Basic idea
Robinson (1933) named the single-buyer counterpart to monopoly. If an employer must raise wages to hire more, a profit-maximising firm hires fewer workers at lower pay than under competition.
Dynamic monopsony
Manning (2003) argued search costs and frictions give firms wage-setting power even with many employers, linked to search and matching theory. Card and colleagues (2018) tied firm wage premiums to inequality.
Minimum wages and evidence
Under monopsony a minimum wage can raise both pay and employment. Card and Krueger (1994) sparked the debate; Staiger and colleagues (2010) and Azar and colleagues (2022) found evidence, reviewed by Manning (2021).
FAQ
- What is monopsony in simple terms?
- Few employers mean workers cannot easily move, so firms can pay less.
- How does it relate to minimum wages?
- Under monopsony, a minimum wage may not reduce jobs and can even raise them.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Robinson, J. (1933). The economics of imperfect competition. Macmillan. The classic that coined the term.
- Manning, A. (2003). Monopsony in motion: Imperfect competition in labor markets. Princeton University Press. Modern dynamic monopsony.
- Card, D., & Krueger, A. B. (1994). Minimum wages and employment: A case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. American Economic Review, 84(4), 772–793. The minimum wage study that revived the debate.
- Staiger, D. O., Spetz, J., & Phibbs, C. S. (2010). Is there monopsony in the labor market? Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Labor Economics, 28(2), 211–236. Natural experiment with nurses.
- Card, D., Cardoso, A. R., Heining, J., & Kline, P. (2018). Firms and labor market inequality: Evidence and some theory. Journal of Labor Economics, 36(S1), S13–S70. Firm wage-setting and inequality.
- Azar, J., Marinescu, I., & Steinbaum, M. (2022). Labor market concentration. Journal of Human Resources, 57(S), S167–S199. Measuring labour market concentration.
- Manning, A. (2021). Monopsony in labor markets: A review. ILR Review, 74(1), 3–26. A recent review.
