IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/esprep/222573.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Market Power and the Incentive to Innovate: A Return to Schumpeter and Arrow

Author

Listed:
  • Todorova, Tamara

Abstract

Using a simple linear demand and marginal cost function, we demonstrate that both competition and monopoly have incentives to innovate since this increases their profit levels. However, our results show that perfect competition is more motivated to innovate since the increase in the profit is greater with the same cost reduction and the same innovation. We also conclude that a more drastic innovation brings greater rent to the monopolist and reduces the advantages of perfect competition over monopoly. It could be presumed that monopoly firms would be attracted to more substantive innovations rather than non-drastic ones.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Todorova, Tamara, 2020. "Market Power and the Incentive to Innovate: A Return to Schumpeter and Arrow," EconStor Preprints 222573, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:esprep:222573
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gilbert Richard J, 2006. "Competition and Innovation," Journal of Industrial Organization Education, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-23, December.
    2. Sutton, John, 2007. "Market Structure: Theory and Evidence," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 35, pages 2301-2368, Elsevier.
    3. 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.
    4. Peter J. Buckley & Mark Casson, 1991. "The Future of the Multinational Enterprise," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, edition 0, number 978-1-349-21204-0, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Thomas J. Holmes & David K. Levine & James A. Schmitz, 2012. "Monopoly and the Incentive to Innovate When Adoption Involves Switchover Disruptions," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(3), pages 1-33, August.
    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. Ross Levine & Chen Lin & Lai Wei & Wensi Xie, 2020. "Competition Laws and Corporate Innovation," NBER Working Papers 27253, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Im, Hyun Joong & Park, Young Joon & Shon, Janghoon, 2015. "Product market competition and the value of innovation: Evidence from US patent data," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 78-82.
    3. Bessonova, Evguenia & Gonchar, Ksenia, 2019. "How the innovation-competition link is shaped by technology distance in a high-barrier catch-up economy," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 86, pages 15-32.
    4. Ugur, Mehmet & Trushin, Eshref & Solomon, Edna & Guidi, Francesco, 2016. "R&D and productivity in OECD firms and industries: A hierarchical meta-regression analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 2069-2086.
    5. Bourreau, Marc & Jullien, Bruno, 2018. "Mergers, investments and demand expansion," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 136-141.
    6. 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.
    7. Pilar BeneitoBy & María Engracia Rochina-Barrachina & Amparo Sanchis, 2017. "Competition and innovation with selective exit: an inverted-U shape relationship?," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(4), pages 1032-1053.
    8. Stiglitz, Joseph E., 2015. "Leaders and followers: Perspectives on the Nordic model and the economics of innovation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 3-16.
    9. Federico, Giulio & Langus, Gregor & Valletti, Tommaso, 2018. "Horizontal mergers and product innovation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1-23.
    10. D. Dragone & L. Lambertini & A. Palestini, 2017. "Emission taxation, green innovations and inverted-U aggregate R&D efforts in a linear state oligopoly game," Working Papers wp2000, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    11. Tammi, Timo & Saastamoinen, Jani & Reijonen, Helen, 2020. "Public procurement as a vehicle of innovation – What does the inverted-U relationship between competition and innovativeness tell us?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    12. Tobias Kretschmer & Eugenio J. Miravete & Jose C. Pernias, 2012. "Competitive Pressure and the Adoption of Complementary Innovations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1540-1570, June.
    13. Alena Zemplinerová & Eva Hromádková, 2012. "Determinants of Firm's Innovation," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2012(4), pages 487-503.
    14. Joshua S. Gans, 2011. "When Is Static Analysis a Sufficient Proxy for Dynamic Considerations? Reconsidering Antitrust and Innovation," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 11(1), pages 55-78.
    15. Florez Ramos, Esmeralda & Blind, Knut, 2020. "Data portability effects on data-driven innovation of online platforms: Analyzing Spotify," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(9).
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Juan Máñez & María Rochina-Barrachina & Amparo Sanchis-Llopis & Juan Sanchis-Llopis, 2015. "The determinants of R&D persistence in SMEs," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 505-528, March.
    19. Marek Vokoun, 2014. "R&D and Innovation Activities ? Search for Better Definitions and an Economic-Historical Approach," Proceedings of Economics and Finance Conferences 0402131, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    20. Antonio Tesoriere, 2021. "Drastic innovation reduces firms’ incentives to create divisions," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 38(3), pages 971-994, October.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D41 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Perfect Competition
    • D42 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Monopoly
    • 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

    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:zbw:esprep:222573. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.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.