Traditional economic thinking views monopolies as having little incentive to innovate due to the lack of competition. The Economist article "Slackers or Pace-Setters?" argues that monopolies may have more reasons to innovate than traditionally thought. What role do barriers to entry play in determining whether a dominant firm is a "slacker" or a "pace-setter"? Explain. What kinds of barriers to entry exist in the pharmaceutical industry? How does the suggested relationship between market share and innovation complicate matters for regulators of monopolies