Entry Deterrence Through Fixed Cost-Reducing R&D
AbstractThe paper explores the role of R&D investments reducing fixed production costs in entry deterrence. An incumbent monopolist performs R&D to reduce its fixed production costs. There is a potential entrant, which can also perform R&D for the same purpose. There are bidirectional technological spillovers between the incumbent and the potential entrant. It is shown that deterrence, which takes the form of underinvestment in R&D by the incumbent, is more likely when the spillover from the incumbent to the potential entrant is high, when the spillover from the potential entrant to the incumbent is low, and when the fixed cost is intermediate. The comparative statics of the model depend heavily on which of two cases obtains: the first case is when separation between deterrence and accommodation is dictated by the relative profitability of these strategies; the second case is when separation between these two strategies is dictated by the positivity of R&D investments. The role of two policy tools, R&D subsidies and intellectual property protection, is examined. R&D subsidies, while they generally facilitate entry, move R&D investments in socially undesirable directions, except when accommodation is the equilibrium with and without the subsidy. As for intellectual property rights, they have no effect on R&D investments (except under deterrence) and tend to reduce entry.
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 University of Ottawa, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 0605E.
Length: 21 pages
Date of creation: 2006
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: PO Box 450, Station A, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5
Phone: (613) 562-5753
Fax: (613) 562-5999
Web page: http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/eco/eng/index.asp
More information through EDIRC
Entry deterrence; Fixed costs; R&D; R&D spillovers;
Other versions of this item:
- D42 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure and Pricing - - - Monopoly
- L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
- O33 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
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.:
- Stephen Martin & John T. Scott, 1999.
"The Nature of Innovation Market Failure and the Design of Public Support for Private Innovation,"
CIE Discussion Papers
1999-02, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. Centre for Industrial Economics.
- Martin, Stephen & Scott, John T., 2000. "The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 437-447, April.
- Miyagiwa, Kaz & Ohno, Yuka, 2002. "Uncertainty, spillovers, and cooperative R&D," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 855-876, June.
- Klette, T.J. & Moen, J. & Griliches, Z., 1999. "Do Subsidies to Commercial R&D Reduce Market Failures? Microeconometric Evaluation Studies," Papers 16/99, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration-.
- Ekholm, Karolina & Torstensson, Johan, 1996.
"High-Technology Subsidies in General Equilibrium: A Sector-Specific Approach,"
Working Paper Series
467, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
- Karolina Ekholm & Johan Torstensson, 1997. "High-Technology Subsidies in General Equilibrium: A Sector-Specific Approach," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 30(4), pages 1184-1203, November.
- Petrakis, Emmanuel & Poyago-Theotoky, Joanna, 2002. "R&D Subsidies versus R&D Cooperation in a Duopoly with Spillovers and Pollution," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 37-52, March.
- Isabel Busom, 2000. "An Empirical Evaluation of The Effects of R&D Subsidies," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 111-148.
- Minoru Kitahara & Toshihiro Matsumura, 2006. "Realized Cost-Based Subsidies For Strategic R&D Investments With "Ex Ante" And "Ex Post" Asymmetries," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 57(3), pages 438-448.
- Poyago-Theotoky, Joanna, 1998. "R&D Competition in a Mixed Duopoly under Uncertainty and Easy Imitation," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 415-428, September.
- Lakdawalla, Darius & Sood, Neeraj, 2004. "Social insurance and the design of innovation incentives," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 57-61, October.
- Khazabi, Massoud & Quyen, Nguyen, 2011. "R&D Spillovers, Innovation, and Entry," MPRA Paper 39460, University Library of Munich, Germany.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Diane Ritchot).
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.