Certifying New Technologies
AbstractWe study the role of Standard Setting Organization (SSOs) in the adoption of standards. The way the SSO balances the interests of sponsor and users is key to its ability to certify the technology. Proximity to users builds trust in the endorsement, but may be unattractive to technology sponsors. In a static context, we show that the SSO is an effective certifier if and only if it puts enough weight on users' interests. We then tackle the more challenging problem of SSO certification in a dynamic setting in which new information will accrue in the future and user choices are irreversible. The SSO and the users must then both take a dynamic perspective and contemplate the possibility of a "second chance" that may arise for the standard. A key insight is the possibility of multiple self-fulfilling expectations. It is possible to have an equilibrium with no second chance, a lenient SSO endorsement policy and high stigma from early rejection. It is also possible to have an equilibrium with a second chance, a selective SSO endorsement policy and low stigma from early rejection. Finally, and in both the static and the dynamic setups, we ask whether the SSO is too inclined to turn down or to accept the standard from a social viewpoint. (JEL: D71, D82, L15, O31) Copyright (c) 2005 The European Economic Association.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by MIT Press in its journal Journal of the European Economic Association.
Volume (Year): 3 (2005)
Issue (Month): 2-3 (04/05)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/jeea
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
- D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
- L15 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Information and Product Quality
- O31 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Leiponen, Aija, 2006. "Competing through cooperation: Standard setting in wireless telecommunications," Discussion Papers 1056, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
- Sgroi, Daniel & Oswald, Andrew J., 2012.
"How Should Peer-Review Panels Behave?,"
IZA Discussion Papers
7024, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Sgroi, Daniel & Oswald, Andrew J., 2012. "How Should Peer-Review Panels Behave?," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 999, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
- Gill, David & Sgroi, Daniel, 2008. "The Optimal Choice of Pre-launch Reviewer : How Best to Transmit Information using Tests and Conditional Pricing," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 877, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
- David Gill & Daniel Sgroi, 2005.
"Sequential Decisions with Tests,"
Economics Series Working Papers
242, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- Gill, David & Sgroi, Daniel, 2012.
"The optimal choice of pre-launch reviewer,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 147(3), pages 1247-1260.
- David Gill & Daniel Sgroi, 2011. "The Optimal Choice of Pre-Launch Reviewer," Economics Series Working Papers 562, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- Gill, David & Sgroi, Daniel, 2010. "The optimal choice of pre-launch reviewer," Discussion Paper Series In Economics And Econometrics 1017, Economics Division, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton.
- Benjamin Chiao & Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2007.
"The rules of standard-setting organizations: an empirical analysis,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
RAND Corporation, vol. 38(4), pages 905-930, December.
- Chiao, Benjamin & Lerner, Josh & Tirole, Jean, 2006. "The Rules of Standard Setting Organizations: an Empirical Analysis," IDEI Working Papers 388, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
- Benjamin Chiao & Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2005. "The Rules of Standard Setting Organizations: An Empirical Analysis," NBER Working Papers 11156, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Chiao, Benjamin & Lerner, Josh & Tirole, Jean, 2007. "The Rules of Standard Setting Organizations: An Empirical Analysis," CEPR Discussion Papers 6141, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Hussinger, Katrin & Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "The value of disclosing IPR to open standard setting organizations," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-060, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Karie Kirkpatrick).
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.