1 Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Department of Applied Economics Annual Report Endogenous R&D investment when learning and technological distance affects absorption capacity Author: Jorge Luis Paz Panizo Director: Francesc Trillas Jané Bellaterra, June 2016
2 1. Introduction In the R&D literature there is a traditional negative effect of spillovers stating that higher R&D exogenous spillovers reduce R&D investment equilibrium: Firms chooses R&D taking into account that competitors' efficiency will be improved through spillovers externalities, making them tougher competitors and driving down firm's R&D spending. Furthermore, the linear specification implies that the external R&D investment reduces firms unit cost without any effort of the recipients. On the contrary, endogenous models with absorptive capacity capture the idea that to learn from a competitor s one must also be engaged in R&D investments. In our reference paper, Grunfeld (2003) shows that an extra positive learning effect is always present in endogenous absorptive capacity models. However, as he states about his model: contrary to earlier studies, absorptive capacity effects do not necessarily drive up the incentive to invest in R&D. This only happens when the market size is small or the absorptive capacity effect is weak. The main results of this paper is that the positive learning property not always hold in our endogenous model: at equilibrium, it depends on the learning/distance parameter and the market structure parameter configuration In our endogenous spillover function, higher own R&D investment improves the firm absorptive capacity up to a maximal point where the traditional learning effect dominance ends (marginal learning of own investment decreases to zero). From this point, increases in R&D investment diminishes the firm s absorption capacity from others, since the relative technological distance effect is now stronger than the learning effect. Therefore, we propose a U-inverted absorptive capacity function. The proposed general function also integrates canonical models in the R&D and spillovers literature. In particular, the Brander and Spence (BS) model without spillovers and the AJ model with exogenous absorptive capacity can be easily parameterized are particular cases. Main results of this work are: First, the endogenous spillovers effect it is not always positive, it is ruled by a relation between the learning/distance and the market structure parameters and; Second, we proposes original regions, related to our new learning/distance parameter, in which the endogenous model has a higher equal or lower R&D investment than both the AJ and BS ones. Some preliminary comparative statics and welfare results are described for pure endogenous version of the Non-Cooperative and Cooperative RJV cartelization models. As future steps we expect to find empirical evidence on the existence and effect of different degrees in technological distance; identify the theoretical aggregated value of the model, and give some initial interpretation based on the formalization of the more relevant results obtained.
3 2. The Model Consider a two stage game in which firms invest in R&D in the first stage and compete in the product market in the second stage. In the second period, it chooses the level of differentiated output. In the first period, given the equilibrium output, each firm choose the optimal level of R&D investment. We consider only symmetric equilibria in pure strategies and the subgame perfect equilibrium are solved using backward induction. The inverse demand function for firm is linear: (1) where is the differentiation parameter. The unit cost function is represented by (2) A firm effective R&D effort is defined as the sum of its own unit cost reduction,, and a proportion of the rivals unit costs reduction. This specification generalize the d Aspremont and Jacquemin (d Aspremont and Jacquemin, 1998) (AJ) exogenous duopoly model to an endogenous absorptive capacity model for firms: (3) In the AJ model, the absorption capacity function is constant, so the effective R&D effort is a linear function of the spillovers. Furthermore, this exogenous specification implies that the external R&D investment reduces firms unit cost without any effort of the recipients. On the contrary, endogenous models with absorptive capacity capture the idea that to learn from a competitor s one must also be engaged in R&D investments. The novelty of this paper is a spillover absorption capacity as a function of both the own and rivals R&D investments shares: (4) where is the AJ exogenous spillover parameter 1, ( ) is the relative weight the own (competitor s) R&D investment share as relative size measure have in the of the endogenous learning term, and measure the degree of exogeneity (endogeneity) of the model. 1 Parameter measures the freely exogenous learning capacity of a firm ( manna from heaven ).
