IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/crd/wpaper/19001.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Technology Adoption in Input-Output Networks

Author

Abstract

This paper investigates the role of network structure in technology adoption. In particular, we study how the network of individual agents can slow down the speed of adoption. We study this issue in the context of the Python programming language by modeling the decisions to adopt Python version 3 by software packages. Python 3 provides advanced features but is not backward compatible with Python 2, which implies adoption costs. Moreover, packages form an input-output network through dependency on other packages in order to avoid writing duplicate code, and they face additional adoption costs from dependencies without Python 3 support. We build a dynamic model of technology adoption that incorporates the input-output network. With a complete dataset of package characteristics for historical releases and user downloads, we draw the input-output network and develop a new estimation method based on the dependency relationship. Estimation results show the average cost of one incompatible dependency is one-third the fixed cost of updating a package’s code. Simulations show the input-output network contributes to 1.5 years of adoption inertia. We conduct counterfactual policies of promotion in subcommunities and find significant heterogeneous effects on the adoption rates due to differences in network structure. Length: 43 pages

Suggested Citation

  • Xintong Han & Lei Xu, 2019. "Technology Adoption in Input-Output Networks," Working Papers 19001, Concordia University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:crd:wpaper:19001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://leixu.org/Xu_JMP.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rust, John, 1987. "Optimal Replacement of GMC Bus Engines: An Empirical Model of Harold Zurcher," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(5), pages 999-1033, September.
    2. Igal Hendel & Aviv Nevo, 2006. "Sales and consumer inventory," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 543-561, September.
    3. Olivier De Groote & Frank Verboven, 2019. "Subsidies and Time Discounting in New Technology Adoption: Evidence from Solar Photovoltaic Systems," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(6), pages 2137-2172, June.
    4. David Atkin & Azam Chaudhry & Shamyla Chaudry & Amit K. Khandelwal & Eric Verhoogen, 2017. "Organizational Barriers to Technology Adoption: Evidence from Soccer-Ball Producers in Pakistan," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 132(3), pages 1101-1164.
    5. Gautam Gowrisankaran & Joanna Stavins, 2004. "Network Externalities and Technology Adoption: Lessons from Electronic Payments," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 35(2), pages 260-276, Summer.
    6. Aguirregabiria, Victor & Mira, Pedro, 2010. "Dynamic discrete choice structural models: A survey," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 156(1), pages 38-67, May.
    7. Keane, Michael P, 1994. "A Computationally Practical Simulation Estimator for Panel Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(1), pages 95-116, January.
    8. Christian Belzil & Jörgen Hansen, 2002. "Unobserved Ability and the Return to Schooling," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(5), pages 2075-2091, September.
    9. Garth Saloner & Andrea Shepard, 1995. "Adoption of Technologies with Network Effects: An Empirical Examination of the Adoption of Teller Machines," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(3), pages 479-501, Autumn.
    10. Thierry Magnac & David Thesmar, 2002. "Identifying Dynamic Discrete Decision Processes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 801-816, March.
    11. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-440, June.
    12. Igal Hendel & Aviv Nevo, 2006. "Sales and Consumer Inventory," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 543-561, Autumn.
    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. Xingtong Han & Lei Xu, 2019. "Technology Adoption in Input-Output Networks," Staff Working Papers 19-51, Bank of Canada.
    2. Xintong Han & Lei Xu, 2018. "Technology Adoption in a Hierarchical Network," Working Papers 18-05, NET Institute.
    3. Aguirregabiria, Victor & Mira, Pedro, 2010. "Dynamic discrete choice structural models: A survey," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 156(1), pages 38-67, May.
    4. Kalouptsidi, Myrto & Scott, Paul T. & Souza-Rodrigues, Eduardo, 2021. "Linear IV regression estimators for structural dynamic discrete choice models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 778-804.
    5. Takeshi Fukasawa, 2022. "The Biases in Applying Static Demand Models under Dynamic Demand," Discussion Paper Series DP2022-18, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University, revised Jul 2022.
    6. Myrto Kalouptsidi & Paul T. Scott & Eduardo Souza-Rodrigues, 2018. "Linear IV Regression Estimators for Structural Dynamic Discrete Choice Models," NBER Working Papers 25134, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Schiraldi, Pasquale & Levy, Matthew R., 2020. "Identification of intertemporal preferences in history-dependent dynamic discrete choice models," CEPR Discussion Papers 14447, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Kalouptsidi, Myrto & Scott, Paul T. & Souza-Rodrigues, Eduardo, 2018. "Linear IV Regression Estimators for Structural Dynamic Discrete Choice Models," CEPR Discussion Papers 13240, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2019. "Dynamic Random Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(6), pages 1941-2002, November.
    10. Aguirregabiria, Victor & Gu, Jiaying & Luo, Yao, 2021. "Sufficient statistics for unobserved heterogeneity in structural dynamic logit models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 280-311.
    11. Gonca P. Soysal & Lakshman Krishnamurthi, 2012. "Demand Dynamics in the Seasonal Goods Industry: An Empirical Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 293-316, March.
    12. Ching, Andrew T. & Erdem, Tülin & Keane, Michael P., 2014. "A simple method to estimate the roles of learning, inventories and category consideration in consumer choice," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 60-72.
    13. Donna, Javier D., 2018. "Measuring Long-Run Price Elasticities in Urban Travel Demand," MPRA Paper 92233, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Kalouptsidi, Myrto & Scott, Paul & Souza-Rodrigues, Eduardo, 2015. "Identification of Counterfactuals and Payoffs in Dynamic Discrete Choice with an Application to Land Use," TSE Working Papers 15-596, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    15. Victor Aguirregabiria & Allan Collard-Wexler & Stephen P. Ryan, 2021. "Dynamic Games in Empirical Industrial Organization," NBER Working Papers 29291, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Guofang Huang & Ahmed Khwaja & K. Sudhir, 2012. "Short Run Needs and Long Term Goals: A Dynamic Model of Thirst Management," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1856, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    17. Daniel Ackerberg, 2009. "A new use of importance sampling to reduce computational burden in simulation estimation," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 343-376, December.
    18. Blevins, Jason R. & Kim, Minhae, 2024. "Nested Pseudo likelihood estimation of continuous-time dynamic discrete games," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 238(2).
    19. Andrew T. Ching & Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane, 2013. "Invited Paper ---Learning Models: An Assessment of Progress, Challenges, and New Developments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(6), pages 913-938, November.
    20. Masakazu Ishihara & Andrew T. Ching, 2019. "Dynamic Demand for New and Used Durable Goods Without Physical Depreciation: The Case of Japanese Video Games," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(3), pages 392-416, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    dynamic adoption; network dependency; structural estimation;
    All these keywords.

    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:crd:wpaper:19001. 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: Economics Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deconca.html .

    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.