IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v87y2005i1p55-59.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Market structure and the allocation of R&D expenditures

Author

Listed:
  • Kato, Atsushi

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Kato, Atsushi, 2005. "Market structure and the allocation of R&D expenditures," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 55-59, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:87:y:2005:i:1:p:55-59
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165-1765(04)00326-X
    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. Sudipto Bhattacharya & Dilip Mookherjee, 1986. "Portfolio Choice in Research and Development," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(4), pages 594-605, Winter.
    2. Dasgupta, Partha & Maskin, Eric, 1987. "The Simple Economics of Research Portfolios," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 97(387), pages 581-595, September.
    3. Glenn C. Loury, 1979. "Market Structure and Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 93(3), pages 395-410.
    4. Tor Klette & David de Meza, 1986. "Is the Market Biased Against Risky R&D?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(1), pages 133-139, Spring.
    5. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1996. "Research and Development in the Growth Process," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 49-73, March.
    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. Yan Zhao & Hui Sun & Xuechao Xia & Dianyuan Ma, 2023. "Can R&D Intensity Reduce Carbon Emissions Intensity? Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-24, January.

    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. Isabelle Brocas, 2003. "Les enjeux de la réglementation de la recherche et développement," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 113(1), pages 125-148.
    2. Jay Pil Choi & Heiko Gerlach, 2014. "Selection Biases in Complementary R&D Projects," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(4), pages 899-924, December.
    3. Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 1990. "Risky R&D in Oligopolistic Product Markets," Discussion Papers 872, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    4. Nisvan Erkal & Deborah Minehart, 2007. "Optimal Sharing Strategies in Dynamic Games of Research and Development," EAG Discussions Papers 200707, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
    5. Yongmin Chen & Shiyuan Pan & Tianle Zhang, 2018. "Patentability, R&D Direction, And Cumulative Innovation," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(4), pages 1969-1993, November.
    6. Tse, Chung Yi, 2001. "Risky quality choice," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(1-2), pages 185-212, January.
    7. Matthias Verbeck & Elisabeth Schulte, 2016. "Contracting with Researchers," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201620, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    8. Bagwell, Kyle & Staiger, Robert W, 1992. "The Sensitivity of Strategic and Corrective R&D Policy in Battles for Monopoly," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 33(4), pages 795-816, November.
    9. Kaustav Das, 2013. "Strategic Experimentation with Heterogeneous Agents and Payoff Externalities," Discussion Papers 1315, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.
    10. Patrick Herbst & Eric Jahn, 2017. "IP-for-IP or Cash-for-IP? R&D Competition and the Market for Technology," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 51(1), pages 75-101, August.
    11. Tishler, Asher, 2008. "How risky should an R&D program be?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 268-271, May.
    12. Jonathan B. Berk & Richard C. Green & Vasant Naik, 1998. "Valuation and Return Dynamics of New Ventures," NBER Working Papers 6745, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Lambertini, Luca & Mantovani, Andrea, 2009. "Process and product innovation by a multiproduct monopolist: A dynamic approach," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 508-518, July.
    14. L. Lambertini & R. Orsini, 2014. "Process Innovation and Product Quality Improvement in a Dynamic Monopoly," Working Papers wp926, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    15. Stahl, Konrad & Gerlach, Heiko A. & Rønde, Thomas, 2002. "Market and Technical Risk in R&D," CEPR Discussion Papers 3450, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Henkel, Joachim & Rønde, Thomas & Wagner, Marcus, 2015. "And the winner is—Acquired. Entrepreneurship as a contest yielding radical innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 295-310.
    17. Luca Lambertini & Raimondello Orsini, 2015. "Quality Improvement and Process Innovation in Monopoly: A Dynamic Analysis," Working Paper series 15-12, Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis.
    18. Mark Whitmeyer, 2021. "Submission Fees in Risk-Taking Contests," Papers 2108.13506, arXiv.org.
    19. Lin, Ping & Zhou, Wen, 2013. "The effects of competition on the R&D portfolios of multiproduct firms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 83-91.
    20. Gilbert Richard J, 2006. "Competition and Innovation," Journal of Industrial Organization Education, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-23, December.

    More about this item

    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:ecolet:v:87:y:2005:i:1:p:55-59. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    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.