Persistence of Monopoly and Research Specialization
AbstractWe examine the persistence of monopolies in markets with innovations when the outcome of research is uncertain. We show that for low success probabilities of research, the incumbent can seldom preempt the potential entrant. Then the efficiency effect outweighs the replacement effect. It is vice versa for high probabilities. Moreover, the incumbent specializes in “safe” research and the potential entrant in “risky” research. We also show that the probability of entry has an inverted U-shape in the success probability. Since even at the peak entry is rather unlikely, the persistence of the monopoly is high.
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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods in its series Working Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods with number 2009_11.
Date of creation: Apr 2009
Date of revision:
Persistence of Monopoly; Efficiency Effect; Replacement Effect; Stochastic Innovations;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
- O31 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2009-04-18 (All new papers)
- NEP-COM-2009-04-18 (Industrial Competition)
- NEP-IND-2009-04-18 (Industrial Organization)
- NEP-INO-2009-04-18 (Innovation)
- NEP-MIC-2009-04-18 (Microeconomics)
- NEP-TID-2009-04-18 (Technology & Industrial Dynamics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Milo Bianchi & Magnus Henrekson, 2005.
"Is Neoclassical Economics still Entrepreneurless?,"
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 353-377, 07.
- Gilbert, Richard J & Newberry, David M G, 1984. "Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(1), pages 238-42, March.
- Yi, Sang-Seung, 1995. "Uncertain innovation and persistence of monopoly revisited," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 319-322, September.
- Reinganum, Jennifer R., 1982.
"Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly,"
431, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
- Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1983. "Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 741-48, September.
- De Meza, D. & Southey, C., 1995.
"The Borrower's Curse: Optimism, Finance and Enterpreneurship,"
9502, Exeter University, Department of Economics.
- de Meza, David & Southey, Clive, 1996. "The Borrower's Curse: Optimism, Finance and Entrepreneurship," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(435), pages 375-86, March.
- Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1984. "Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(1), pages 243-46, March.
- Denicolo, Vincenzo, 2001. "Growth with non-drastic innovations and the persistence of leadership," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1399-1413, August.
- Kihlstrom, Richard E & Laffont, Jean-Jacques, 1979. "A General Equilibrium Entrepreneurial Theory of Firm Formation Based on Risk Aversion," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 87(4), pages 719-48, August.
- Geroski, P. A., 1995. "What do we know about entry?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 421-440, December.
- William J. Baumol, 2004. "Education for Innovation: Entrepreneurial Breakthroughs vs. Corporate Incremental Improvements," NBER Working Papers 10578, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Chris Freeman & Luc Soete, 1997. "The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 3, volume 1, number 0262061953, December.
- Richard J. Rosen, 1991.
"Research and Development with Asymmetric Firm Sizes,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
The RAND Corporation, vol. 22(3), pages 411-429, Autumn.
- Richard J. Rosen, 1988. "Research and development with asymmetric firm sizes," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 17, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
- 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 514-26, June.
- Federico Etro, 2004. "Innovation by leaders," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 281-303, 04.
- 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.
- Blume, Andreas, 2003. "Bertrand without fudge," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 167-168, February.
- Christian Traxler, 2009.
"Majority Voting and the Welfare Implications of Tax Avoidance,"
Working Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods
2009_22, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
- Traxler, Christian, 2012. "Majority voting and the welfare implications of tax avoidance," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 1-9.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Marc Martin).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.