IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mpg/wpaper/2009_11.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Persistence of Monopoly and Research Specialization

Author

Listed:
  • Philipp Weinschenk

    (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods)

Abstract

We examine the persistence of monopolies in markets with innovations when the outcome of research is uncertain. We show that for low success probabilities of research, the incumbent can seldom preempt the potential entrant. Then the efficiency effect outweighs the replacement effect. It is vice versa for high probabilities. Moreover, the incumbent specializes in “safe” research and the potential entrant in “risky” research. We also show that the probability of entry has an inverted U-shape in the success probability. Since even at the peak entry is rather unlikely, the persistence of the monopoly is high.

Suggested Citation

  • Philipp Weinschenk, 2009. "Persistence of Monopoly and Research Specialization," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2009_11, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    • Handle: RePEc:mpg:wpaper:2009_11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.coll.mpg.de/pdf_dat/2009_11online.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard J. Rosen, 1991. "Research and Development with Asymmetric Firm Sizes," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 22(3), pages 411-429, Autumn.
    2. de Meza, David & Southey, Clive, 1996. "The Borrower's Curse: Optimism, Finance and Entrepreneurship," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(435), pages 375-386, March.
    3. Gilbert Richard J, 2006. "Competition and Innovation," Journal of Industrial Organization Education, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-23, December.
    4. Dixit, Avinash, 1980. "The Role of Investment in Entry-Deterrence," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 90(357), pages 95-106, March.
    5. Milo Bianchi & Magnus Henrekson, 2005. "Is Neoclassical Economics still Entrepreneurless?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 353-377, July.
    6. Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1983. "Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 741-748, September.
    7. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, December.
    8. Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1984. "Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(1), pages 243-246, March.
    9. Federico Etro, 2004. "Innovation by leaders," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 281-303, April.
    10. 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.
    11. Denicolo, Vincenzo, 2001. "Growth with non-drastic innovations and the persistence of leadership," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1399-1413, August.
    12. Blume, Andreas, 2003. "Bertrand without fudge," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 167-168, February.
    13. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Kihlstrom, Richard E & Laffont, Jean-Jacques, 1979. "A General Equilibrium Entrepreneurial Theory of Firm Formation Based on Risk Aversion," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 87(4), pages 719-748, August.
    15. Gilbert, Richard J & Newberry, David M G, 1984. "Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(1), pages 238-242, March.
    16. Gilbert, Richard J & Newbery, David M G, 1982. "Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 514-526, June.
    17. A. Michael Spence, 1977. "Entry, Capacity, Investment and Oligopolistic Pricing," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 8(2), pages 534-544, Autumn.
    18. Geroski, P. A., 1995. "What do we know about entry?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 421-440, December.
    19. Yi, Sang-Seung, 1995. "Uncertain innovation and persistence of monopoly revisited," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 319-322, September.
    20. William J. Baumol, 2004. "Education for Innovation: Entrepreneurial Breakthroughs vs. Corporate Incremental Improvements," NBER Working Papers 10578, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Chris Freeman & Luc Soete, 1997. "The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 3, volume 1, number 0262061953, December.
    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. Kiedaisch, Christian, 2015. "Intellectual property rights in a quality-ladder model with persistent leadership," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 194-213.
    2. Traxler, Christian, 2012. "Majority voting and the welfare implications of tax avoidance," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 1-9.

    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. Ping Lin & Tianle Zhang & Wen Zhou, 2020. "Vertical integration and disruptive cross‐market R&D," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 51-73, January.
    2. Flavio Delbono & Luca Lambertini, 2022. "Innovation and the persistence of monopoly under diseconomies of scope or scale," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 49(4), pages 747-757, December.
    3. Bourreau, Marc, 2004. "The impact of uncertainty about demand growth on preemption," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 56(5), pages 363-376.
    4. Daniela Grieco, 2007. "Degree of Innovativeness and Market Structure: A Model," The IUP Journal of Managerial Economics, IUP Publications, vol. 0(2), pages 7-27, May.
    5. Klette, Tor Jakob & Griliches, Zvi, 2000. "Empirical Patterns of Firm Growth and R&D Investment: A Quality Ladder Model Interpretation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 363-387, April.
    6. Ronald Goettler & Brett Gordon, 2014. "Competition and product innovation in dynamic oligopoly," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-42, March.
    7. Ledezma, Ivan, 2013. "Defensive strategies in quality ladders," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 176-194.
    8. Garella, Paolo G., 2012. "Monopoly incentives for cost-reducing R&D," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 21-24.
    9. 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.
    10. Glen M. Schmidt & Evan L. Porteus, 2000. "Sustaining Technology Leadership Can Require Both Cost Competence and Innovative Competence," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 1-18, March.
    11. Norbäck, Pehr-Johan & Persson, Lars & Svensson, Roger, 2016. "Creative destruction and productive preemptive acquisitions," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 326-343.
    12. 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.
    13. Robin Boadway & Jean-François Tremblay, 2003. "Public Economics and Startup Entrepreneurs," CESifo Working Paper Series 877, CESifo.
    14. Hashem, Nawar & Ugur, Mehmet, 2011. "Product-market competition, corporate governance and innovation: evidence on US-listed firms," MPRA Paper 37481, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Feb 2012.
    15. Hashem, Nawar & Ugur, Mehmet, 2012. "Market Concentration, Corporate Governance and Innovation: Partial and Combined Effects in US-Listed Firms," MPRA Paper 44135, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Sep 2012.
    16. Athanasopoulos, Thanos, 2015. "Incentives to Innovate, Compatibility and Welfare in Durable Goods Markets with Network Effects," Economic Research Papers 270229, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    17. Yin, Xiangkang & Zuscovitch, Ehud, 1998. "Is firm size conducive to R&D choice? A strategic analysis of product and process innovations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 243-262, April.
    18. Haufler, Andreas & Norbäck, Pehr-Johan & Persson, Lars, 2014. "Entrepreneurial innovations and taxation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 13-31.
    19. Hamid Beladi & Arijit Mukherjee, 2022. "R&D competition and the persistence of technology leadership," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 18(3), pages 272-284, September.
    20. Bourreau, Marc & Jullien, Bruno, 2018. "Mergers, investments and demand expansion," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 136-141.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Persistence of Monopoly; Efficiency Effect; Replacement Effect; Stochastic Innovations;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    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:mpg:wpaper:2009_11. 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: Marc Martin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mppggde.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.