tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post2339381211947142164..comments2024-03-11T16:29:13.619-05:00Comments on Lingwë - Musings of a Fish: Word of the Day: OligopsonyJason Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-65737523814960877512010-03-19T10:48:26.631-05:002010-03-19T10:48:26.631-05:00A great point, John.A great point, John.Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-26322570933818231532010-03-18T18:20:03.273-05:002010-03-18T18:20:03.273-05:00In some situations, a single market can be monopol...In some situations, a single market can be monopolistic on one hand and monopsonistic on the other: for example, a monopoly electric power company may also be the only market for cogenerated power.John Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-48495191412280035092010-03-15T09:46:20.658-05:002010-03-15T09:46:20.658-05:00Harm, you make a good case. I would argue that Wal...Harm, you make a good case. I would argue that Walking Tree seems to be finding a middle ground between absolute rubbish at reasonable prices and high(er) quality at extortionate prices. Of course, part of the way Walking Tree does this is (a) print on demand; and (b) I have been told they pay no royalties to authors whatsoever. By the way, I have been told that even some of the Tolkien titles HC / HM have published have been hard sells.<br /><br />David, thanks for that. I had forgotten that Sisam and Bennett were from New Zealand. When I've been asked about notable students of Tolkien's, Norman Davis is another I've often mentioned. As you probably know, he went on to revise the Tolkien/Gordon edition of <i>SGGK</i>, among many other contributions to the field.Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-72827328814492866132010-03-14T21:48:46.459-05:002010-03-14T21:48:46.459-05:00In the course of a discussion of Tolkien's aca...In the course of a discussion of Tolkien's academic standing, an inquirer asked me if Tolkien had any notable grad students. I named Robert Burchfield as one, but the citation fell flat as my inquirer had never heard of him. O well.<br /><br />More kiwis in Tolkien's life: Kenneth Sisam and J.A.W. Bennett.David Bratmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08090662884600828582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-60186124679813502072010-03-13T23:00:37.948-06:002010-03-13T23:00:37.948-06:00The market traditionally described as oligopsonic ...The market traditionally described as oligopsonic is a <i>buyers’ market</i>, in which the few buyers can more or less impose their conditions (as in Jason’s tobacco and cocoa examples).<br /><br />Oligopolies in the traditional sense often make as little economic sense as Squire argues for oligopsonies - if there are so many buyers, why don't more sellers enter the market or, if there are so few sellers, why don’t the buyers leave the market. Often, however, buyers cannot do without the goods in question and have little or no alternative, and there are external constraints preventing new sellers entering the market.<br /><br />The markets of specialist academic books (or that of would-be academic Tolkienophilic books) are no <i>buyers’ markets</i>, they are mainly served by university presses at exorbitant prices. This is because the writers are not really the sellers, like the readers they are the buyers. The university presses are the real sellers, and they are oligopolists that can say to their buyers: ‘no commercial press is going to publish this stuff, so if you want it, you’ll have to pay any price we set, and if you want it published, you have to accept any price we set (and see very little of it in royalties)’. Of late, publishing on demand is causing changes, but for now, the providers of publishing on demand facilities are largely oligopolists themselves.<br /><br />Tolkienophilic books are not really an exception. Whatever has been published commercially has been absolute rubbish (i.e. Day, Noel); the exceptions - those books by Christopher Tolkien, Humphrey Carpenter, Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull, Douglas Anderson and John Rateliff that have been published by (A&U >) HC or HM - largely the result of the peculiar position of the Tolkien Estate. Apart from that there are either quality books published by niche publishers (either fan-based chargeing reasonable prices or universities systematically overchargeing) or commercial rubbish peddled to the foolish public at large.Harm J. Schelhaasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-74545771108794095332010-03-13T11:10:18.947-06:002010-03-13T11:10:18.947-06:00A thoughtful comment, squire, as usual. Thoughtful...A thoughtful comment, squire, as usual. Thoughtful and well-articulated enough to be worth my offering a couple of responses:<br /><br /><i>However, I should think that oligopsonic markets in scholarly monographs exist in very many more fields than just Tolkien Studies. That is, as a budding Tolkien scholar you write as if the word best applies to your (our) own field.</i><br /><br />I didn’t mean to imply I thought that. I said the word seemed perfect for describing Tolkien studies; I didn’t say <i>only</i> Tolkien studies, and I gave another example at the end of my post. No, you’re right: all of academic publishing (and not just in the humanities) has a vanishingly small number of buyers. The majority, in fact, are not even people, but libraries.<br /><br /><i>Consider the “great many” people who you say wish to write and sell Tolkien scholarship, thus satisfying oligopsony’s other requirement - can they really outnumber the buyers, as a net equation?