4 We have two extreme cases. When absorption capacity depends positively on its own firm R&D investment relative size (share), which implies that increases R&D always improve absorptive capacity and that relative technological distance from rivals does not negatively affect the spillover rate. When, only the relative distance with respect to others negatively affect spillovers, so increase in own R&D decreases the firm s absorptive capacity. At the beginning, higher own R&D investment improves the firm absorptive capacity up to a maximal point where the traditional learning effect dominance ends (marginal learning of own investment decreases to zero). From this point, increases in R&D investment diminishes the firm s absorption capacity from others, since the relative technological distance effect is now stronger than the learning effect. Therefore, we propose a U-inverted absorptive capacity function. As we will show, at equilibrium the maximal absorptive capacity will depend only on a relationship between and. The proposed general function integrates canonical models in the R&D and spillovers literature. In particular, the Brander and Spence (BS) model without spillovers and the AJ model with exogenous absorptive capacity can be easily parameterized as a particular cases: When and, we are in a R&D model without spillovers (BS) When and, we are in a model with linear exogenous R&D absorption capacity (AJ) When, we are in a mixed exogenous/endogenous model. When, we are in a model with pure endogenous absorption capacity Second stage: Cournot competition In the product market, firms act as Cournot competitors maximizing their individual profits conditional on the first stage R&D levels. Firm profits in the second stage is then given by (5) where is a quadratic investment cost function. First-order necessary conditions for the second stage, given the technology acquired in the first stage, are solved as usual to obtain the Cournot-Nash equilibrium: 2 (6) 2 See Appendix 1.
5 We consider two regimes of R&D investment: non-cooperative R&D competition and cooperative RJV cartelization. In the non-cooperative R&D competition firms invest in R&D unilaterally in order to maximize their own profits. In the RJV cartelization, firms coordinate their R&D decisions to maximize joint profits sharing the cost and result of their R&D investments First stage: Non-cooperative R&D In this section, we assume that firms behave non-cooperatively in the first stage. We define the net (of R&D investment costs) profits as following: (7) where is a quadratic investment cost function. In the first stage, each firm simultaneously chooses its R&D investment in order to maximize (5) subject to (6). Therefore SPNE is determined by simultaneously solving the following first order conditions: In a symmetric equilibrium, we obtain 3. (8) In the R&D literature there is a traditional negative effect of exogenous spillovers stating that higher linear R&D spillovers reduce R&D investment equilibrium: Firms chooses R&D taking into account that competitors' efficiency will be improved through spillovers externalities, making them tougher competitors and driving down firm's R&D spending. Grunfeld (2003) shows that there is a positive learning effect in the endogenous absorptive capacity models: If we separate out the negative traditional effect of spillovers, by replacing the endogenous spillover rates in the AJ model F.O.C., the endogenous models still obtain higher R&D investment in equilibrium than the modified AJ exogenous one. This property does not always hold in the present model, as the following proposition states. 3 Let (see Appendix 2).
6 Proposition 1. If the exogenous spillover rate in the AJ exogenous game is the same as the endogenous spillover rate generated by the game with absorptive capacity effects, the equilibrium R&D investment in the absorptive capacity game will be higher, equal or lower than in the AJ game if and only if is higher, equal or lower than. Proof. See Appendix 2. The intuition of this result comes directly from the marginal effect of own R&D investment in the absorption capacity function: at the symmetric equilibrium, the balance between the (conventional) positive marginal contribution of own R&D and the negative contribution through the distance channel is summarized by and, respectively 4. Given the symmetry assumption of equilibrium, as increases the (negative) marginal effect of our own R&D on the aggregate R&D investment tends to zero, and the (traditional) positive learning effect of the endogenous models prevails. Figure 1. Equilibirium R&D investment and the learning/distance effect 5 As proved in Proposition 1 the endogenous effect is ruled by a relation between the learning/distance and the market structure parameters. As observed in Figure 1, R&D investment in our pure 4 As in Grunfeld, the proof rests on the sign of. In our case, so the learning/distance effect depends, at the symmetric equilibrium, on the sign of this exogenous relationship. Note that, at equilibrium, learning/distance effect is always positive for (see Appendix 2). 5 Parameter values are:.
7 endogenous model (, dotted line) is not always above the modified AJ model (continuous line). In particular, Figure 1 shows that for a given value of the learning/distance parameter, the learning/distance effect is positive if. For low, the negative learning/distance effect (associated to the difference between the endogenous model dotted line and modified continuous AJ model line) adds to the traditional negative spillover effect (associated to the difference between BS line and AJ line), resulting in a lower R&D investment for the pure endogenous model with respect to the exogenous AJ model. For, traditional positive learning effect dominates distance effects, which causes that pure endogenous model R&D investment tends to exceed the AJ one. 6 It is worth noting that the present analysis is not strictly comparable with Grunfeld s one, based the latter on his market size variable:. Furthermore, the model extension for firms and the inclusion of product differentiation in the model add some issues overlooked in Grunfeld work (e.g. the competitive effects. At the same time, however, those adds complexity to both the effects and mechanisms underlying our results, so we are still developing analytical results in order to formalize some of the simulations findings. 7 We shed some light on the interaction between the market structure and the parameter of learning/distance. Figure 2 shows the set of points for which our endogenous R&D investment in the non-cooperative game is higher than the R&D for the AJ model. We find that there exist for which a low correspondent value of does not necessarily imply a lower R&D equilibrium in the exogenous model. In his work, Grunfeld states that as the learning parameter increases, the (critical) market size that equates R&D in both models is reduced (and also the R&D is reduced). For example, if we set (i.e. large average market size) and, we observe in Figure 2 a higher R&D in the exogenous model with respect to the our endogenous one, as in Grunfeld s result. However, there are alternatives market size per firm (or, in an alternative interpretation, alternatives degrees of competition) for which this result is reversed (e.g. for ). In general, there exists a new parameter region in which the endogenous model has a higher R&D investment than the AJ one. 6 In fact, for higher, learning/distance effect dominates both distance and spillover effects. See Figure 3 for an equivalent figure with 7 This section contains a first interpretation of results. It should be noted that at the moment, the analysis is based on the pure endogenous version of the model in order to isolate effects with respect to the exogenous models and the analogous Grunfeld analysis.
8 Figure 2. Equilibrium R&D investment thresholds with respect to AJ model 8 It is worth noting that the set of critical values for and are also affected by other parameters 9. In particular, Figure 2 shows an intuitive results: a higher implies a larger area in which the endogenous model predominates because of the negative traditional effect. Therefore, for any fixed, it is required a lower value of in order to balance the negative effect of the linear AJ spillovers model. Figure 3. Learning/distance effect and the BS model without spillover effects 10 8 Parameter values are:. 9 In this first monograph, we assume a pure endogenous model in order to extract some main results with the AJ model as a reference. Thus, is assumed that 10 Parameter values are:.
9 Finally, as Grunfeld points out: earlier theoretical literature on spillovers where it is claimed that spillovers have an unambiguous negative incentive effect on R&D investment. Figure 3 shows that our pure endogenous model could achieve more R&D investment than in the BS model. In contrast with Grunfeld counterexample, obtained for a sufficiently small market size, our absorptive capacity game generates higher R&D investment than a game with no spillovers if the learning/distance parameter is high and the market per firm size (low ) is large First stage: Cooperative RJV cartelization In the case of cooperation firms coordinate their first stage R&D decisions so as to maximize the aggregated industry profits. In a cooperative Research Joint Venture (RJV) cost minimization is restored and, for any level of production, R&D external effect are internalized optimally in the cooperative first stage. Therefore, in cooperative cartelization model there is no under or over investment. Firms maximize joint profits: and the first order conditions are given by In a symmetric equilibrium : 11 In presence of R&D without spillovers effects, first stage R&D is pre-committed under strategic considerations. This imply that at equilibrium, and given total output, total costs is not at the minimum level. In particular, as BS states, there is an over-investment situation. In the case of models with exogenous spillovers (AJ model), over/under-investment is conditioned by the incentives strength to reduce R&D: there exists a critical value for the spillover rate that determines the direction of the inefficiency. Consequently, we 11 The expressions for and are shown in the Appendix 3.
10 can use minimization costs F.O.C. in order to find the critical rate of spillover for the over or underinvestment analysis: In the non-cooperative endogenous model, the first order condition for the symmetric equilibrium can be written as: This imply that the over/under investment results arises from the sign of the right hand side expression, which in general is ambiguous in our model. For example, if the second order condition holds, we have that firms will underinvest if. Grunfeld s point out that in the endogenous models the critical rate of spillovers ( ) at which equilibrium R&D is the same in the RJV game as in the non-cooperative game, is higher when we take into consideration the absorptive capacity effect of R&D compared with the case with exogenous R&D spillover rates. This result does not hold in our model as explained in the following statement 12 : Let be the critical spillover rate equating equilibrium R&D for cooperative RJV cartel and endogenous noncooperative games. can be either higher equal or lower than the critical rate for the AJ exogenous model (0.5) Figure 4 shed some light on this issue. We have four regions defined by two critical locus of points associated to both the equivalence of the RJV and Non-cooperative R&D investment and the critical spillover rate for the AJ exogenous model (0.5). As an example: underinvestment in R&D is consistent with spillover rates either higher or lower than the critical spillover rate of the exogenous AJ model (see points and in Figure 4, respectively). Note that for extreme low (high) values for sigma the model predict over(under)-investment independently of the number of firms Grunfeld duopoly model predicts a higher spillover rate than the exogenous AJ model. 13 This last results does not always hold in a product differentiation model.
11 Figure 4. Cooperation and over/under-investment in the endogenous model Welfare analysis (Preliminary results) The welfare function in a symmetric R&D equilibrium is of the form: where, in our model. Simulations in Figure 5 show how the learning/distance parameter affect welfare in our absorptive capacity model. Our first results are the following ones: Non-cooperative solution tends to first best (the unconstrained first stage solution, given optimal Cournot responses) as σ increases. Cooperative solution is welfare superior only for low. 14 Parameter values are:.
12 Figure 5. Welfare as a function of learning/distance parameter: cooperative, non-cooperative and 1º best 15 The second result is sensitive to the product differentiation assumption. If we increases product differentiation (decreases ) the region in which cooperation is preferred in terms of total welfare expands. Simulations for the basic model we are dealing with shows that when (monopoly power), noncooperative R&D model is always inferior in terms of welfare than the cooperative model. Figure 6. Welfare dominance regions between cooperative and non-cooperative models Parameter values are:. 16 Parameter values are:.
13 Finally, the optimal level of learning distance parameter for the non-cooperative case as a function of the market size per firm is depicted in Figure 7. Grunfeld s states in his Result 4 that highest welfare in a small market is reached when the absorptive capacity effect of R&D ( ) is large, while welfare is highest in a large market when the absorptive capacity effect of R&D is small. We find the opposite result in our model: optimal sigma is negatively affected by and (see Figure 7). At the moment, we do not have a clear explanation of this apparent contradiction, however, it is clear that when N is included in the model, some mechanism seem to be strong enough to change results in such a qualitative way. 17 Figure 7 Optimal learning/distance parameter as a function of and 4. Discussion and future work As future steps we expect to: Find empirical evidence on the existence and effects of different degrees in technological distance, Identify the theoretical aggregated value of the model and its possible extensions, and Give some initial interpretation based on the formalization of the relevant results obtained in simulations. Main results: Endogenous effect is ruled by a relation between the learning/distance and the market structure parameters. 17 In this model, we guess influence at least in three ways: competitive pressure, spillover magnitude and distance effect.
14 With respect to the previous literature, there exists regions related to our new learning/distance parameter in which the endogenous model has a higher or lower R&D investment than both the AJ and BS ones.
15 References d Aspremont, C., Jacquemin, A., Cooperative and noncooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers. American Economic Review 78 (5), Brander, J.A., Spencer, B.J., Strategic commitment with R&D. The symmetric case. The Bell Journal of Economics 14 (1), Grunfeld, L.A.,2003. Meet me halfway but don t rush: absorptive capacity and strategic R&D investment revisited. International Journal of Industrial Organization 21,
16 Appendix Appendix 1. Second stage equilibrium output derivation: Second stage F.O.C for firm is: Right hand side expression is constant, thus: Replacing in (X.1) Appendix 2. First stage non-cooperative equilibrium In a symmetric equilibrium, first order condition was stated as following:
17 1 2 =0 Let Proof of Proposition 1 For we are in the AJ model with endogenous spillover rate. Given that is increasing in, we will have that the sign of the learning effect is the same as, or as of expression. Appendix 3. Cooperative R&D Objective function: Given :
18 We obtain the expression for : Also we have that:
Chapter 9: Static Games and Cournot Competition Learning Objectives: Students should learn to:. The student will understand the ideas of strategic interdependence and reasoning strategically and be able
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility Lisa Planer-Friedrich Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg Marco Sahm Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg and CESifo This Version: June 15, 2015 Abstract We examine
Modern Economy, 07, 8, 99-0 http://www.scirp.org/journal/me ISSN Online: 5-76 ISSN Print: 5-745 The Retailers Choices of Profit Strategies in a Cournot Duopoly: Relative Profit and Pure Profit Feifei Zheng
Spillovers, Licensing and Welfare Shuai Niu The University of New South Wales This version: March 19, 01 Abstract In this paper, we introduce two methods of technology transfer between asymmetric competitors,
14.1 Comparison of Structures Chapter 14 Oligopoly 14-2 14.2 Cartels Cartel in Korea Oligopolistic firms have an incentive to collude, coordinate setting their prices or quantities, so as to increase their
Slide Slide 3 Recall from last time A Nash Equilibrium occurs when: Econ 40: Micro Theory Comparing Cournot, Stackelberg, and Bertrand Equilibria Monday, December 3 rd, 007 Each firm s action is a best
Do Firms Always Choose Excess Capacity? Akira Nishimori Aichi University Hikaru Ogawa Nagoya University Abstract We analyze the capacity choice of firms in a long run mixed oligopoly market, in which firms
Volume 30, Issue 3 Specialization through Cross-licensing in a Multi-product Stackelberg Duopoly Luigi Filippini Università Cattolica, Milano Abstract We argue that cross-licensing is a device to establish
ECON 500 Microeconomic Theory Econ 500 - Microeconomic Analysis and Policy Monopoly Monopoly A monopoly is a single firm that serves an entire market and faces the market demand curve for its output. Unlike
ECN 3103 INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION 5. Game Theory Mr. Sydney Armstrong Lecturer 1 The University of Guyana 1 Semester 1, 2016 OUR PLAN Analyze Strategic price and Quantity Competition (Noncooperative Oligopolies)
Consumer Conformity and Vanity in Vertically Differentiated Markets Hend Ghazzai Assistant Professor College of Business and Economics Qatar University P.O. Box 2713 Doha, Qatar. Abstract Consumers' choice
Intra-industry trade, environmental policies and innovations: The Porter- Hypothesis revisited Gerhard Clemenz March 2012 Abstract: According to the Porter Hypothesis (PH) stricter environmental regulations
References Chang M. (1991), The Effects of Product Differentiation on Collusive Pricing, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 9, pp.453-69. Deneckere, R. (1983), Duopoly Supergames with Product
Preface Chapter 1 Basic Tools Used in Understanding Microeconomics 1.1 Economic Models 1.1.1 Positive and Normative Analysis 1.1.2 The Market Economy Model 1.1.3 Types of Economic Problems 1.2 Mathematics
MS # 1949 OPTIMAL R&D POLICY AND ENDOGENOUS QUALITY CHOICE Tsuyoshi TOSHIMITSU * Kwansei Gakuin University Final version March 2003 Abstract In a quality-differentiated duopoly where (i) quality is endogenously
The Role of Price Floor in a Differentiated Product Retail Market 1 Barna Bakó 2 Corvinus University of Budapest Hungary 1 I would like to thank the anonymous referee for the valuable comments and suggestions,
Oligopoly Pricing EC 202 Lecture IV Francesco Nava London School of Economics January 2011 Nava (LSE) EC 202 Lecture IV Jan 2011 1 / 13 Summary The models of competition presented in MT explored the consequences
Horizontal Product Differentiation in Bertrand and Cournot Duopoly: the Bertrand Paradox Revisited and Comparative Competitiveness James A. Brander and Barbara J. Spencer Sauder School of Business University
Chapter 14 TRADITIONAL MODELS OF IMPERFECT COMPETITION Copyright 2005 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning. All rights reserved. 1 Pricing Under Homogeneous Oligopoly We will assume that the
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES SPATIAL PRICE DISCRIMINATION WITH HETEROGENEOUS FIRMS Jonathan Vogel Working Paper 14978 http://www.nber.org/papers/w14978 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts
Information Acquisition and Price Discrimination Farshad Fatemi Sharif University of Technology email@example.com We consider a Hotelling model of price competition where firms may acquire costly information
13-1 INTERMEDIATE MICROECONOMICS LECTURE 13 - MONOPOLISTIC COMPETITION AND OLIGOPOLY Monopolistic Competition Pure monopoly and perfect competition are rare in the real world. Most real-world industries
Advanced Microeconomic Theory Chapter 7: Monopoly Outline Barriers to Entry Profit Maximization under Monopoly Welfare Loss of Monopoly Multiplant Monopolist Price Discrimination Advertising in Monopoly
On The Choice between Strategic lliance and erger in the irline Sector: The Role of Strategic Effects by Philippe Barla 1 and Christos Constantatos bstract: We consider a market with three competitors,
Journal of Logistics Management 017, 6(): 35-40 DOI: 10.593/j.logistics.017060.01 Marketing Strategy of Rent and Space Allocation for Dominant Retailer in Shopping Center Aika Monden Graduate School of
ANNALS OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE 12-1, 31 40 (2011) On Collusion and Industry Size Marc Escrihuela-Villar * Universitat de les Illes Balears E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org and Jorge Guillén ESAN E-mail:
Renting or Selling A Strategic Choice in a Durable Good Market Manas Paul Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research Gen. Vaidya Marg Goregaon (East) Bombay 400 065. Sougata Poddar Department of Economics
Reverse Pricing and Revenue Sharing in a Vertical Market Qihong Liu Jie Shuai January 18, 2014 Abstract Advancing in information technology has empowered firms with unprecedented flexibility when interacting
TOPIC 4. ADVERSE SELECTION, SIGNALING, AND SCREENING In many economic situations, there exists asymmetric information between the di erent agents. Examples are abundant: A seller has better information
Do not open this exam until told to do so. Department of Economics College of Social and Applied Human Sciences K. Annen, Fall 003 Final (Version): Intermediate Microeconomics (ECON30) Solution Final (Version
ISSN 2385-2275 Working papers of the Department of Economics University of Perugia (IT) Favoritism in public procurement auctions: model of endogenous entry Maria Ostrovnaya Elena Podkolzina Working paper
Imperfect Competition 6.1 There are only two firms producing a particular product. The demand for the product is given by the relation p = 24 Q, where p denotes the price (in dollars per unit) and Q denotes
Price Discrimination with Varying Qualities of Information Qihong Liu Jie Shuai March 6, 2014 Abstract We analyze the welfare impacts of price discrimination in a two-dimensional spatial differentiation
!!!!! Competing eco-labels and product market competition Yi Li Wenlan School of Business, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law email@example.com Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the
Final Exam Study Questions: Practice Multiple-Choice Questions 1. If a consumer purchases only two goods (X and Y ) and the demand for X is elastic, then a rise in the price of X a. will cause total spending
Appendix to Skill-Biased Technical Change, Educational Choice, and Labor Market Polarization: The U.S. versus Europe Ryosuke Okazawa April 21, 2012 A. Multiple Pooling Equilibria In Section 3, although
University of Wisconsin Milwaukee UWM Digital Commons Theses and Dissertations 5-1-2014 Three Essays on the Economics of Spatial Price Discrimination: Strategic Delegation Under Spatial Price Discrimination
Advanced Microeconomics Theory Chapter 8: Game Theory and Imperfect Competition Outline Game Theory Tools Bertrand Model of Price Competition Cournot Model of Quantity Competition Product Differentiation
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Subsidy or tax policy for new technology adoption in duopoly with quadratic and linear cost functions Masahiko Hattori and Yasuhito Tanaka. June 2015 Online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/65008/
IS PERFECT PRICE DISCRIMINATION REALLY EFFICIENT? AN ANALYSIS OF FREE ENTRY EQUILIBRIA V. BHASKAR AND TED TO Abstract. We analyze models of product differentiation with perfect price discrimination and
Topic 8 Chapter 13 Oligopoly and Monopolistic Competition Econ 203 Topic 8 page 1 Oligopoly: How do firms behave when there are only a few competitors? These firms produce all or most of their industry
Vertical Differentiation in Monetary Search-Theoretic Model: Revisited Chia-Ying Chang Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand May, 2005 Abstract Quality levels have been widely discussed in the
Cardiff Economics Working Papers Working Paper No. E016/3 Gains from Variety? Product Differentiation and the Possibility of Losses from rade under Cournot Oligopoly with Free Entry David R. Collie pril
Hamilton, Jonathan H., and Steven M. Slutsky, "Endogenous Timing in Duopoly Games: Stackelberg or Cournot Equilibria", Games and Economic Behavior, 2, 29-46, 1990. Kahana, Nava, "Do Multiplant Labor-Managed
Evaluating the Competitive Yardstic Effect of Cooperatives on Imperfect Marets: A Simulation Analysis Susan H. Hoffman Jeffrey S. Royer Presented at Western Agricultural Economics Association 1997 Annual
Horizontal mergers and competitive intensity Marc Escrihuela-Villar Universitat de les Illes Balears November, 2010 Abstract We use the conjectural variations solution, first introduced by Bowley (1924),
Subject Paper No and Title Module No and Title Module Tag 3 : Fundamentals of Microeconomic Theory 28 : Non collusive and Collusive model ECO_P3_M28 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Learning Outcomes 2. Introduction
Overview Market Structure and Competition Chapter 3 explores different types of market structures. Markets differ on two important dimensions: the number of firms, and the nature of product differentiation.
On mergers in a Stackelberg market with asymmetric convex costs Marc Escrihuela-Villar Universitat de les Illes Balears April, 2013 (PRELIMINARY VERSION) Abstract This paper analyzes profitability, the
School of Economics, Mathematics and Statistics INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, WITH APPLICATIONS TO E-COMMERCE An Option for MSc Economics and MSc E-Commerce Autumn Term 2003 1. Strategic Interaction and Oligopoly
JENA ECONOMIC RESEARCH PAPERS # 007 10 Agglomeration and Endogenous Absorptive Capacities: Hotelling Revisited by Caroline Hussler André Lorentz Patrick Rondé www.jenecon.de ISSN 1864-7057 The JENA ECONOMIC
Mergers, Spin-offs, and Employee Incentives Paolo Fulghieri University of North Carolina Merih Sevilir University of North Carolina Abstract This paper studies mergers between competing firms and shows
Industrial Organization Markets and Strategies 2nd edition Paul Belleflamme Université CatholiquedeLouvain Martin Peitz University of Mannheim University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom
Vol. 85 (2005), No. 1, pp. 1 38 DOI 10.1007/s00712-005-0115-0 Journal of Economics Printed in Austria The Evolution of Cooperation in Patent Races: Theory and Experimental Evidence Damiano B. Silipo Received
Game Theory & Firms Jacob LaRiviere & Justin Rao April 20, 2016 Econ 404, Spring 2016 What is Game Theory? Game Theory Intuitive Definition: Theory of strategic interaction Technical Definition: Account
Horizontal mergers in the circular city: a note Andreea Cosnita EUREQua University Paris I Abstract Two firm horizontal Cournot mergers give rise to multi plant firms in spatial markets. We study location
Game Theory MOT Seminar John Musacchio firstname.lastname@example.org 4/16/09 1 Who am I? John Musacchio Assistant Professor in ISTM Joined January 2005 PhD from Berkeley in Electrical l Engineering i Research Interests
Chapter Oligopoly Oligopoly Characteristics ( ) of firms Product differentiation may or may not exist ( ) to entry Chapter Oligopoly Equilibrium ( ) Equilibrium Firms are doing the best they can and have
ISSN 1791-3144 University of Macedonia Department of Economics Discussion Paper Series International Environmental Agreements: An emission choice model with abatement technology Eftichios Sartzetakis and
Working Paper No. -2-3 Can By-product Lobbying Firms Compete? Paul Pecorino February 2 Can By-product Lobbying Firms Compete? Paul Pecorino* Department of Economics, Finance and Legal Studies Box 87224
Advance Selling, Competition, and Brand Substitutability Oksana Loginova October 27, 2016 Abstract This paper studies the impact of competition on the benefits of advance selling. I construct a two-period
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility Lisa Planer-Friedrich and Marco Sahm Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility Lisa Planer-Friedrich University of Bamberg Marco Sahm University of Bamberg and
! lecture 7:! competition and collusion!! the story so far Natural monopoly: Definitions (Ideal) Pricing solutions Regulation in practice Regulation under asymmetric information Competition policy: Introduction
Journal of Industrial Organization Education Volume 3, Issue 1 2008 Article 1 Capacity-Constrained Monopoly Kathy Baylis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Jeffrey M. Perloff, University of California,
//06 Intermediate Microeconomics W3 Lecture : Game Theor 3 Back to the Firms Introduction Columbia Universit, Spring 06 Mark Dean: email@example.com The Stor So Far. 3 Toda We now have a number of
7 85 October 07 Entry and Merger Policy Laure Jaunaux, Yassine Lefouili and Wilfried Sand Zantman Entry and Merger Policy Laure Jaunaux y Yassine Lefouili z Wilfried Sand-Zantman x August 07 Abstract This
De Feo, G. and Capuano, C. (2006) Mixed duopoly, privatization and the shadow costs of public funds: exogenous and endogenous timing. In: 18th Conference of the SIEP - Italian Public Economics Society,
C H A P T E R 12 The Analysis of Competitive Markets Prepared by: Fernando & Yvonn Quijano CHAPTER 12 OUTLINE 12.1 Monopolistic Competition 12.2 Oligopoly 12.3 Price Competition 12.4 Competition versus
Chapter 6 We recall that perfect competition was theorised as a market structure where both consumers and firms were price takers. The behaviour of the firm in such circumstances was described in the Chapter
CDE August 0 STRATEGIC OUTSOURCING WITH TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER TARUN KABIRAJ Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Economic Research Unit Indian Statistical Institute 0 B. T. Road, Kolkata UDAY BHANU SINHA Email:
Absorptive capacity investment in new product innovation Rosemary Humberstone March 20, 2012 Abstract This paper asks how much firms will choose to invest in in-house research and accessing external research
Chapter 6 Economies of Scale, Imperfect Competition, and International Trade Prepared by Iordanis Petsas To Accompany International Economics: Theory and Policy, Sixth Edition by Paul R. Krugman and Maurice
Coalitions and Networks in Industrial Organization Francis Bloch May 28, 2001 1 Introduction Recent years have witnessed a surge of interest in the formation of coalitions and networks in Industrial Organization.
