Frank Knight's theory of monopoly price has received relatively little attention in the literature on Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. We argue that Knight accepted and refined the monopoly price theory of Carl Menger and his followers. Knight highlights the difference between monopoly as an inevitable outcome of departures from perfect competition, and monopoly as a contingent or ‘culture-history fact’. In the latter case, coercive institutional barriers to potential competition shape the choice set of consumers and producers, and provide a crucial method for identifying monopoly gains. There are three benefits to this account of Knight's contributions: it rehabilitates the focus on the institutional determinants of monopoly price, as opposed to the mainstream emphasis on market frictions and imperfections; it opens the way for a Mengerian monopoly price theory that seriously engages the study of institutions; and it adds new evidence and nuance to ongoing debates about Knight's place in economics.

中文翻译：

---

作为“文化历史事实”的垄断：奈特、门格尔和制度的作用

弗兰克奈特的垄断价格理论在风险、不确定性和利润. 我们认为，奈特接受并完善了卡尔·门格及其追随者的垄断价格理论。奈特强调了作为背离完全竞争的必然结果的垄断与作为偶然或“文化历史事实”的垄断之间的区别。在后一种情况下，潜在竞争的强制性制度障碍塑造了消费者和生产者的选择集，并为识别垄断收益提供了关键方法。这种对奈特贡献的描述有三个好处：它恢复了对垄断价格的制度决定因素的关注，而不是主流对市场摩擦和不完善的强调；它为认真研究制度的门格尔垄断价格理论开辟了道路；