Merriam-Webster gives as one definition of competition (relating to
business) as "[...] rivalry: such as [...] the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms".
Adam Smith in his 1776 book
The Wealth of Nations and later economists described competition in general as allocating productive
resources to their most highly valued uses and encouraging
efficiency. Later
microeconomic theory distinguished between
perfect competition and
imperfect competition, concluding that no system of resource allocation is more efficient than
perfect competition. Competition, according to the theory, causes commercial firms to develop new products, services and technologies, which would give consumers greater selection and better products. The greater selection typically causes lower prices for the products, compared to what the price would be if there was no competition (
monopoly) or little competition (
oligopoly). However, competition may also lead to wasted (duplicated) effort and to increased
costs (and prices) in some circumstances. For example, the intense competition for the small number of
top jobs in music and movie-acting leads many aspiring musicians and actors to make substantial investments in training which are not recouped, because only a fraction become successful. Critics have also argued that competition can be destabilizing, particularly competition between certain financial institutions. Experts have also questioned the constructiveness of competition in profitability. It has been argued that competition-oriented objectives are counterproductive to raising revenues and profitability because they limit the options of strategies for firms as well as their ability to offer innovative responses to changes in the market. In addition, the strong desire to defeat rival firms with competitive prices has the strong possibility of causing
price wars. Another distinction appearing in economics is that between competition as an end-state – as in the case of both perfect and imperfect competition – and competition as a
process. It is a process of rivalry between firms (or consumers) intensifying selective pressures for improvements. One can restate this as a process of discovery. Three levels of end-state economic competition have been classified: • The most narrow form is
direct competition (also called "category competition" or "brand competition"), where
products which perform the same function compete against each other. For example, one brand of pick-up trucks competes with several other brands of pick-up trucks. Sometimes, two companies are rivals and one adds new products to their line, which leads to the other company distributing the same new things, and in this manner they compete. • The next form is
substitute or
indirect competition, where products which are close substitutes for one another compete. For example, butter competes with margarine, with mayonnaise and with other various sauces and spreads. • The broadest form of competition is typically called
budget competition. Included in this category is anything on which the
consumer might want to spend their available
money. For example, a family which has $20,000 available may choose to spend it on many different items, which can all be seen as competing with each other for the family's expenditure. This form of competition is also sometimes described as a competition of "share of wallet". In addition, companies compete for
financing on the capital markets (equity or debt) in order to generate the necessary cash for their operations.
Investor typically consider alternative investment opportunities given their risk profile, and not only look at companies just competing on product (
direct competitors). Enlarging the investment universe to include
indirect competitors leads to a broader peer universe of comparable, indirectly competing companies. Competition does not necessarily have to be between companies. For example,
business writers sometimes refer to
internal competition. This is competition within companies. The idea was first introduced by
Alfred Sloan at
General Motors in the 1920s. Sloan deliberately created areas of overlap between
divisions of the company so that each division would compete with the other divisions. For example, the
Chevrolet division would compete with the
Pontiac division for some
market segments. The competing brands by the same company allowed parts to be designed by one division and shared by several divisions, for example parts designed by Chevrolet would also be used by Pontiac. In 1931
Procter & Gamble initiated a deliberate system of internal brand-versus-brand rivalry. The company was organized around different
brands, with each brand allocated resources, including a dedicated group of employees willing to champion the brand. Each
brand manager was given responsibility for the success or failure of the brand, and compensated accordingly. Most businesses also encourage competition between individual employees. An example of this is a contest between sales representatives. The sales representative with the highest sales (or the best improvement in sales) over a period of time would gain benefits from the employer. This is also known as
intra-brand competition. Shalev and Asbjornsen found that success (i.e. the saving resulted) of
reverse auctions correlated most closely with competition. The literature widely supported the importance of competition as the primary driver of reverse auctions success. Their findings appear to support that argument, as competition correlated strongly with the reverse auction success, as well as with the number of bidders. Nicholas Gruen has referred to
The Competition Delusion, in which competition is taken to be unambiguously good, even where that competition leaks into the rules of the game. He claims this drives financialisation (the approximate doubling of proportion of economic resources dedicated to finance and to 'rule making and administering' professions such as law, accountancy and auditing.
Law building in
Washington, D.C. houses the influential
antitrust enforcers of U.S. competition laws. Competition
law, known in the
United States as antitrust law, has three main functions: • First, it prohibits agreements aimed to restrict free trading between business entities and their customers. For example, a
cartel of sports shops who together fix football-jersey prices higher than normal is illegal. • Second, competition law can ban the existence or abusive behaviour of a firm dominating the market. One case in point could be a software company who through its
monopoly on computer platforms makes consumers use its media player. • Third, to preserve competitive markets, the law supervises the
mergers and acquisitions of very large corporations. Competition authorities could for instance require that a large packaging company give plastic bottle
licenses to competitors before taking over a major
PET producer. In all three cases, competition law aims to protect the
welfare of consumers by ensuring that each business must compete for its share of the
market economy. ==Game theory==