</i><br /><br />First, the other “requirement” isn’t present in all definitions. The simplest definitions seems only to say the number of buyers should be small. Certainly, that is the case in Tolkien studies. Second, your economic calculus doesn’t take the whole picture into account. For example, it’s not necessarily four times as many sellers as buyers, each producing a single book. It could be the same number of individual sellers as buyers, or fewer sellers, but each seller produces multiple books. Yes, some definitions say “sellers” and “buyers”, but I’m not sure it’s as simple as that. Burchfield, for example, referred to the “product”, not the “seller”.<br /><br />In addition, we aren’t talking only about people <i>qualified</i> to publish books in Tolkien studies. There are plenty of under– or unqualified people who want to do it, either out of fannish impulses or in some attempt to get onto a perceived gravy train. (Of course, they’re headed for disappointment.) I’m thinking of books like <i>The Lord of the Rings and Philolophy</i> and other, even worse things, all chasing that relatively small number of buyers.<br /><br /><i>The definition of oligopsony that includes “often implies a large number of sellers” doesn’t make economic sense. With not enough buyers, and too many sellers, the excess sellers will immediately leave the market (or never enter it in the first place) until a viable price is reached.</i><br /><br />You would think so, and in most cases, it’s probably true. In publishing, this fails to take into account motives other than profit. For instance, ego; for another instance, job requirements (aka “publish or perish”, regardless of the financial outcome). Of course, I do wonder why the publishers bother, in many cases.<br /><br />Other examples of oligopsony I’ve seen cited are the cases of the relatively large number of tobacco and cocoa growers versus the small number of buyers (as few as three or four companies buying as much as 90% of what’s produced). The growers in these cases often have very little alternative but to take what they can get; it’s not as simple as leaving the market.Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-86016426637832956822010-03-13T10:41:44.839-06:002010-03-13T10:41:44.839-06:00A wonderful word indeed. Thanks for that gift!
Ho...A wonderful word indeed. Thanks for that gift!<br /><br />However, I should think that oligopsonic markets in scholarly monographs exist in very many more fields than just Tolkien Studies. That is, as a budding Tolkien scholar you write as if the word best applies to your (our) own field. But that can't be the case - all of academia is pathetically atomized, with vanishingly few readers for fantastically specialized research papers. But no, I take it back. The word carries the seeds of its own real obscurity, by the following analysis:<br /><br />Consider the "great many" people who you say wish to write and sell Tolkien scholarship, thus satisfying oligopsony's other requirement - can they really outnumber the buyers, as a net equation? Say they outnumber buyers by four to one (large number/small number). At two hundred sales per Tolkien monograph (as your sources say), assuming all are bought by other Tolkien scholars, that would imply, say, about six hundred other Tolkien scholars who would like to get published - who aren't even bothering to support their own market by buying their colleagues' books. And frankly, the idea of there being 800 people qualified and desiring to publish in Tolkien Studies strikes me as a bit high, given the difficulties the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia had in rounding up contributors a few years ago. In fact, Routledge used the reverse ratio: 200 contributors, 800 copies published!<br /> <br />I'm reminded of a story of a scholar in my family who was congratulated on publishing his latest book. "You must be proud to see your work reach the public at last!" "Not really. There's only three people in the world who will be able to understand it." Thus, the world of academic publishing: very few buyers - but even fewer sellers. Not oligopsonic at all.<br /><br />It all feels a bit contradictory, the more I think about it. The definition of oligopsony that includes "often implies a large number of sellers" doesn't make economic sense. With not enough buyers, and too many sellers, the excess sellers will immediately leave the market (or never enter it in the first place) until a viable price is reached. So the "great many" sellers in reality are potential sellers only, waiting for the number of buyers to increase somehow. That, perhaps, does describe Tolkien Studies where many serious Tolkien fans/scholars would love to read and write about Tolkien for a living if only someone would pay them to do so: an embryonic or virtual academic field. <br /><br />The Burchfield book sounds good! It's on my list.squirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14280609151416389163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-67609921640604863362010-03-13T08:36:50.413-06:002010-03-13T08:36:50.413-06:00Thank you, darling! I appreciate that vote of conf...Thank you, darling! I appreciate that vote of confidence so much and will keep it close to my heart. :)Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-9272033794059060012010-03-13T00:48:49.721-06:002010-03-13T00:48:49.721-06:00What an amazingly insightful and interesting post....What an amazingly insightful and interesting post. I hope one day you will be appreciated in all markets, oligopsonistic as well as others. You're a truly gifted writer in my most humble opinion.The FishWifenoreply@blogger.com