IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wzb/wzebiv/fsiv97-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Incentives to Innovate: A Structural Model of Oligopoly (available only in German!)

Author

Listed:
  • Dietmar Harhoff

Abstract

The paper develops an oligopoly model of innovation and applies it to data from the Mannheim Innovation Panel. The model circumvents the need for market share and price elasticity data which typically can only be determined with measurement error and are therefore a major source of misspecification. The regression results suggest that access to sources of information is an important determinant for the firm's R&D activity. Endogenous protection mechanisms such as lead time, design complexity, etc. are important determinants of overall innovation expenditures, but not for R&D specifically. If legal protection mechanisms (such as patents) are effective, they exert a positive effect on R&D spending. Firm-specific financing conditions also affect the innovation activity of the firm. Specification tests derived from the theoretical model do not lead to a rejection of the validity of the empirical model. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG - (Innovationsanreize in einem strukturellen Oligopolmodell) In diesem Beitrag wird ein Oligopolmodell der Innovationsaktivität entwickelt und mit Daten aus dem Mannheimer Innovationspanel geschätzt. Das Modell erlaubt es, bei der empirischen Umsetzung auf die Verwendung von Marktanteilsdaten und Nachfrageelastizitäten zu verzichten, die typischerweise nur annähernd ermittelt werden können und eine wichtige Quelle von Fehlspezifikationen darstellen. Die Regressionsergebnisse zeigen auf, daß der Zugang zu Informationsquellen eine wichtige Determinante der FuEAktivitäten darstellt. Endogene Schutzmechanismen wie Zeitvorsprünge, Komplexität des Produktdesigns, etc. bestimmen insbesondere den Umfang der gesamten Innovationsaufwendungen, aber weniger den der FuE-Aufwendungen. Sofern rechtliche Schutzmechanismen (z.B. Patente) effektiv eingesetzt werden können, wirken sie sich positiv auf die FuE-Tätigkeit aus. Firmenspezifische Finanzierungsbedingungen beeinflussen ebenfalls die Innovationsaktivität des Unternehmens. Spezifikationstests, die sich aus dem theoretischen Modell ableiten lassen, führen nicht zu einer Zurückweisung der Validität des Modells.

