IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxecpp/v74y2022i1p297-311..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Innovation and product market concentration: Schumpeter, arrow, and the inverted U-shape curve
[Lessons from schumpeterian growth theory]

Author

Listed:
  • Flavio DelbonoBy
  • Luca Lambertini

Abstract

We investigate the relationship between market concentration and industry innovative effort within a familiar two-stage model of R&D race in which firms compete à la Cournot in the product market. With the help of numerical simulations, we show that such a setting is rich enough to generate Arrovian, Schumpeterian, and inverted U curves. We interpret these different patterns on the basis of the relative strength of the technological incentive and the strategic incentive. We then bridge our theoretical results and some recent empirical research.

Suggested Citation

  • Flavio DelbonoBy & Luca Lambertini, 2022. "Innovation and product market concentration: Schumpeter, arrow, and the inverted U-shape curve [Lessons from schumpeterian growth theory]," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 74(1), pages 297-311.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxecpp:v:74:y:2022:i:1:p:297-311.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/oep/gpaa044
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Flavio Delbono & Vincenzo Denicolo, 1991. "Incentives to Innovate in a Cournot Oligopoly," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(3), pages 951-961.
    2. Delbono, Flavio & Denicolo, Vincenzo, 1990. "R & D investment in a symmetric and homogeneous oligopol : Bertrand vs Cournot," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 297-313, June.
    3. F. M. Scherer, 1967. "Research and Development Resource Allocation Under Rivalry," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 81(3), pages 359-394.
    4. Tom Lee & Louis L. Wilde, 1980. "Market Structure and Innovation: A Reformulation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 94(2), pages 429-436.
    5. Glenn C. Loury, 1979. "Market Structure and Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 93(3), pages 395-410.
    6. 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.
    7. Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1983. "Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 741-748, September.
    8. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, December.
    9. Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1984. "Practical Implications of Game Theoretic Models of R&D," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(2), pages 61-66, May.
    10. Gilbert, Richard J & Newberry, David M G, 1984. "Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(1), pages 251-253, March.
    11. Ira Horowitz, 1963. "Research Inclinations of a Cournot Oligopolist," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 30(2), pages 128-130.
    12. Morton I. Kamien & Nancy L. Schwartz, 1976. "On the Degree of Rivalry for Maximum Innovative Activity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 90(2), pages 245-260.
    13. Marion B. Stewart, 1983. "Noncooperative Oligopoly and Preemptive Innovation without Winner-Take-All," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 98(4), pages 681-694.
    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. 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.
    2. Vincenzo Denicolò & Michele Polo, 2018. "The innovation theory of harm: an appraisal," IEFE Working Papers 103, IEFE, Center for Research on Energy and Environmental Economics and Policy, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.

    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. Michael Peneder & Martin Woerter, 2014. "Competition, R&D and innovation: testing the inverted-U in a simultaneous system," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 653-687, July.
    2. Raymond De Bondt & Jan Vandekerckhove, 2012. "Reflections on the Relation Between Competition and Innovation," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 7-19, March.
    3. De Bondt, Raymond, 1997. "Spillovers and innovative activities," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 1-28, February.
    4. Yi, Sang-Seung, 1999. "Market structure and incentives to innovate: the case of Cournot oligopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 379-388, December.
    5. Andreas Fier & Dietmar Harhoff, 2002. "Die Evolution der bundesdeutschen Forschungs– und Technologiepolitik: Rückblick und Bestandsaufnahme," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 3(3), pages 279-301, August.
    6. Wolfgang Becker & Jurgen Peters, 1998. "R&D-Competition Between Vertical Corporate Networks: Market Structure and Strategic R&D-Spillovers," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 51-72.
    7. 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.
    8. Joshua S. Gans & Scott Stern, 2000. "Incumbency and R&D Incentives: Licensing the Gale of Creative Destruction," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(4), pages 485-511, December.
    9. Kaplan, Todd R. & Luski, Israel & Wettstein, David, 2003. "Innovative activity and sunk cost," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(8), pages 1111-1133, October.
    10. 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.
    11. Lin, Ping, 1998. "Product market competition and R&D rivalry," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 105-111, January.
    12. 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.
    13. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899, January.
    14. Eric W. Zitzewitz, 2003. "Competition and Long–run Productivity Growth in the UK and US Tobacco Industries, 1879–1939," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 1-33, March.
    15. Dirk Czarnitzki & Kornelius Kraft, 2010. "Which Firms Buy Licenses? Market Positions and License Expenditures," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 112(3), pages 471-488, September.
    16. Popov, E. V. & Vlasov, M. V. & Shishkina, A. Yu. & Yakimova, A. V., 2016. "Institutional Analysis of Resource Potential for Knowledge Generation in the Enterprises of the Regional Defense-Industrial Sector," R-Economy, Ural Federal University, Graduate School of Economics and Management, vol. 2(3), pages 314-323.
    17. Leibowicz, Benjamin D., 2018. "Welfare improvement windows for innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 390-398.
    18. Yevgeniy Popov & Maksim Vlasov & Anna Shishkina & Anastasia Yakimova, 2016. "Institutional Analysis of Knowledge Generation Resource Potential at the Enterprises of Regional Military-Industrial Complex," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(3), pages 839-851.
    19. 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.
    20. Saul Lach & Rafael Rob, 1996. "R&D, Investment, and Industry Dynamics," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(2), pages 217-249, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    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:oup:oxecpp:v:74:y:2022:i:1:p:297-311.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/oep .

    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.