The third position of interest is the market approach. One issue that needs to be examined here is whether the degree of separation of church and state and religious pluralism affect the vitality of the religious field or not. Proponents of the market approach claim that the modern age is not necessarily diminishing religion but can even foster it, namely because it always falls short of its own (Finke/Stark 1988, 2006; Iannaccone 1991; Stark/Iannaccone 1994; Iannacone/Finke/Stark 1997; Warner 1993). According to them, it mainly stimulates religious productivity due to the economic principle of competition. The more pluralistic the religious field and the more market-oriented its organizational forms (and exactly this is assumed to happen in modern times), the more religious vitality is encouraged: under competitive conditions, the providers of religious services are forced to face the particular challenge of retaining their members and of attracting new members, responding to the needs of their clientele and offering efficient services. However, if one particular church holds a religious monopoly, its officials become indifferent and "lazy"; they lose their ability to be socially responsive. Much like in business, competition is good for religion, too. Besides, customers who are dissatisfied with a religious product in a pluralistic religious market can look for another religious product to better suit their needs, while their only alternative in a monopolistic religious structure is to turn away from religion altogether.