Economies of scope are conceptually similar to economies of scale. Whereas 'economies of scale' for a firm primarily refers to reductions in average cost (cost per unit) associated with increasing the scale of production for a single product type, 'economies of scope' refers to lowering average cost for a firm in producing two or more products. The term and concept development are due to Panzar and Willig (1977, 1981).[1] Here, economies of scope make product diversification efficient if they are based on the common and recurrent use of proprietary know-how or on an indivisible physical asset.[2] For example as the number of products promoted is increased, more people can be reached per dollar spent. At some point, additional advertising expenditure on new products may start to be less effective (an example of diseconomies of scope). Related examples and distribution of different types of products, product bundling, product lining, and family branding.
If a sales force is selling several products they can often do so more efficiently than if they are selling only one product. The cost of their travel time is distributed over a greater revenue base, so cost efficiency improves. There can also be synergies between products such that offering a complete range of products gives the consumer a more desirable product offering than a single product would. Economies of scope can also operate through distribution efficiencies. It can be more efficient to ship a range of products to any given location than to ship a single type of product to that location.
Further economies of scope occur when there are cost-savings arising from by-products in the production process. An example would be the benefits of heating from energy production having a positive effect on agricultural yields.
A company which sells many product lines, sells the same product in many countries, or sells many product lines in many countries will benefit from reduced risk levels as a result of its economies of scope. If one of its product lines falls out of fashion or one country has an economic slowdown, the company will, most likely, be able to continue trading.
Not all economists agree on the importance of economies of scope. Some argue that it only applies to certain industries, and then only rarely.
While in the single-output case, economies of scale are a sufficient condition for the verification of a natural monopoly, in the multi-output case, they are neither necessary nor sufficient. Economies of scope are, however, a necessary condition.
As a matter of simplification, it is generally accepted that, should economies of scale and of scope both apply, as well as sunk costs or other entry barriers, then markets may have monopoly features.
|
||||||||