when considering the implication of economic activity economists only use perfect competition models a such the term imperfect market is somewhat misleading most people will assume an imperfect market is deeply flawed or undesirable however this is not always the case the range of market imperfections is as wide as the range of all real world markets some are much or less efficient than others 
consequences of imperfect marketsnot all market imperfections are harmless or natural situations can arise in which too few sellers control too much of a single market or when prices fail to adequately adjust to material changes in market conditions it is from these instances that the majority of economic debate originates some economists argue that any deviation from perfect competition models justifies government intervention in order to promote increased efficiency in production or distribution such interventions may come in the form of monetary policy fiscal policy or market regulation one common example of such interventionism is anti trust law which is explicitly derived from perfect competition theory governments may also use taxation quotas licenses and tariffs to help regulate so called perfect markets other economists argue that government intervention may not always be necessary to correct imperfect markets this is because government policy is also imperfect and government actors may not possess the right incentives or information to interfere correctly finally many economists argue government intervention is rarely if ever justified in markets the austrian and chicago schools notably blame many market imperfections on erroneous government intervention types of imperfect markets