CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Coercive monopoly

legally closed monopoly

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionAug 29, 2026
Entity authorityQ9034636
Source-derived summary

In economics and business ethics, a coercive monopoly is a firm, that is able to raise prices and make production decisions without the risk that competition will arise to draw away their customers. A coercive monopoly is not merely a sole supplier of a particular kind of good or service (a monopoly), but it is a monopoly, where there is no opportunity to compete with it through means such as price competition, technological or product innovation, or marketing; entry into the field is closed. As a coercive monopoly is securely shielded from the possibility of competition, it is able to make pricing and production decisions with the assurance that no competition will arise. It is a case of a non-contestable market. A coercive monopoly has very few incentives to keep prices low and may deliberately price gouge consumers by curtailing production.

Coercive monopolies can arise in free market or via government intervention to institute them. Some conservative think tanks, such as the Foundation for Economic Education, define coercive monopolies solely as those established by the government or via the illegal use of force, excluding monopolies that arise in the free market.

Contrasted with other monopolies

Exclusive control of electricity supply due to government-imposed "utility" status is a coercive monopoly because consumers have no choice but to pay the price that the monopolist demands. Consumers do not have an alternative to purchase electricity from a cheaper competitor, because the wires running into their homes belong to the monopolist.

Exclusive control of Coca-Cola, by contrast, is not a coercive monopoly because consumers have other cola brands to choose from and the Coca-Cola company is subject to competitive forces.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Coercive monopoly” as legally closed monopoly. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Coercive, monopoly and legally.

Editorial reviewA dependable orientation record for establishing vocabulary, names and a first evidence trail. The current 276-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Coercive, monopoly and legally providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Coercive monopoly”, the useful work is to connect “legally closed monopoly” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 29, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q9034636. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.

Critical limits

A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Coercive monopoly”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Coercive monopoly primary sources, Coercive monopoly archive and Coercive research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Coercive monopoly”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from Coercive monopoly” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.