CHAPTER 15: OLIGOPOLY What Is Oligopoly? Oligopoly is a market structure in which Natural or legal barriers prevent the entry of new firms. A small number of firms compete. Barriers to Entry Either natural
Quality externalities in spatial competition: the case of sustainable tourism Aleix Calveras 1 Universitat de les Illes Balears Christina Tsergoulas UAB - MMOBE June 13 th, 2014 Abstract This paper sheds
Product bundling and tying in competition Eugen Kováč (CERGE-EI and Bonn University) June 2006 Abstract This paper explores tying in the situation where a multi-product firm without monopoly power competes
Managerial Economics & Business Strategy Chapter 9 Basic Oligopoly Models Overview I. Conditions for Oligopoly? II. Role of Strategic Interdependence III. Profit Maximization in Four Oligopoly Settings
Government Subsidies and Incentives for R&D Collaboration Jacob LaRiviere July 2014 Abstract While both the determinants of R&D collaborations and the effects of government funding on private R&D expenditures
Duopoly Bundling: Multi-product vs Single-product Firms Jay Gwon April 30, 009 Abstract In this paper, I show numerically that a multi-product firm competing against single-product firms will use linear
Should Consumers Be Priced Out of Pollution-Permit Markets? Stefani C. Smith and Andrew J. Yates Abstract: The authors present a simple diagrammatic exposition of a pollutionpermit market in which both
Network Externalities, Technological Progress, and the Competition of Market Contracts by Marcel Thum May 1993 Abstract Network externalities are used to describe the fact that many modern products become
HU WiWi, Mikroökonomische Theorie 10099 Berlin Professor Jan Hanousek CERGE-EI Charles University Academy of Sciences Politickych veznu 7 P.O.Box 882 111 21 Prague Czech Republic Faculty of Economics Chair
Economics 101 Spring 2009 Professor Wallace Economics 101 Midterm Exam #2 April 9, 2009 Instructions Do not open the exam until you are instructed to begin. You will need a #2 lead pencil. If you do not
Product Repositioning and Short-Run Responses to Environmental Change A. Pakes (Harvard University and the NBER) October 1, 2015 Background Product repositioning: a change in the characteristics of the
WORKING PAPER NO.438 Strategic Differentiation by Business Models: Free-to-Air and Pay-TV Emilio Calvano and Michele Polo April 2016 This version November 2017 University of Naples Federico II University
THE JOURNAL O INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS 00-181 Volume LVII June 009 No. Notes on the Journal of Industrial Economics Website www.essex.ac.uk/jindec/ PRICE DISCRIMINATION IN STACKELBERG COMPETITION LEVENT KUTLU
A Note on Revenue Sharing in Sports Leagues Matthias Kräkel, University of Bonn Abstract We discuss the optimal sharing of broadcasting revenues given a central marketing system. The league s sports association
1 / 33 The Microfoundations of Urban Agglomeration Economies: Dicussion of Duranton and Puga (DP), 2004 Nathan Schiff Shanghai University of Finance and Economics Graduate Urban Economics, Lecture 3 March
Analyzing Modes of Foreign Entry: Greenfield Investment versus Acquisition Thomas Müller Discussion paper 2001-01 January 2001 Department of Economics, University of Munich Volkswirtschaftliche Fakultät