Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T10:52:57.074Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Races of Research and Development between Firms with Different Incentives to Innovate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Flavio Delbono  and
Vincenzo Denicolò
Flavio Delbono
Affiliation:
Università di Verona
Vincenzo Denicolò
Affiliation:
Università di Parma
Get access

Summary

In this paper we study a one-shot game of R & D between two firms which differ in their incentives to innovate. We analyse this problem when the R & D technology displays smoothly decreasing returns as well as when increasing returns in the form of indivisibilities prevail. In the first case we show that the magnitude of the ratio between the discount rate and the productivity of R & D expenditure may be a critical parameter in ranking firms' probabilities of winning the race. In the second case, we prove that the firm with the higher profit incentive invests in R & D at least as much as the firm with the higher competitive threat. We then apply these results to a homogeneous duopoly under Bertrand or Cournot competition in the product market.

Résumé

Résumé

Dans cet article nous étudions un jeu non-répété de R & D entre deux firmes qui ont des incitations à innover différentes. Le problème est étudié dans un double contexte: rendements décroissants (d'une manière continue) et rendements croissants (prenant la forme d'indivisibilités). Dans le premier cas nous montrons que la grandeur du rapport entre le taux d'actualisation et la productivité des dépenses en R& D est un paramètre crucial pour la détermination de la probabilité de victoire de chaque firme. Dans le second cas, on prouve que la firme ayant la plus grande espérance de profit investit en R & D au moins autant que l'entreprise qui est confrontée à la menace concurrentielle la plus forte. Ces résultats sont ensuite appliqués an cas d'un duopole homogène avec une concurrence à la Bertrand ou à la Cournot sur le marché du produit.

Keywords

621621
Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , 1991 , pp. 103 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 1991 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

(*)

We thank two anonymous referees for many helpful comments. The usual disclaimer applies.

References

REFERENCES

Baldwin, W. and Scott, J. (1987), Market Structure and Technological Change, London, Harwood.Google Scholar
Beath, J., Katsoulacos, Y., and Ulph, D. (1987), Sequential Product Innovation and Industry Evolution, Economic Journal (Conference Papers), vol. 97, pp. 32–43.Google Scholar
Beath, J., Katsoulacos, Y., and Ulph, D. (1989), Strategic R & D Policy, Economic Journal (Conference Papers), vol. 99, pp. 74–83.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, P. and Stiglitz, J. (1980), Uncertainty, Industrial Structure and the Speed of R & D, Bell Journal of Economics, vol. 11, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, P. (1986), The Theory of Technological Competition, in: Stiglitz, J. and Mathewson, G. (eds.), New Developments in the Analysis of Market Structure, London, Macmillan.Google Scholar
Delbono, P. (1989), Market Leadership with a Sequence of History Dependent Patent Races, Journal of Industrial Economics, vol. 38, pp. 95–101.Google Scholar
Delbono, F. (1990), An Asymmetric Race of R & D with Market Uncertainly, Economic Notes, vol. 19, pp. 297–302.Google Scholar
Delbono, P. and Denicoló, V. (1990) R & D Investment in a Symmetric and Homogeneous Oligopoly: Bertrand vs. Cournot, International Journal of Industrial Organization, vol. 8, pp. 297–313.Google Scholar
Gilbert, R, and Newbery, D. (1982), Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly, American Economic Review, vol. 72, pp. 514–26.Google Scholar
Gilbert, R, and Newbery, D. (1984), Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly: A Comment, American Economic Review, vol. 74, pp. 238–242.Google Scholar
Kamien, M. and Schwartz, N. (1982), Market Structure and Innovation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, T. and Wilde, L. (1980), Market Structure and Innovation: A Reformulation, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 94, pp. 429–36.Google Scholar
Loury, G. (1979), Market Structure and Innovation, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 93, pp.396–410.Google Scholar
Phillips, A. (1971), Technology and Market Structure: A Study of the Aircraft Industry, Lexington, D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
Reinganum, J. (1983), Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly, American Economic Review, vol. 73, pp. 741–8.Google Scholar
Reinganum, J. (1985), Innovation and Industry Evolution, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 99, pp. 82–99.Google Scholar
Reinganum, J. (1989), The Timing of Innovation: Research, Development and Diffusion, in: Schmalensee, R. and Willig, R. (eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, Amsterdam, North—Holland.Google Scholar
Vickers, J. (1986), The Evolution of Market Structure When There Is a Sequence of Innovations, Journal of Industrial Economics, vol. 35, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar