IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-12-00489.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Innovation and social desirability of merger

Author

Listed:
  • Arijit Mukherjee

    (Loughborough University)

  • Prabal Roy chowdhury

    (Indian Statistical Institute)

Abstract

Although regulatory authorities are putting more emphasis to the long-run effects of mergers and acquisitions due to their effects on innovation, several merger proposals have been challenged due to their adverse innovation effects. In a simple model with endogenous R&D investment, we show that the effects of merger on the R&D investment, consumer surplus and social welfare depend on the degree of knowledge spillover and the slope of the marginal cost of doing R&D. Hence, the social desirability of merger may depend on the effectiveness of the patent system and the cost of innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Arijit Mukherjee & Prabal Roy chowdhury, 2013. "Innovation and social desirability of merger," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 33(1), pages 348-360.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-12-00489
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2013/Volume33/EB-13-V33-I1-P34.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gilbert, Richard & Tom, Willard K, 2001. "Is Innovation King at the Antitrust Agencies? The Intellectual Property Guidelines Five Years Later," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt4mf5t2bm, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    2. Farrell, Joseph & Shapiro, Carl, 1990. "Horizontal Mergers: An Equilibrium Analysis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 107-126, March.
    3. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Michael Kremer, 1998. "Patent Buyouts: A Mechanism for Encouraging Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(4), pages 1137-1167.
    5. Kremer, Michael R., 1998. "Patent Buyouts: A Mechanism for Encouraging Innovation," Scholarly Articles 3693705, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    6. Chowdhury, Prabal Roy, 2005. "Patents and R&D: The tournament effect," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 120-126, October.
    7. Bessen, James, 2005. "Patents and the diffusion of technical information," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 121-128, January.
    8. Gilbert Richard J, 2006. "Competition and Innovation," Journal of Industrial Organization Education, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-23, December.
    9. Nirvikar Singh & Xavier Vives, 1984. "Price and Quantity Competition in a Differentiated Duopoly," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(4), pages 546-554, Winter.
    10. Philippe Aghion & Christopher Harris & Peter Howitt & John Vickers, 2001. "Competition, Imitation and Growth with Step-by-Step Innovation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 68(3), pages 467-492.
    11. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Stephen W. Salant & Sheldon Switzer & Robert J. Reynolds, 1983. "Losses From Horizontal Merger: The Effects of an Exogenous Change in Industry Structure on Cournot-Nash Equilibrium," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 98(2), pages 185-199.
    13. Nancy T. Gallini, 1992. "Patent Policy and Costly Imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(1), pages 52-63, Spring.
    14. Ray Chaudhuri, Prabal, 1995. "Technological asymmetry and joint product development," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 23-39, March.
    15. Mazzoleni, Roberto & Nelson, Richard R., 1998. "The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 273-284, July.
    16. Qiu, Larry D., 1997. "On the Dynamic Efficiency of Bertrand and Cournot Equilibria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 213-229, July.
    17. Vincenzo Denicolò & Luigi Alberto Franzoni, 2004. "Patents, Secrets, and the First‐Inventor Defense," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 517-538, September.
    18. Mookherjee, Dilip & Ray, Debraj, 1991. "On the competitive pressure created by the diffusion of innovations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 124-147, June.
    19. Boone, Jan, 2001. "Intensity of competition and the incentive to innovate," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 705-726, April.
    20. Arijit Mukherjee, 2011. "Competition, Innovation And Welfare," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 79(6), pages 1045-1057, December.
    21. Aghion, Philippe & Harris, Christopher & Vickers, John, 1997. "Competition and growth with step-by-step innovation: An example," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(3-5), pages 771-782, April.
    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. Denicolò, Vincenzo & Polo, Michele, 2021. "Mergers and innovation sharing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    2. Dusanee Kesavayuth & Sang-Ho Lee & Vasileios Zikos, 2018. "Merger and Innovation Incentives in a Differentiated Industry," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 207-221, May.

    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. Haucap, Justus & Rasch, Alexander & Stiebale, Joel, 2019. "How mergers affect innovation: Theory and evidence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 283-325.
    2. Aghion, Philippe & Akcigit, Ufuk & Howitt, Peter, 2014. "What Do We Learn From Schumpeterian Growth Theory?," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 515-563, Elsevier.
    3. Claude d'Aspremont & Rodolphe Dos Santos Ferreira & Louis-André Gérard-Varet, 2007. "Competition For Market Share Or For Market Size: Oligopolistic Equilibria With Varying Competitive Toughness," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 48(3), pages 761-784, August.
    4. Chari, V.V. & Golosov, Mikhail & Tsyvinski, Aleh, 2012. "Prizes and patents: Using market signals to provide incentives for innovations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(2), pages 781-801.
    5. Inderst, Roman & Wey, Christian, 2004. "The incentives for takeover in oligopoly," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(8-9), pages 1067-1089, November.
    6. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "Filing strategies and patent value," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 539-561, February.
    7. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899, January.
    8. Arora, Ashish & Fosfuri, Andrea & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1999. "Markets for technology (why do we see them, why don't we see more of them and why we should care)," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB 6520, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    9. Josh Lerner, 2002. "Patent Protection and Innovation Over 150 Years," NBER Working Papers 8977, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Norbäck, Pehr-Johan & Persson, Lars, 2012. "Entrepreneurial innovations, competition and competition policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 488-506.
    11. Leiva Bertran, Fernando J. & Turner, John L., 2017. "Welfare-optimal patent royalties when imitation is costly," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 457-475.
    12. Leonard F.S. Wang & Arijit Mukherjee, 2014. "Patent Protection, Innovation and Technology Licensing," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3-4), pages 245-254, December.
    13. Pal, Rupayan, 2010. "Technology adoption in a differentiated duopoly: Cournot versus Bertrand," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 128-136, June.
    14. Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2002. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 51-78, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Albert Banal‐Estañol & Marco Ottaviani, 2006. "Mergers with Product Market Risk," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 577-608, September.
    16. Ben van Hout & Jolian McHardy & Aki Tsuchiya, 2015. "Patent Purchase as a Policy for Pharmaceuticals," Working Papers 2015007, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics.
    17. Panle Jia & Pinelopi K. Goldberg & Shubham Chaudhuri, 2006. "Estimating the Effects of Global Patent Protection in Pharmaceuticals: A Case Study of Quinolones in India," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1477-1514, December.
    18. Ozan Hatipoglu, 2007. "An Empirical Analysis of the Relationship Between Inequality and Innovation in a Schumpeterian Framework," Working Papers 2007/10, Bogazici University, Department of Economics.
    19. Kilponen, Juha & Santavirta, Torsten, 2007. "When do R&D subsidies boost innovation? : revisiting the inverted U-shape," Research Discussion Papers 10/2007, Bank of Finland.
    20. Philippe Aghion & Peter Howitt & Susanne Prantl, 2015. "Patent rights, product market reforms, and innovation," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 223-262, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Innovation; Merger; Welfare;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L1 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-12-00489. 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: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.