Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 6.djvu/135

 REVIEWS.

Monopolies and Trusts. By RICHARD T. ELY. New York and London: The Macmillan Co., 1900. Pp. 273. $1.25.

THIS work is the initial volume of " The Citizen's Library of Eco- nomics, Politics, and Sociology," of which Professor Ely is to be the editor. In the preface the author announces that the book " has not been hastily got-ten together to meet a popular demand for a work on trusts," but is a part of a systematic treatise on the distribution of wealth, which has been in preparation for a number of years and is not yet completed. The book may be divided conveniently into four parts, which treat of (i) the definition of monopoly and classification of monopolies; (2) the law of monopoly price; (3) the limits of monopoly and the permanency of competition ; and (4) evils and remedies.

Beginning with the definition of monopoly, Professor Ely starts with Senior's discussion of that subject, and shows that Senior consid- ered anything to be a monopoly which " confers upon those who enjoy it a special and peculiar economic privilege." This definition implies, not an absence of competition, but the existence of circumstances " in which competition is not perfectly equal ;" and the author shows that Mill's idea of monopoly is very similar to that presented by Senior. Professor Ely proceeds to show that Sidgwick defined monopoly, more correctly, as " the control exercised by an individual seller or combina- tion of sellers over a commodity that no one else can bring to market;" but then went on to extend the meaning of the term to make it include partial monopolies and buyers' monopolies. Professor Patten's theo- ries then claim attention. Patten considers a monopoly to be " that which gives to a productive agent the disposal of a definite portion of the surplus resulting from production ; " but, since he holds that all agents of production secure such a surplus, his definition results in making " our entire industrial society composed of monopolists." Professor Ely seems to be justified in remarking that Patten's defini- tion is a " violent departure from the ordinary usages of language," and too inclusive to serve as a satisfactory basis for discussion.

Holding, therefore, that " a more restricted idea of monopoly " is necessary, the author proposes to define it as " substantial unity of