IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v55y2009i3p333-347.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of E-Waste Regulation on New Product Introduction

Author

Listed:
  • Erica Plambeck

    (Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305)

  • Qiong Wang

    (Alcatel-Lucent Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974)

Abstract

This paper investigates the impact of e-waste regulation on new product introduction in a stylized model of the electronics industry. Manufacturers choose the development time and expenditure for each new version of a durable product, which together determine its quality. Consumers purchase the new product and dispose of the last-generation product, which becomes e-waste. The price of a new product strictly increases with its quality and consumers' rational expectation about the time until the next new product will be introduced. "Fee-upon-sale" types of e-waste regulation cause manufacturers to increase their equilibrium development time and expenditure, and thus the incremental quality for each new product. As new products are introduced (and disposed of) less frequently, the quantity of e-waste decreases and, even excluding the environmental benefits, social welfare may increase. Consumers pay a higher price for each new product because they anticipate using it for longer, which increases manufacturers' profits. Unfortunately, existing "fee-upon-sale" types of e-waste regulation fail to motivate manufacturers to design for recyclability. In contrast, "fee-upon-disposal" types of e-waste regulation such as individual extended producer responsibility motivate design for recyclability but, in competitive product categories, fail to reduce the frequency of new product introduction.

Suggested Citation

  • Erica Plambeck & Qiong Wang, 2009. "Effects of E-Waste Regulation on New Product Introduction," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(3), pages 333-347, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:55:y:2009:i:3:p:333-347
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1080.0970
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0970
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0970?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Morris A. Cohen & Jehoshua Eliashberg & Teck H. Ho, 2000. "An Analysis of Several New Product Performance Metrics," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 2(4), pages 337-349, July.
    2. Michael Waldman, 1996. "Planned Obsolescence and the R&D Decision," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(3), pages 583-595, Autumn.
    3. Barry L. Bayus & Gary Erickson & Robert Jacobson, 2003. "The Financial Rewards of New Product Introductions in the Personal Computer Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(2), pages 197-210, February.
    4. Souza, Gilvan C., 2004. "Product introduction decisions in a duopoly," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 745-757, February.
    5. Michael Waldman, 2003. "Durable Goods Theory for Real World Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(1), pages 131-154, Winter.
    6. Gul, Faruk & Sonnenschein, Hugo & Wilson, Robert, 1986. "Foundations of dynamic monopoly and the coase conjecture," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 155-190, June.
    7. Laura J. Kornish, 2001. "Pricing for a Durable-Goods Monopolist Under Rapid Sequential Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(11), pages 1552-1561, November.
    8. Morris A. Cohen & Jehoshua Eliasberg & Teck-Hua Ho, 1996. "New Product Development: The Performance and Time-to-Market Tradeoff," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(2), pages 173-186, February.
    9. Arthur Fishman & Rafael Rob, 2000. "Product Innovation by a Durable-Good Monpoly," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(2), pages 237-252, Summer.
    10. Inseong Song & Pradeep Chintagunta, 2003. "A Micromodel of New Product Adoption with Heterogeneous and Forward-Looking Consumers: Application to the Digital Camera Category," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 371-407, December.
    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. Mahdi Mahmoudzadeh, 2020. "On the Non‐Equivalence of Trade‐ins and Upgrades in the Presence of Framing Effect: Experimental Evidence and Implications for Theory," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(2), pages 330-352, February.
    2. Liberali, Guilherme & Gruca, Thomas S. & Nique, Walter M., 2011. "The effects of sensitization and habituation in durable goods markets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(2), pages 398-410, July.
    3. James J. Anton & Gary Biglaiser, 2010. "Quality, Upgrades, and Equilibrium in a Dynamic Monopoly Model," Working Papers 10-36, Duke University, Department of Economics.
    4. Stefan Ambec & Corinne Langinier & Stéphane Lemarié, 2008. "Incentives to Reduce Crop Trait Durability," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), pages 379-391.
    5. Pasquale Schiraldi, 2006. "Second-Hand Markets and Collusion by Manufacturers of Semidurable Goods," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series WP2006-028, Boston University - Department of Economics.
    6. Michael Waldman, 2004. "Antitrust Perspectives for Durable-Goods Markets," CESifo Working Paper Series 1306, CESifo.
    7. Gerstle, Ari D. & Waldman, Michael, 2016. "Mergers in durable-goods industries: A re-examination of market power and welfare effects," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 677-692.
    8. Anton, James J. & Biglaiser, Gary, 2013. "Quality, upgrades and equilibrium in a dynamic monopoly market," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(3), pages 1179-1212.
    9. Liao, Shuangqing & Seifert, Ralf W., 2015. "On the optimal frequency of multiple generation product introductions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(3), pages 805-814.
    10. Athanasopoulos, Thanos, 2015. "Efficient Upgrading in Durable Network Goods: Is Commitment Always Good?," Economic Research Papers 270543, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    11. Eric Brouillat, 2011. "Durability of consumption goods and market competition: an agent-based modelling," Post-Print hal-00780254, HAL.
    12. Qiu-Hong Wang & Kai-Lung Hui, 2017. "Technology Mergers and Acquisitions in the Presence of an Installed Base: A Strategic Analysis," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 46-63, March.
    13. Basak Altan, 2020. "Dynamic Durable Goods Monopoly and Market Power," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-14, May.
    14. Cerquera Dussán, Daniel, 2007. "Durable Goods, Innovation and Network Externalities," ZEW Discussion Papers 07-086, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    15. Hu, Shu & Zhu, Stuart X. & Fu, Ke, 2023. "Optimal trade-in and refurbishment strategies for durable goods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(1), pages 133-151.
    16. Ramesh Sankaranarayanan, 2007. "Innovation and the Durable Goods Monopolist: The Optimality of Frequent New-Version Releases," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 774-791, 11-12.
    17. Chen, Jiawei & Esteban, Susanna & Shum, Matthew, 2008. "Demand and supply estimation biases due to omission of durability," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 147(2), pages 247-257, December.
    18. Vishal V. Agrawal & Sezer Ülkü, 2013. "The Role of Modular Upgradability as a Green Design Strategy," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 640-648, October.
    19. Athanasopoulos, Thanos, 2013. "Efficient Upgrading in Network Goods : Is Commitment Always Good?," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1006, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    20. Karthik Ramachandran & V. Krishnan, 2008. "Design Architecture and Introduction Timing for Rapidly Improving Industrial Products," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 149-171, December.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:55:y:2009:i:3:p:333-347. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.