IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/dyncon/v102y2019icp96-114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Delaying product introduction: A dynamic analysis with endogenous time horizon

Author

Listed:
  • Gezer, Serhat

Abstract

We consider a capital accumulating incumbent firm which produces an established product and has the option to introduce an improved substitute product to the market by incurring adoption costs. We find that depending on the initial capacities on the established market and the value of adoption costs, three scenarios are possible, namely introducing immediately, later or abstaining from product introduction. In case of delayed product introduction, the incumbent reduces capacities for the established product before the new product is introduced. We find that the higher the adoption costs, the higher is the gain by delaying the product introduction compared to immediate introduction. From a welfare perspective, the product introduction is welfare enhancing but the option of delay decreases the welfare gain. The model is calibrated using data on hard disk and solid state drives.

Suggested Citation

  • Gezer, Serhat, 2019. "Delaying product introduction: A dynamic analysis with endogenous time horizon," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 96-114.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:dyncon:v:102:y:2019:i:c:p:96-114
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jedc.2019.02.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165188919300594
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jennifer F. Reinganum, 1981. "On the Diffusion of New Technology: A Game Theoretic Approach," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(3), pages 395-405.
    2. Kuno J.M. Huisman & Peter M. Kort, 2015. "Strategic capacity investment under uncertainty," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(2), pages 376-408, June.
    3. Farzin, Y. H. & Huisman, K. J. M. & Kort, P. M., 1998. "Optimal timing of technology adoption," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 779-799, May.
    4. Avinash K. Dixit & Robert S. Pindyck, 1994. "Investment under Uncertainty," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 5474.
    5. Hinloopen, Jeroen & Smrkolj, Grega & Wagener, Florian, 2013. "From mind to market: A global, dynamic analysis of R&D," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 2729-2754.
    6. Long, Ngo Van & Prieur, Fabien & Tidball, Mabel & Puzon, Klarizze, 2017. "Piecewise closed-loop equilibria in differential games with regime switching strategies," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 264-284.
    7. Mitsuru Igami, 2017. "Estimating the Innovator’s Dilemma: Structural Analysis of Creative Destruction in the Hard Disk Drive Industry, 1981–1998," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(3), pages 798-847.
    8. Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, 1985. "Preemption and Rent Equalization in the Adoption of New Technology," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 52(3), pages 383-401.
    9. Kiseleva, Tatiana & Wagener, F.O.O., 2010. "Bifurcations of optimal vector fields in the shallow lake model," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 825-843, May.
    10. Wagener, F. O. O., 2003. "Skiba points and heteroclinic bifurcations, with applications to the shallow lake system," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 27(9), pages 1533-1561, July.
    11. Manu Goyal & Serguei Netessine, 2007. "Strategic Technology Choice and Capacity Investment Under Demand Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(2), pages 192-207, February.
    12. Kevin B. Hendricks & Vinod R. Singhal, 1997. "Delays in New Product Introductions and the Market Value of the Firm: The Consequences of Being Late to the Market," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(4), pages 422-436, April.
    13. Jeroen Hinloopen & Grega Smrkolj & Florian Wagener, 2017. "Research and Development Cooperatives and Market Collusion: A Global Dynamic Approach," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 174(2), pages 567-612, August.
    14. Hartl, Richard F., 1987. "A simple proof of the monotonicity of the state trajectories in autonomous control problems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 211-215, February.
    15. Caulkins, Jonathan P. & Feichtinger, Gustav & Grass, Dieter & Hartl, Richard F. & Kort, Peter M. & Seidl, Andrea, 2015. "Skiba points in free end-time problems," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 404-419.
    16. Dawid, Herbert & Keoula, Michel Y. & Kopel, Michael & Kort, Peter M., 2015. "Product innovation incentives by an incumbent firm: A dynamic analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 411-438.
    17. Doraszelski, Ulrich, 2004. "Innovations, improvements, and the optimal adoption of new technologies," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 28(7), pages 1461-1480, April.
    18. David M. Kreps & Jose A. Scheinkman, 1983. "Quantity Precommitment and Bertrand Competition Yield Cournot Outcomes," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(2), pages 326-337, Autumn.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Product innovation; Capacity dynamics; Multi-product firm; Free end-time problem; Delayed product introduction;

    JEL classification:

    • D42 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Monopoly
    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    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:eee:dyncon:v:102:y:2019:i:c:p:96-114. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jedc .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.