IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/netnom/v5y2003i1d10.1023_a1024969416825.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effects of Integration on R&D Incentives in Systems Markets

Author

Listed:
  • Jay Pil Choi

    (Michigan State University, 101 Marshall Hall)

  • Gwanghoon Lee

    (Korea Information Society Development Institute, 1-1 Juam)

  • Christodoulos Stefanadis

    (Federal Reserve Bank of New York)

Abstract

We consider a systems market where two complementary components must be used in combination to provide valuable services. The market for the first component is monopolized whereas the market for the second is potentially served by multiple firms. We show that integration of the monopolist into the competitive complementary market may distort incentives for R&D, reducing total economic welfare.

Suggested Citation

  • Jay Pil Choi & Gwanghoon Lee & Christodoulos Stefanadis, 2003. "The Effects of Integration on R&D Incentives in Systems Markets," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 21-32, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:netnom:v:5:y:2003:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1024969416825
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1024969416825
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1024969416825
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1024969416825?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph Farrell & Michael L. Katz, 2000. "Innovation, Rent Extraction, and Integration in Systems Markets," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 413-432, December.
    2. Michael L. Katz & Carl Shapiro, 1994. "Systems Competition and Network Effects," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 93-115, Spring.
    3. Church, Jeffrey & Gandal, Neil, 1992. "Network Effects, Software Provision, and Standardization," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 85-103, March.
    4. Choi, Jay Pil & Stefanadis, Christodoulos, 2001. "Tying, Investment, and the Dynamic Leverage Theory," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 52-71, Spring.
    5. Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, 2002. "The Strategic Use of Tying to Preserve and Create Market Power in Evolving Industries," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(2), pages 194-220, Summer.
    6. repec:bla:jindec:v:48:y:2000:i:4:p:413-32 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rey, Patrick & Tirole, Jean, 2007. "A Primer on Foreclosure," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 33, pages 2145-2220, Elsevier.
    2. Kevin Boudreau, 2010. "Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(10), pages 1849-1872, October.
    3. Guillem Roig, 2017. "Product Compatibility as an Strategy to Hinder Entry Deterrence," Documentos de Trabajo 15774, Universidad del Rosario.
    4. Richard J. Gilbert & Michael H. Riordan, 2007. "Product Improvement And Technological Tying In A Winner‐Take‐All Market," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 113-139, March.
    5. Packalen, Mikko, 2010. "Complements and potential competition," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 244-253, May.
    6. Yongmin Chen & David E. M. Sappington, 2010. "Innovation In Vertically Related Markets," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 373-401, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Oliver Budzinski & Katharina Wacker, 2007. "The Prohibition Of The Proposed Springer-Prosiebensat.1 Merger: How Much Economics In German Merger Control?," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 281-306.
    2. Jens Foerderer & Thomas Kude & Sunil Mithas & Armin Heinzl, 2018. "Does Platform Owner’s Entry Crowd Out Innovation? Evidence from Google Photos," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 444-460, June.
    3. Zhijun Chen & Patrick Rey, 2012. "Loss Leading as an Exploitative Practice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3462-3482, December.
    4. Ramon Casadesus-Masanell & Barry Nalebuff & David B. Yoffie, 2007. "Competing Complements," Working Papers 07-44, NET Institute, revised Nov 2007.
    5. Packalen, Mikko, 2010. "Complements and potential competition," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 244-253, May.
    6. Rey, Patrick & Tirole, Jean, 2007. "A Primer on Foreclosure," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 33, pages 2145-2220, Elsevier.
    7. Steven J. Davis & Jack MacCrisken & Kevin M. Murphy, 2001. "Economic Perspectives on Software Design: PC Operating Systems and Platforms," NBER Working Papers 8411, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Stephen M. Gilbert & Sreelata Jonnalagedda, 2011. "Durable Products, Time Inconsistency, and Lock-in," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(9), pages 1655-1670, September.
    9. Dennis W. Carlton & Joshua S. Gans & Michael Waldman, 2010. "Why Tie a Product Consumers Do Not Use?," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(3), pages 85-105, August.
    10. Annabelle Gawer & Rebecca Henderson, 2007. "Platform Owner Entry and Innovation in Complementary Markets: Evidence from Intel," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(1), pages 1-34, March.
    11. Randal Heeb, 2003. "Randal Heeb Innovation and Vertical Integration in Complementary Markets," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(3), pages 387-417, September.
    12. Chun‐Hui Miao, 2010. "Tying, Compatibility And Planned Obsolescence," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 579-606, September.
    13. Miller, David A., 2008. "Invention under uncertainty and the threat of ex post entry," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 387-412, April.
    14. Kevin Boudreau, 2005. "The Boundaries of the Platform: Vertical Integration and Economic Incentives in Mobile Computing," Working Papers hal-00597767, HAL.
    15. Rey, Patrick & Seabright, Paul & Tirole, Jean, 2001. "The Activities of a Monopoly Firm in Adjacent Competitive Markets: Economic Consequences and Implications for Competition Policy," IDEI Working Papers 132, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse, revised 2002.
    16. de Cornière, Alexandre & Taylor, Greg, 2017. "Application Bundling in System Markets," CEPR Discussion Papers 12129, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Kevin J. Boudreau & Andrei Hagiu, 2009. "Platform Rules: Multi-Sided Platforms as Regulators," Chapters, in: Annabelle Gawer (ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Jeon, Doh-Shin & Menicucci, Domenico, 2009. "Bundling and Competition for Slots: On the Portfolio Effects of Bundling," IDEI Working Papers 574, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse, revised Jul 2011.
    19. Alexandre de Cornière & Greg Taylor, 2019. "A model of biased intermediation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 50(4), pages 854-882, December.
    20. Jihui Chen & Qiang Fu, 2017. "Do exclusivity arrangements harm consumers?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 311-339, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    incentives; integration; R&D;
    All these keywords.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:netnom:v:5:y:2003:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1024969416825. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.