IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/7607.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Monopoly, Diversification through Adjacent Technologies, and Market Structure

Author

Listed:
  • Karaaslan, Mehmet E.

Abstract

The theoretical literature on technological competition has been mostly concerned with various aspects of innovative activity in a single market. By contrast, this paper studies the adoption of a sequence of product innovations in two markets characterized by a common technology base, and illustrates the effects of technological rivalry and preemption. Under a perfect information scenario, it is shown in a two incumbent model that if the innovation is drastic (total replacement of the old product), under certain conditions the fear of being preempted by the entrant forces the firms to diversify their product lines by adopting the innovations across each other's markets. On the other hand, with non-drastic innovation (partial replacement of the old product), it is more likely for the firms to diversify in their own product lines. Out of a class of equilibria characterized under non-drastic innovation, one is optimal in which innovations are adopted in the firms' own markets. In the Pareto inferior equilibria, the firms either adopt innovations in each other's market so that incumbency changes hands or jointly adopt both innovations in two separate product lines. Perfect Bayesian equilibria are characterized under an asymmetric information scenario where one of the firms is assumed to have complete information about the relevant costs of adopting an innovation in a separate product line. If the priors are based on pessimism, it is more often subject to exploitation by the informed firm leading to pooling equilibrium, while optimistism more often leads to diversification and to a competitive market structure in both product lines under a separating equilibrium. In all the cases considered, both innovations are adopted, and in most cases they are adopted by the high cost entrant. The former is socially desirable, but the latter is not. More competitiveness necessarily implies wasteful expenditure by the high cost firm. Lack of competitiveness and technological rivalry, on the other hand, imply that maximum product diversity may not be achieved.

Suggested Citation

  • Karaaslan, Mehmet E., 2007. "Monopoly, Diversification through Adjacent Technologies, and Market Structure," MPRA Paper 7607, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:7607
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/7607/1/MPRA_paper_7607.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McLean, Richard P. & Riordan, Michael H., 1989. "Industry structure with sequential technology choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 1-21, February.
    2. Kamien, Morton I & Schwartz, Nancy L, 1975. "Market Structure and Innovation: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 13(1), pages 1-37, March.
    3. Vickers, John S, 1986. "The Evolution of Market Structure When There Is a Sequence of Innovations," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(1), pages 1-12, September.
    4. Bhattacharya, Sudipto & Chatterjee, Kalyan & Samuelson, Larry, 1986. "Sequential Research and the Adoption of Innovations," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(0), pages 219-243, Suppl. No.
    5. Debra J. Aron, 1988. "Ability, Moral Hazard, Firm Size, and Diversification," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(1), pages 72-87, Spring.
    6. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, December.
    7. Jennifer F. Reinganum, 1981. "Market Structure and the Diffusion of New Technology," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 12(2), pages 618-624, Autumn.
    8. Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, 1985. "Preemption and Rent Equalization in the Adoption of New Technology," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 52(3), pages 383-401.
    9. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-440, June.
    10. Glazer, Amihai, 1985. "The Advantages of Being First," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 473-480, June.
    11. Richard A. Posner, 1975. "The Social Costs of Monopoly and Regulation," Springer Books, in: Roger D. Congleton & Kai A. Konrad & Arye L. Hillman (ed.), 40 Years of Research on Rent Seeking 2, pages 45-65, Springer.
    12. repec:bla:econom:v:54:y:1987:i:214:p:155-71 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Harris, Christopher J & Vickers, John S, 1985. "Patent Races and the Persistence of Monopoly," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(4), pages 461-481, June.
    15. 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.
    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. 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. Drew Fudenberg, 2015. "Tirole's Industrial Regulation and Organization Legacy in Economics," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 117(3), pages 771-800, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Houngbonon, Georges Vivien & Jeanjean, François, 2016. "What level of competition intensity maximises investment in the wireless industry?," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 774-790.
    5. 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.
    6. A. Mahathi & Rupayan Pal & Vinay Ramani, 2016. "Competition, strategic delegation and delay in technology adoption," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 143-171, March.
    7. Robin Kleer, 2009. "Acquisitions in a Patent Contest Model with Large and Small Firms," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 307-328, December.
    8. Oscar Gutiérrez & Francisco Ruiz-Aliseda, 2011. "Real options with unknown-date events," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 171-198, May.
    9. Bustamante, Maria Cecilia, 2011. "Strategic investment, industry concentration and the cross section of returns," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 37454, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Moresi, Serge & Schwartz, Marius, 2023. "Product innovation with vertical differentiation: Is a monopolist's incentive weaker?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    11. Brennan, Timothy J., 2000. "The Economics of Competition Policy: Recent Developments and Cautionary Notes in Antitrust and Regulation," Discussion Papers 10716, Resources for the Future.
    12. Georg Götz, 2002. "Spatial Competition, Sequential Entry, and Technology choice," Vienna Economics Papers 0215, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    13. David Moroz, 2005. "Production of Scientific Knowledge and Radical Uncertainty: The Limits of the Normative Approach in Innovation Economics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, November.
    14. Garella, Paolo G., 2012. "Monopoly incentives for cost-reducing R&D," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 21-24.
    15. 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.
    16. Prajit K. Dutta & Saul Lach & Aldo Rustichini, 1995. "Better Late than Early: Vertical Differentiation in the Adoption of a New Technology," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(4), pages 563-589, December.
    17. Luigi Filippini, 1999. "Leapfrogging in a Vertical Product Differentiation Model," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(2), pages 245-256.
    18. Mehrez, Abraham & Justman, Moshe, 2001. "On the efficiency of the parallel path R&D approach: a stochastic game analysis," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 19-28.
    19. Bourreau, Marc, 2004. "The impact of uncertainty about demand growth on preemption," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 56(5), pages 363-376.
    20. S. Baranzoni & P. Bianchi & L. Lambertini, 2000. "Multiproduct Firms, Product Differentiation, and Market Structure," Working Papers 368, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    tehnological rivalry; preemption; adoption of innovations; upgrading;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L10 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - General
    • 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:pra:mprapa:7607. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.