IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/4090.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact of R&D Subsidies on the Introduction of New Products by Incumbent Firms

Author

Listed:
  • Siebert, Ralph

Abstract

This Paper analyses the impact of R&D subsidies on incumbent firms to introduce new goods. We are especially interested in investigating various consequences of government subsidies for R&D, provided to firms that offer products of different qualities. This study examines the incentives of incumbent firms to introduce new products of various quality, their prices, as well as the product variety offered on the market. We find that the innovator always introduces a new product of higher quality and withdraws the existing product from the market. Providing an R&D subsidy to a high-quality firm results in a new product with higher quality than an R&D subsidy provided to a low-quality firm, at the expense of all consumers paying higher prices for all goods in the market. When the R&D subsidy is small, the low quality firm may not introduce a new product into the market, given that R&D costs for quality improvement are high and the degree of product differentiation is small.

Suggested Citation

  • Siebert, Ralph, 2003. "The Impact of R&D Subsidies on the Introduction of New Products by Incumbent Firms," CEPR Discussion Papers 4090, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:4090
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP4090
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    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. Kenneth L. Judd, 1985. "Credible Spatial Preemption," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(2), pages 153-166, Summer.
    2. Hoppe, Heidrun C. & Lee, In Ho, 2003. "Entry deterrence and innovation in durable-goods monopoly," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1011-1036, December.
    3. Champsaur, Paul & Rochet, Jean-Charles, 1989. "Multiproduct Duopolists," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 533-557, May.
    4. Heidrun C. Hoppe & Ulrich Lehmann‐Grube, 2001. "Second‐Mover Advantages in Dynamic Quality Competition," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(3), pages 419-433, September.
    5. Ulrich Lehmann-Grube, 1997. "Strategic Choice of Quality When Quality is Costly: The Persistence of the High-Quality Advantage," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 28(2), pages 372-384, Summer.
    6. Richard Schmalensee, 1978. "Entry Deterrence in the Ready-to-Eat Breakfast Cereal Industry," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(2), pages 305-327, Autumn.
    7. Timothy F. Bresnahan & Robert J. Gordon, 1996. "The Economics of New Goods," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number bres96-1.
    8. Berry, Steven & Pakes, Ariel, 1993. "Some Applications and Limitations of Recent Advances in Empirical Industrial Organization: Merger Analysis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(2), pages 247-252, May.
    9. Aron, Debra J & Lazear, Edward P, 1990. "The Introduction of New Products," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 421-426, May.
    10. Steven T. Berry & Joel Waldfogel, 1999. "Free Entry and Social Inefficiency in Radio Broadcasting," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(3), pages 397-420, Autumn.
    11. Shabtai Donnenfeld & Shlomo Weber, 1995. "Limit Qualities and Entry Deterrence," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(1), pages 113-130, Spring.
    12. Pakes, Ariel & Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James A, 1993. "Applications and Limitations of Some Recent Advances in Empirical Industrial Organization: Price Indexes and the Analysis of Environmental Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(2), pages 241-246, May.
    13. Caplin, Andrew & Nalebuff, Barry, 1991. "Aggregation and Imperfect Competition: On the Existence of Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(1), pages 25-59, January.
    14. Donnenfeld, Shabtai & Weber, Shlomo, 1992. "Vertical product differentiation with entry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 449-472, September.
    15. Lerner, Josh, 1999. "The Government as Venture Capitalist: The Long-Run Impact of the SBIR Program," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 72(3), pages 285-318, July.
    16. Scott J. Wallsten, 2000. "The Effects of Government-Industry R&D Programs on Private R&D: The Case of the Small Business Innovation Research Program," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(1), pages 82-100, Spring.
    17. Shaked, Avner & Sutton, John, 1983. "Natural Oligopolies," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(5), pages 1469-1483, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ralph Siebert, 1999. "The Impact of R&D Subsidies on the Introduction of New Products by Incumbent Firms old title -(New Product Introduction by Incumbent Firms)," CIG Working Papers FS IV 99-19, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG), revised Aug 2003.
    2. Ralph Siebert, 2003. "The Introduction of New Product Qualities by Incumbent Firms: Market Proliferation versus Cannibalization," CIG Working Papers SP II 2003-11, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    3. Ralph Siebert, 1999. "Credible Vertical Preemption," CIG Working Papers FS IV 99-20, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG), revised Jul 2003.
    4. Gabszewicz, Jean J. & Marini, Marco A. & Tarola, Ornella, 2017. "Vertical differentiation and collusion: Pruning or proliferation?," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 129-139.
    5. Peitz, Martin, 2002. "The pro-competitive effect of higher entry costs," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 353-364, March.
    6. Yong-Hwan Noh & Giancarlo Moschini, 2006. "Vertical Product Differentiation, Entry-Deterrence Strategies, and Entry Qualities," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 29(3), pages 227-252, November.
    7. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899, November.
    8. Liang Lu, 2015. "Proliferation and Entry Deterrence in Vertically Differentiated Markets," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2015-06, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    9. Manez, J.A. & Waterson, M., 2001. "Multiproduct Firms and Product Differentiation: a Survey," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 594, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    10. Luca Lambertini & Piero Tedeschi, 2007. "On the Social Desirability of Patents for Sequential Innovations in a Vertically Differentiated Market," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 193-214, March.
    11. Tse, Chung Yi, 2001. "Risky quality choice," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(1-2), pages 185-212, January.
    12. Karaer, Özgen & Erhun, Feryal, 2015. "Quality and entry deterrence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(1), pages 292-303.
    13. Gabszewicz, Jean J. & Marini, Marco A. & Tarola, Ornella, 2016. "Vertical Differentiation and Collusion: Cannibalization or Proliferation?," ETA: Economic Theory and Applications 232221, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    14. Jean J. Gabszewicz & Marco A. Marini & Ornella Tarola, 2016. "Vertical Differentiation and Collusion: Cannibalization or Proliferation?," Working Papers 2016.15, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    15. Peter-J. Jost & Stefanie Schubert & Miriam Zschoche, 2015. "Incumbent positioning as a determinant of strategic response to entry," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 577-596, March.
    16. Robert Schmidt, 2006. "On the Robustness of the High-Quality Advantage under Vertical Differentiation," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 183-193, December.
    17. Nathan H. Miller, 2008. "Competition When Consumers Value Firm Scope," EAG Discussions Papers 200807, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
    18. L. Lambertini & P. Tedeschi, 2003. "Sequential Entry in a Vertically Differentiated Duopoly," Working Papers 492, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    19. Andrew Sweeting, 2007. "Dynamic Product Repositioning in Differentiated Product Markets: The Case of Format Switching in the Commercial Radio Industry," NBER Working Papers 13522, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Barigozzi, Francesca & Ma, Ching-to Albert, 2018. "Product differentiation with multiple qualities," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 380-412.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Innovation; Subsidies; Vertical product differentiation; Asymmetric firms; New product introduction; Technology policy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L11 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Production, Pricing, and Market Structure; Size Distribution of Firms
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L52 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Industrial Policy; Sectoral Planning Methods
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cpr:ceprdp:4090. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.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.