Suggested Citation

  • Dietmar Harhoff, 1997. "Incentives to Innovate: A Structural Model of Oligopoly (available only in German!)," CIG Working Papers FS IV 97-09, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    • Handle: RePEc:wzb:wzebiv:fsiv97-9
    Note: This paper is only available in the German language.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://skylla.wz-berlin.de/pdf/1997/iv97-9.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, 1996. "Scale, Scope, and Spillovers: The Determinants of Research Productivity in Drug Discovery," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(1), pages 32-59, Spring.
    2. Henry Kaiser, 1958. "The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 23(3), pages 187-200, September.
    3. Cohen, Wesley M. & Levin, Richard C., 1989. "Empirical studies of innovation and market structure," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 18, pages 1059-1107, Elsevier.
    4. Mueller,Dennis C., 2009. "Profits in the Long Run," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521101592.
    5. Kleinknecht, Alfred, 1987. "Measuring R&D in Small Firms: How Much Are We Missing?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 253-256, December.
    6. François LAISNEY & Michael LECHNER & Winfried POHLMEIER, 1992. "Semi-Nonparametric Estimation of Binary Choice Models Using Panel Data : an Application to the Innovative Activity of German Firms," Discussion Papers (REL - Recherches Economiques de Louvain) 1992035, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    7. Harhoff, Dietmar & Stahl, Konrad & Woywode, Michael, 1998. "Legal Form, Growth and Exit of West German Firms--Empirical Results for Manufacturing, Construction, Trade and Service Industries," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 453-488, December.
    8. Von Hippel, Eric, 1982. "Appropriability of innovation benefit as a predictor of the source of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 95-115, April.
    9. Dietmar Harhoff, 1996. "Strategic Spillovers and Incentives for Research and Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(6), pages 907-925, June.
    10. König, Heinz & Laisney, François & Lechner, Michael & Pohlmeier, Winfried, 1993. "On the dynamics of process innovative activity: an empirical investigation using panel data," ZEW Discussion Papers 93-08, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    11. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G., 1993. "Estimation and Inference in Econometrics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195060119.
    12. Dietmar Harhoff & Konrad Stahl & Michaerl Woywode, 1998. "Legal Form, Growth and Exit of West German Firms—Empirical Results for Manufacturing, Construction, Trade and Service Industries," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 453-488, December.
    13. Scherer, F. M., 1983. "The propensity to patent," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 107-128, March.
    14. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    15. Laisney, Francois & Lechner, Michael & Pohlmeier, Winfried, 1992. "Innovation activity and firm heterogeneity: Empirical evidence from West Germany," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 301-320, December.
    16. Bresnahan, Timothy F., 1989. "Empirical studies of industries with market power," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 17, pages 1011-1057, Elsevier.
    17. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1990. "The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy, and Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 511-528, June.
    18. Licht, Georg & Harhoff, Dietmar, 1993. "Das Mannheimer Innovationspanel," ZEW Discussion Papers 93-21, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    19. Flaig, Gebhard & Stadler, Manfred, 1994. "Success Breeds Success. The Dynamics of the Innovation Process," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 55-68.
    20. R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), 1989. "Handbook of Industrial Organization," Handbook of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 2, number 2.
    21. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1988. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial R&D," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 862, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    22. Petersen, Mitchell A & Rajan, Raghuram G, 1994. "The Benefits of Lending Relationships: Evidence from Small Business Data," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 49(1), pages 3-37, March.
    23. R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), 1989. "Handbook of Industrial Organization," Handbook of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    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. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," 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 129-213, Elsevier.
    2. König, Heinz & Laisney, François & Lechner, Michael & Pohlmeier, Winfried, 1993. "On the dynamics of process innovative activity: an empirical investigation using panel data," ZEW Discussion Papers 93-08, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    3. Dietmar Harhoff, 1998. "Vertical Organization, Technology Flows and R&D Incentives: An Exploratory Analysis," CIG Working Papers FS IV 98-02, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    4. Flaig, Gebhard & Stadler, Manfred, 1996. "On the dynamics of product and process innovations: A bivariate random effects probit model," Tübinger Diskussionsbeiträge 64, University of Tübingen, School of Business and Economics.
    5. Stefano Breschi, 2000. "The Geography of Innovation: A Cross-sector Analysis," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(3), pages 213-229.
    6. Juan M. Gallego & Luis H. Gutiérrez & Sang H. Lee, 2015. "A firm-level analysis of ICT adoption in an emerging economy: evidence from the Colombian manufacturing industries," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 24(1), pages 191-221.
    7. Arbussà, Anna & Coenders, Germà, 2005. "Innovation strategies in the presence of technology markets: evidence from Spanish innovative firms," Working Papers of the Department of Economics, University of Girona 15, Department of Economics, University of Girona.
    8. Smolny, Werner, 1997. "Endogenous innovations in a model of the firm: Theory and empirical application for West-German manufacturing firms," Discussion Papers 39, University of Konstanz, Center for International Labor Economics (CILE).
    9. A. Leiponen, 1997. "Dynamic Competences and Firm Performance," Working Papers ir97006, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    10. Wolfgang Becker & Juergen Peters, 2000. "Technological Opportunities, Absorptive Capacities, and Innovation," Discussion Paper Series 195, Universitaet Augsburg, Institute for Economics.
    11. Smolny, Wernerr, 1996. "Innovations, prices, and employment: A theoretical model and an empirical application for West-German manufacturing firms," Discussion Papers 37, University of Konstanz, Center for International Labor Economics (CILE).
    12. Lynn Wu & Bowen Lou & Lorin Hitt, 2019. "Data Analytics Supports Decentralized Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(10), pages 4863-4877, October.
    13. Beneito, Pilar, 2003. "Choosing among alternative technological strategies: an empirical analysis of formal sources of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 693-713, April.
    14. Cassiman, Bruno & Perez-Castrillo, David & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2002. "Endogenizing know-how flows through the nature of R&D investments," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 775-799, June.
    15. Hien Tran & Enrico Santarelli & Enrico Zaninotto, 2015. "Efficiency or bounded rationality? Drivers of firm diversification strategies in Vietnam," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 983-1010, November.
    16. Manuel Acosta Sero & Daniel Coronado Guerrero, 1998. "The influence of regional location on the innovation activity of Spanish firms: A logit analysis," ERSA conference papers ersa98p63, European Regional Science Association.
    17. H. T. Tran & E. Santarelli, 2013. "Determinants and Effects of Innovative Activities in Vietnam. A Firm-level Analysis," Working Papers wp909, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    18. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2002. "When Does Start-Up Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 571-586, Winter.
    19. Golan, Amos & Karp, Larry S & Perloff, Jeffrey M, 2000. "Estimating Coke's and Pepsi's Price and Advertising Strategies," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 18(4), pages 398-409, October.
    20. E. Cefis & M. Ghita, 2008. "Post Merger Innovative Patterns in Small and Medium Firms," Working Papers 08-09, Utrecht School of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Oligopoly and other imperfect markets; innovation and invention; processes and incentives; intellectual property rights; national and international issues; Europe;
    All these keywords.

    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:wzb:wzebiv:fsiv97-9. 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: Jennifer Rontganger (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cicwzde.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.