes to your plans for sampling since writing the Phase 2 report? Consider the following aspects.
-sampling frame
-sampling method
What ethical standards may become issues in your study? How will you prevent (or, at least,
Minimize) them?
Response to Questions
Name
Institution
Date
Response to Questions
Question one
I agree with the post since the existing research suggests that economic analysts put more emphasis on monopoly and perfect competition markets. Equally, Cengage Learning (2012) indicates that a considerable number of economies are composed of a significant percentage of both monopoly and perfect competition markets. Similar to the proposition of Abel (2012), the write-up has confirmed that perfect competition is the most open market to engage or exit since they do not have many complications. Importantly, the features of the market tend to be similar across various countries, hence homogeneity. I fully concur with the monopoly’s definition provided by Abel (2012). Similar to Cengage (2012), Abel confirms that monopoly markets are composed of one seller and a supplier and are surrounded by barriers that make it challenging for other companies to enter. The example provided by Abel (2012) of EA is perfect for describing a monopoly market. Notably, other companies working in the same line with EA could not access the video game market due to monopoly restriction. However, the case was settled out of court.
Question 2
Similar to Abel’s (2012) propositions, the previous research has confirmed the perfect market to be more competitive than other markets. Its competitive feature comes from the presence of many sellers in the market, and yet more can enter the market. Again, I agree with Abel (2012)that sellers find it manageable to exist with others in a competitive market due to freedom of free entry and exit. On its part, Cengage Learning (2012) confirms that competitive markets sell similar products, and they do not have the power to manipulate prices. Abel’s propositions are in line with opinions provided in previous research since the author suggests that a market with one seller and no close substitutes amount to a monopoly. Besides, monopoly markets are associated with natural or legal barriers, hence bringing obstacles for entry. One can utilize Georgia Power Company to have a broader view of the monopoly market. Abel (2012) suggests that the company enjoys the entire benefits of the market since it has been solely supplying electricity power over the last decades. Notably, its capabilities are set by the state, and it can manipulate prices.
References
Abel, J. R. (2012). Entry into regulated monopoly markets: The development of a competitive
fringe in the local telephone industry. The Journal of Law and Economics, 45(2), 289-316.
Cengage Learning (2012). Chapter Twelve. Firms in perfect competitive market, pdf.