Review of Natural Monopoly and Privatisation: Understanding the Dynamics of Market Structures and Ownership Transitions

Natural monopolies and privatisation are fundamental to understanding market dynamics and ownership transitions in modern economies. This review explores how natural monopolies operate, the rationale behind their privatisation, and the broader implications for market efficiency and consumer welfare. Privatisation, especially in sectors with natural monopolies, has been heavily influenced by political ideologies and global economic frameworks, such as the Washington Consensus. In smaller economies like Malta, privatisation has been shaped by local factors and these broader global forces. While Malta shares similarities with larger European economies, its small size and limited market competition present unique challenges for privatisation strategies.

Natural monopoly: Characteristics and implications

A natural monopoly occurs when a single firm can more efficiently supply a good or service to the entire market than multiple firms due to high fixed costs and low marginal costs, which create economies of scale [1,2]. Key sectors prone to natural monopolies include utilities (e.g., electricity, water, and transport), where the infrastructure required for service delivery is expensive to duplicate. This makes competition not only difficult but also economically inefficient. In these cases, regulation is vital to prevent monopolistic exploitation. Privatisation is often proposed as a means to increase efficiency, reduce government expenditure, and improve service delivery [3,4]. However, if privatisation is not accompanied by adequate regulation, it can lead to monopolistic practices where firms charge high prices or offer substandard services [5,6].

The rationale for privatisation

Privatisation involves transferring ownership of state-owned enterprises to the private sector with the goal of improving efficiency, encouraging investment, and reducing government fiscal burdens. In natural monopoly sectors, privatisation is seen as a way to introduce market discipline and foster innovation. It assumes that private enterprises, motivated by profit, are more efficient at cutting costs, investing in infrastructure, and improving services than state-run entities [5,6]. However, as Stiglitz [4] notes, privatisation can be problematic without effective regulation. Privatised monopolies may prioritize profit maximisation over public welfare, leading to inflated prices and deteriorating service quality. This underscores the importance of a strong regulatory framework, particularly in industries with limited competition.

The global political shift to neoliberalism

Privatisation became central to the neoliberal economic agenda in the late 20th century, driven by the Washington Consensus-a set of policy prescriptions advocating free-market reforms, including privatisation, deregulation, and trade liberalisation [4,7]. Global financial institutions like the World Bank and the IMF often conditioned aid and loans on the implementation of these policies. This ideological shift from state-controlled to market-driven economies was not confined to developing nations but also spread to developed countries, including the UK and European nations. For example, under Margaret Thatcher, the UK implemented an extensive privatisation programme, reflecting a broader political movement against state control and in favour of free-market capitalism [8-10].

Privatisation in malta: A case study of a small Island state

In Malta, privatisation mirrored global neoliberal trends but faced unique challenges due to the island’s small size. While larger economies could foster competition in privatised sectors, Malta’s limited population and market scope meant that competition was impractical in key sectors like electricity, water, energy, and transport. Instead of increasing competition, privatisation led to the entrenchment of private monopolies. For example, the privatisation of Maltacom in 1998 and Enemalta’s partial privatisation in 2004 resulted in a few large private players dominating these markets. According to Pulis [11], “Privatisation in Malta did not bring about competition in key industries but rather entrenched private monopolies, driven by the smallness of the island and political forces.” Despite the initial intent to reduce government debt, the privatisation process did not achieve the expected fiscal benefits, with government debt actually increasing during this period.

The role of regulation in post-privatisation markets

Post-privatisation, effective regulation is crucial to prevent private monopolies from exploiting their market power. Regulatory bodies, such as the Regulator for Energy and Water Services (REWS) and the Malta Communications Authority (MCA), are tasked with ensuring fair pricing, service quality, and universal access to essential services. However, concerns about regulatory capture persist, where private monopolies may exert undue influence on regulatory bodies to align with their interests.

In Malta, privatisation of utilities and telecommunications has been criticised for price hikes and service disparities. These challenges highlight the difficulties of protecting consumer welfare in a small economy with limited competition, underscoring the need for robust, context-aware regulatory frameworks.

Privatisation, particularly in sectors dominated by natural monopolies, has been a key component of the neoliberal agenda, influenced by the Washington Consensus and global economic institutions like the IMF and World Bank. While this shift towards market-driven economies was widely adopted, Malta’s experience reveals the limitations of applying a one-size-fits-all approach to privatisation. Unlike larger economies that could introduce competition into privatised sectors, Malta’s small size and limited market scope led to the entrenchment of private monopolies. As Pulis [11] states, “Privatisation in Malta did not bring about competition in key industries but rather entrenched private monopolies, driven by the smallness of the island and political forces.” This underscores the importance of tailoring privatisation strategies to the specific context of each economy. For small island nations, it is essential to implement robust regulatory frameworks to balance market efficiency with the protection of public interests. In such economies, privatisation should not be seen as a universal solution but as part of a broader, context-sensitive approach to economic reform. Further, privatisation’s success depends on a combination of factors: the structure of the industry, the size of the economy, and the strength of the regulatory environment. Without adequate regulation, privatisation may exacerbate existing inefficiencies and lead to monopolistic practices, ultimately undermining consumer welfare and economic efficiency.

1. Baumol WJ, Blinder AS (2015) Economics: Principles and policy (13^th edn), Cengage learning.
2. Mankiw NG (2021) Principles of economics (9^th edn), Cengage learning.
3. Joskow PL (2008) Privatisation and regulatory reform in the UK and in developing countries. World Bank Publications.
4. Stiglitz JE (2002) Globalization and its discontents. W.W. Norton & Company, USA.
5. Newbery DM (1999) Privatisation, restructuring, and regulation of network utilities. MIT Press, USA.
6. Vickers J, Yarrow G (1988) Privatisation: An economic analysis. MIT Press, USA.
7. Williamson J (1990) Latin American adjustment: How much has happened? Institute for international economics.
8. Harvey D (2005) A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press, UK.
9. Baker C (2008) Privatisation in Britain: A success story? Palgrave Macmillan, UK.
10. Jessop B (2002) The future of the capitalist state. Polity Press, UK.
11. Pulis M (2024) Privatisation of commercial state-owned entities in a natural monopoly country-a case study of the Maltese Islands (1998-2016), unpublished manuscript.