IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20090012.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Pros and Cons of ‘Backing Winners’ in Innovation Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Frank A.G. den Butter

    (VU University Amsterdam)

  • Seung-gyu Jo

    (VU University Amsterdam)

Abstract

In the economics profession there is a fierce debate whether industrial and innovation policy should be targeted to specific sectors or firms. This paper discusses the welfare effects of such targeted policies from the perspective of strategic game theory of the firm. A theoretical case for picking winners through a preferential innovative policy is discussed in a third-market international trade model, which is shown to hold without evoking retaliation from foreign competitors. However, in practice information uncertainties remain a concern. The question whether in this case ‘backing winners’ is a wise policy option depends on the characteristics of the information asymmetries and on the extent the government is able to design selection procedures which minimize the transaction costs that may be caused from the market participants’ opportunistic behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank A.G. den Butter & Seung-gyu Jo, 2009. "Pros and Cons of ‘Backing Winners’ in Innovation Policy," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 09-012/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20090012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papers.tinbergen.nl/09012.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Neary, J. Peter, 1994. "Cost asymmetries in international subsidy games: Should governments help winners or losers?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3-4), pages 197-218, November.
    2. Dermot Leahy & Catia Montagna, 1998. "Targeted Strategic Trade Policy with Domestic Cost Heterogeneity," Dundee Discussion Papers in Economics 100, Economic Studies, University of Dundee.
    3. J. Peter Neary & Paul O'Sullivan, 1999. "Beat 'em or Join 'em? Export Subsidies versus International Research Joint Ventures in Oligopolistic Markets," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 101(4), pages 577-596, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Jonathan Eaton & Gene M. Grossman, 1986. "Optimal Trade and Industrial Policy Under Oligopoly," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(2), pages 383-406.
    6. Qui, Larry D., 1994. "Optimal strategic trade policy under asymmetric information," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(3-4), pages 333-354, May.
    7. Bas Jacobs & Jules Theeuwes, 2005. "Innovation in the Netherlands: the Market Falters and the Government Fails," De Economist, Springer, vol. 153(1), pages 107-124, December.
    8. Bergstrom, Theodore C. & Varian, Hal R., 1985. "Two remarks on Cournot equilibria," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 5-8.
    9. Neary, J.P., 1999. "R&D in Developing Countries: What Should Governments Do?," Papers 99/27, College Dublin, Department of Political Economy-.
    10. G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), 1995. "Handbook of International Economics," Handbook of International Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 3, number 3.
    11. Kujal Praveen & Ruiz Juan M., 2007. "Cost Effectiveness of R&D and Strategic Trade Policy," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-35, April.
    12. Brander, James A., 1995. "Strategic trade policy," Handbook of International Economics, in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 27, pages 1395-1455, Elsevier.
    13. Yordying Supasri & Makoto Tawada, 2007. "Endogenous Timing in a Strategic Trade Policy Game: A Two‐Country Oligopoly Model with Multiple Firms," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(2), pages 275-290, May.
    14. Gruenspecht, Howard K., 1988. "Export subsidies for differentiated products," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3-4), pages 331-344, May.
    15. Brander, James A. & Spencer, Barbara J., 1985. "Export subsidies and international market share rivalry," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1-2), pages 83-100, February.
    16. Greg Shaffer & Stephen W. Salant, 1999. "Unequal Treatment of Identical Agents in Cournot Equilibrium," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 585-604, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Seung‐Gyu Jo, 2010. "Non‐Uniform Strategic Trade Policy And Aggregate Profit Creation Effect," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 57(5), pages 644-662, November.
    2. Neary, J Peter & Leahy, Dermot, 2000. "Strategic Trade and Industrial Policy towards Dynamic Oligopolies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 484-508, April.
    3. Dewit, Gerda & Leahy, Dermot, 2004. "Rivalry in uncertain export markets: commitment versus flexibility," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 195-209, October.
    4. Delia Ionascu & Kresimir Zigic, 2001. "Strategic Trade Policy and Mode of Competition: Symmetric versus Asymmetric Information," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp174, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    5. Zigic, Kresimir & Ionascu, Delia, 2001. "Free Trade versus Strategic Trade as a Choice Between Two 'Second-best' Policies: A Symmetric versus Asymmetric Information Ana," CEPR Discussion Papers 2928, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Kim, Jeong-Eon, 2003. "Three essays on welfare implications of R&D policies in the presence of spillovers," ISU General Staff Papers 200301010800001597, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    7. Praveen Kujal & Juan Ruiz, 2003. "Cost Effectiveness of R&D and the Robustness of Strategic Trade Policy," International Trade 0302001, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 04 Feb 2003.
    8. T. Huw Edwards, 2008. "International Share Ownership, Profit Shifting and Protectionism," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 164(2), pages 280-301, June.
    9. Reimer, Jeffrey J. & Stiegert, Kyle W., 2006. "Evidence on Imperfect Competition and Strategic Trade Theory," Staff Paper Series 498, University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    10. Praveen Kujal & Juan M. Ruiz, 2009. "International Trade Policy towards Monopoly and Oligopoly," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(3), pages 461-475, August.
    11. Ishikawa, Jota & Spencer, Barbara J., 1999. "Rent-shifting export subsidies with an imported intermediate product," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 199-232, August.
    12. Colacicco, Rudy, 2012. "Strategic Trade Policy in General Oligopolistic Equilibrium," MPRA Paper 38118, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Kresimir Zigic, 2011. "Strategic Interactions in Markets with Innovative Activity: The Cases of Strategic Trade Policy and Market Leadership," CERGE-EI Books, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague, edition 1, number b06, May.
    14. Engelmann, Dirk & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2007. "An experimental test of strategic trade policy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 144-156, September.
    15. Dermot Leahy & Catia Montagna, 1998. "Targeted Strategic Trade Policy with Domestic Cost Heterogeneity," Dundee Discussion Papers in Economics 100, Economic Studies, University of Dundee.
    16. J. Neary, 2006. "International Trade and the Environment: Theoretical and Policy Linkages," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 33(1), pages 95-118, January.
    17. Furusawa, Taiji & Higashida, Keisaku & Ishikawa, Jota, 2003. "What information is needed for welfare-enhancing policies under international oligopoly?," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 31-46, January.
    18. Desai, Mihir A. & Hines Jr., James R., 2008. "Market reactions to export subsidies," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 459-474, March.
    19. Fujimoto, Hiroaki & Park, Eun-Soo, 1997. "Optimal export subsidy when demand is uncertain," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 383-390, September.
    20. Elizabeth Schroeder & Victor Tremblay, 2015. "A Reappraisal of Strategic Trade Policy," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 435-442, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Innovation policy; R&D subsidies; strategic trade policy; asymmetric information; spill-over effects;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary Games
    • F12 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Models of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Scale Economies; Fragmentation
    • O24 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Trade Policy; Factor Movement; Foreign Exchange Policy
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

    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:tin:wpaper:20090012. 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: Tinbergen Office +31 (0)10-4088900 (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tinbenl.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.