IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bol/bodewp/389.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Price vs Quantity in a Duopoly with Technological Spillovers: A Welfare Re-Appraisal

Author

Listed:
  • L. Lambertini
  • A. Mantovani

Abstract

We analyse the problem of the choice of the market variable in a model where firms activate R&D investments for process innovation. We establish that (i) firms always choose the Cournot behaviour; and (ii) there exists a set of the relevant parameters where a benevolent social planner prefers quantity setting to price setting. This happens when the marginal cost of R&D activities is relatively low while technological externalities are relatively high. In this situation, the conflict between social and private preferences over the type of market behaviour disappears.

Suggested Citation

  • L. Lambertini & A. Mantovani, 2000. "Price vs Quantity in a Duopoly with Technological Spillovers: A Welfare Re-Appraisal," Working Papers 389, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    • Handle: RePEc:bol:bodewp:389
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://amsacta.unibo.it/4920/1/389.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Bester, Helmut & Petrakis, Emmanuel, 1993. "The incentives for cost reduction in a differentiated industry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 519-534.
    3. Avinash Dixit, 1979. "A Model of Duopoly Suggesting a Theory of Entry Barriers," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 20-32, Spring.
    4. 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.
    5. James A. Brander & Barbara J. Spencer, 1983. "Strategic Commitment with R&D: The Symmetric Case," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(1), pages 225-235, Spring.
    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. Roberto Cellini & Luca Lambertini, 2011. "R&D Incentives Under Bertrand Competition: A Differential Game," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 62(3), pages 387-400, September.

    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. Donja Darai & Dario Sacco & Armin Schmutzler, 2010. "Competition and innovation: an experimental investigation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(4), pages 439-460, December.
    2. Fleischer, Manfred, 1997. "The inefficiency trap: strategy failure in the German machine tool industry," EconStor Books, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, number 122877, July.
    3. Krishnendu Ghosh Dastidar, 2015. "Nature of Competition and New Technology Adoption," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(5), pages 696-732, December.
    4. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899, January.
    5. L. Lambertini & G. Rossini, 1998. "Endogenous choice of capacity and product innovation in a differential duopoly," Working Papers 320, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    6. De Bondt, Raymond, 1997. "Spillovers and innovative activities," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 1-28, February.
    7. Carlos Ocaña Pérez de Tudela, 1993. "Modelos dinámicos de competencia estratégica y cambio técnico: una panorámica," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 17(1), pages 43-63, January.
    8. L. Lambertini & S. Poddar & D. Sasaki, 2000. "Efficiency of Joint Enterprises with Internal Bargaining," Working Papers 388, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    9. 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.
    10. Brennan, G. & Hamlin, A., 1993. "A revisionist view of the separation of powers," Discussion Paper Series In Economics And Econometrics 9314, Economics Division, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton.
    11. Femminis Gianluca & Martini Gianmaria, 2010. "First-Mover Advantage in a Dynamic Duopoly with Spillover," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-46, November.
    12. Bacchiega, Emanuele & Bonroy, Olivier & Mabrouk, Rania, 2013. "Paying not to sell," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 137-140.
    13. Lamantia, Fabio & Pezzino, Mario & Tramontana, Fabio, 2018. "Dynamic analysis of discontinuous best response with innovation," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 120-133.
    14. Baik, Kyung Hwan, 1998. "Difference-form contest success functions and effort levels in contests," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 685-701, November.
    15. Lin, Ping & Saggi, Kamal, 2002. "Product differentiation, process R&D, and the nature of market competition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 201-211, January.
    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. Strandholm, John C. & Espinola-Arredondo, Ana & Munoz-Garcia, Felix, 2021. "Pollution abatement with disruptive R&D investment," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    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. Lu, M. & Mizon, G.E., 1992. "The encompassing principle and specification tests," Discussion Paper Series In Economics And Econometrics 9214, Economics Division, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton.
    20. Michael Kopel & Clemens Löffler, 2008. "Commitment, first-mover-, and second-mover advantage," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 94(2), pages 143-166, July.

    More about this item

    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:bol:bodewp:389. 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: Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sebolit.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.