IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rje/randje/v18y1987isummerp287-295.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dropout Behavior in R&D Races with Learning

Author

Listed:
  • Steve A. Lippman
  • Kevin F. McCardle

Abstract

We examine a game-theoretic model of a two-firm R&D race in which expenditures on R&D and the concomitant increase in experience/learning enable the firms to increase their probability of discovering an invention. The learning process is stochastic. It generates a unique subgame-perfect equilibrium for identical firms with the characteristic that the leader never drops out, but the follower drops out if the leader gains a significant lead. The leader can find it optimal to drop out if the firms value the invention differently or have different R&D efficiencies. Thus, our analysis generates results between vigorous competition and natural monopoly.

Suggested Citation

  • Steve A. Lippman & Kevin F. McCardle, 1987. "Dropout Behavior in R&D Races with Learning," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(2), pages 287-295, Summer.
    • Handle: RePEc:rje:randje:v:18:y:1987:i:summer:p:287-295
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0741-6261%28198722%2918%3A2%3C287%3ADBIRRW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R&origin=repec
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to JSTOR subscribers. See http://www.jstor.org for details.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Yosef Rinott & Marco Scarsini & Yaming Yu, 2012. "A Colonel Blotto Gladiator Game," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 37(4), pages 574-590, November.
    2. Lall B. Ramrattan, 1998. "R&D Rivalry in the U.S. Automobile Industry: A Simultaneous Equation Model Approach to Bain's Hypothesis," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 42(1), pages 42-55, March.
    3. A. Messica & A. Mehrez, 2002. "Time-to-market, window of opportunity, and salvageability of a new product development," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(6), pages 371-378.
    4. Fershtman, Chaim & Markovich, Sarit, 2010. "Patents, imitation and licensing in an asymmetric dynamic R&D race," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 113-126, March.
    5. Doraszelski, Ulrich & Escobar, Juan F., 2019. "Protocol invariance and the timing of decisions in dynamic games," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(2), May.
    6. Fershtman, Chaim & Markovich, Sarit, 2006. "Patents, Imitation and Licensing In an Asymmetric Dynamic R&D Race," Foerder Institute for Economic Research Working Papers 275706, Tel-Aviv University > Foerder Institute for Economic Research.
    7. Ron N. Borkovsky, 2017. "The timing of version releases: A dynamic duopoly model," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 187-239, September.
    8. Levin, Mark (Левин, Марк) & Matrosova, Kseniya (Матросова, Ксения), 2017. "Development and Analysis of Economic Models of Innovation Incentives [Разработка И Исследование Экономических Моделей Стимулирования Инновационных Процессов]," Working Papers 061713, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    9. Pelin G. Canbolat & Boaz Golany & Inbal Mund & Uriel G. Rothblum, 2012. "A Stochastic Competitive R&D Race Where “Winner Takes All”," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 60(3), pages 700-715, June.
    10. A. Messica & A. Mehrez & I. David, 2000. "Optimal Expenditure Patterns of a Double-Path Engineering Project," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 105(2), pages 441-455, May.
    11. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Kraft, Kornelius, 2004. "An empirical test of the asymmetric models on innovative activity: who invests more into R&D, the incumbent or the challenger?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 153-173, June.
    12. Nguyen, Thang, 2004. "Technological Progress in Races for Product Supremacy," MPRA Paper 235, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 18 Jul 2006.
    13. Lee, Jeongsik & Kim, Byung-Cheol & Lim, Young-Mo, 2011. "Dynamic competition in technological investments: An empirical examination of the LCD panel industry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 718-728.
    14. Floortje Alkemade & Marko Hekkert, 2009. "Development paths for emerging innovation systems: implications for environmental innovations," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 09-08, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Apr 2009.
    15. Richard Gilbert, 2006. "Looking for Mr. Schumpeter: Where Are We in the Competition-Innovation Debate?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 6, pages 159-215, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Bag, Parimal Kanti & Dasgupta, Sudipto, 1995. "Strategic R&D success announcements," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 17-26, January.
    17. Julia Porter Liebeskind & Amalya Lumerman Oliver & Lynne G. Zucker & Marilynn B. Brewer, 1995. "Social Networks, Learning, and Flexibility: Sourcing Scientific Knowledge in New Biotechnology Firms," NBER Working Papers 5320, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    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:rje:randje:v:18:y:1987:i:summer:p:287-295. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.rje.org .

    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.