IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/esi/discus/2006-06.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Product Quality in Scientific Competition

Author

Listed:
  • Max Albert

Abstract

The paper presents a linear model of product quality in scientific competition. The only outputs of research are published papers; the only inputs are labor and papers by other researchers, which are cited when used. Researchers compete for status, measured as their rank in a citations count. If quality is hereditary in the production process, competition and self-fulfilling expectations can establish a quality scale.

Suggested Citation

  • Max Albert, 2006. "Product Quality in Scientific Competition," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-06, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    • Handle: RePEc:esi:discus:2006-06
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: ftp://papers.econ.mpg.de/esi/discussionpapers/2006-06.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Rasmusen, Eric, 1994. "Judicial Legitimacy as a Repeated Game," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 63-83, April.
    3. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 217-273, Elsevier.
    4. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67, pages 297-297.
    5. Congleton, Roger D., 1989. "Efficient status seeking: Externalities, and the evolution of status games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 175-190, March.
    6. Frey, Bruno S, 2003. "Publishing as Prostitution?--Choosing between One's Own Ideas and Academic Success," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 116(1-2), pages 205-223, July.
    7. Miceli, Thomas J. & Cosgel, Metin M., 1994. "Reputation and judicial decision-making," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 31-51, January.
    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. Arne HEISE, 2016. "‘Why has economics turned out this way?’ A socio-economic note on the explanation of monism in economics," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 10(1), pages 81-101, November.
    2. Max Albert, 2008. "Product Quality in a Simple OLG Model of Scientific Competition," MAGKS Papers on Economics 200804, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    3. Grant C. Black & Paula E. Stephan, 2010. "The Economics of University Science and the Role of Foreign Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars," NBER Chapters, in: American Universities in a Global Market, pages 129-161, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Viktor Vanberg, 2010. "The ‘science-as-market’ analogy: a constitutional economics perspective," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 28-49, March.

    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. Carayol, Nicolas & Dalle, Jean-Michel, 2007. "Sequential problem choice and the reward system in Open Science," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 167-191, June.
    2. José Miguel Benavente & Gustavo Crespi & Alessandro Maffioli, 2007. "The Impact of National Research Funds: An Evaluation of the Chilean FONDECYT," OVE Working Papers 0307, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).
    3. Kealey, Terence & Ricketts, Martin, 2014. "Modelling science as a contribution good," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 1014-1024.
    4. Nicola Lacetera, 2003. "Incentives and spillovers in R&D activities: an agency-theoretic analysis of industry-university relations," Microeconomics 0312004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Paul David, 2001. "From Keeping Natures Secrets to the Institutionalization of Open Science," Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers _023, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    6. David Moroz, 2005. "Production of Scientific Knowledge and Radical Uncertainty: The Limits of the Normative Approach in Innovation Economics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, November.
    7. Becker Wolfgang & Peters Jürgen, 2005. "Innovation Effects of Science-Related Technological Opportunities / Innovationseffekte von technologischen Möglichkeiten aus dem Wissenschaftsbereich: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Findings," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 225(2), pages 130-150, April.
    8. Sulin Ba & Jan Stallaert & Andrew B. Whinston, 2001. "Optimal Investment in Knowledge Within a Firm Using a Market Mechanism," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(9), pages 1203-1219, September.
    9. Leten, Bart & Kelchtermans, Stijn & Belderbos, Ren, 2010. "Internal Basic Research, External Basic Research and the Technological Performance of Pharmaceutical Firms," Working Papers 2010/12, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    10. Maria Rosaria Carillo & Erasmo Papagni, 2004. "Academic Research, Social Interactions And Economic Growth," Working Papers 10_2004, D.E.S. (Department of Economic Studies), University of Naples "Parthenope", Italy.
    11. Iain M. Cockburn & Rebecca M. Henderson, 2001. "Publicly Funded Science and the Productivity of the Pharmaceutical Industry," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 1-34, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2010. "Academic rankings and research governance," IEW - Working Papers 482, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    13. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    14. Simeth, Markus & Lhuillery, Stephane, 2015. "How do firms develop capabilities for scientific disclosure?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1283-1295.
    15. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2009. "Research Governance in Academia: Are there Alternatives to Academic Rankings?," CREMA Working Paper Series 2009-17, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    16. Maria Rosaria Carillo & Erasmo Papagni & Fabian Capitanio, 2008. "Effects of social interactions on scientists' productivity," International Journal of Manpower, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 29(3), pages 263-279, June.
    17. Michaël Bikard & Keyvan Vakili & Florenta Teodoridis, 2019. "When Collaboration Bridges Institutions: The Impact of University–Industry Collaboration on Academic Productivity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 426-445, March.
    18. Maria Rosaria Carillo & Erasmo Papagni, 2006. "Social Rewards in Science and Economic Growth," Discussion Papers 10_2006, D.E.S. (Department of Economic Studies), University of Naples "Parthenope", Italy.
    19. Daniel Chudnovsky & Andrés López & Martín Rossi & Diego Ubfal, 2006. "Evaluating a Program of Public Funding of Scientific Activity. A Case Study of FONCYT in Argentina," OVE Working Papers 1206, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).
    20. Alfonso Gambardella & Bronwyn H. Hall, 2010. "Proprietary versus Public Domain Licensing of Software and Research Products," Chapters, in: Riccardo Viale & Henry Etzkowitz (ed.), The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    citations; competition; norms; quality; science;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L3 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    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:esi:discus:2006-06. 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: Karin Richter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mpiewde.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.