IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Anti-competitive conduct, in-house R&D, and growth

Listed author(s):
  • Grossmann, Volker
  • Steger, Thomas M.

Incumbent firms have two basic possibilities to improve their competitive position in the product market: Investment in R&D and the creation of entry barriers to the disadvantage of potential rivals, e.g. through lobbying activities, campaign contributions, bribes or the adoption of incompatible technologies. This paper proposes a simple oligopoly model which raises the possibility that such anti-competitive conduct and R&D investment are complementary activities for incumbents. Consequently, an institutional framework or technological possibilities which encourage anti-competitive conduct, although impeding entry of potential rivals and accentuating standard oligopoly distortions, may foster R&D-based growth and welfare. However, this outcome is less likely if entrants exert technological spillover effects, e.g. through foreign direct investment. Stronger protection of intellectual property rights, although triggering anti-competitive conduct and thereby impeding market entry as well, is more likely to foster economic growth.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014-2921(07)00148-1
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal European Economic Review.

Volume (Year): 52 (2008)
Issue (Month): 6 (August)
Pages: 987-1008

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:eecrev:v:52:y:2008:i:6:p:987-1008
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eer

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window

  1. Aghion, Philippe & Blundell, Richard William & Griffith, Rachel & Howitt, Peter & Prantl, Susanne, 2005. "The Effects of Entry on Incumbent Innovation and Productivity," CEPR Discussion Papers 5323, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  2. Simeon Djankov & Rafael La Porta & Florencio LopezdeSilanes & Andrei Shleifer, 2000. "The Regulation of Entry," NBER Working Papers 7892, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  3. Philippe Aghion & Nicholas Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2002. "Competition and Innovation: An Inverted U Relationship," NBER Working Papers 9269, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. Daron Acemoglu & Philippe Aghion & Fabrizio Zilibotti, 2006. "Distance to Frontier, Selection, and Economic Growth," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 4(1), pages 37-74, 03.
  5. Philippe Aghion & Peter Howitt & David Mayer-Foulkes, 2004. "The Effect of Financial Development on Convergence: Theory and Evidence," NBER Working Papers 10358, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  6. Vives, Xavier, 2005. "Innovation and Competitive Pressure," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt1s1059vr, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  7. Cohen, Wesley M & Klepper, Steven, 1996. "A Reprise of Size and R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(437), pages 925-951, July.
  8. Gilbert, Richard, 1988. "Mobility Barriers and the Value of Incumbency," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt52q9j63w, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  9. Ann E. Harrison & Brian J. Aitken, 1999. "Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Direct Foreign Investment? Evidence from Venezuela," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 605-618, June.
  10. Borensztein, E. & De Gregorio, J. & Lee, J-W., 1998. "How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth?1," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 115-135, June.
  11. Keller, Wolfgang, 2002. "International Technology Diffusion," CEPR Discussion Papers 3133, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  12. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 2005. "Growth with Quality-Improving Innovations: An Integrated Framework," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 2, pages 67-110 Elsevier.
  13. Smulders, Sjak & van de Klundert, Theo, 1995. "Imperfect competition, concentration and growth with firm-specific R & D," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 139-160, January.
  14. Egger, Hartmut & Egger, Peter & Grossmann, Volker, 2006. "Does capital mobility promote economic growth? The link to education," Journal of Financial Transformation, Capco Institute, vol. 17, pages 28-31.
  15. Per Krusell & José-Víctor Ríos-Rull, 1996. "Vested Interests in a Positive Theory of Stagnation and Growth," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 63(2), pages 301-329.
  16. Cohen, Wesley M & Klepper, Steven, 1996. "Firm Size and the Nature of Innovation within Industries: The Case of Process and Product R&D," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 78(2), pages 232-243, May.
  17. Yongchun Baek & Randall S. Jones & Michael Wise, 2004. "Product Market Competition and Economic Performance in Korea," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 399, OECD Publishing.
  18. Salop, Steven C & Scheffman, David T, 1987. "Cost-Raising Strategies," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 19-34, September.
  19. Richard E. Caves, 1998. "Industrial Organization and New Findings on the Turnover and Mobility of Firms," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(4), pages 1947-1982, December.
  20. Keller, Wolfgang & Yeaple, Stephen R, 2003. "Multinational Enterprises, International Trade and Productivity Growth: Firm-Level Evidence from the US," CEPR Discussion Papers 3805, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  21. van de Klundert, Theo & Smulders, Sjak, 1997. " Growth, Competition and Welfare," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 99(1), pages 99-118, March.
  22. Aitken, Brian & Harrison, Ann & DEC, 1994. "Do domestic firms benefit from foreign direct investment? Evidence from panel data," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1248, The World Bank.
  23. Jens Høj & Michael Wise, 2004. "Product Market Competition and Economic Performance in Japan," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 387, OECD Publishing.
  24. J. Peter Neary, 2016. "International Trade in General Oligopolistic Equilibrium," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(4), pages 669-698, 09.
  25. Branstetter, Lee, 2006. "Is foreign direct investment a channel of knowledge spillovers? Evidence from Japan's FDI in the United States," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 325-344, March.
  26. J. Peter Neary, 2002. "Globalisation and market structure," Working Papers 200220, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
  27. Jens Høj & Michael Wise, 2004. "Product Market Competition and Economic Performance in Norway," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 389, OECD Publishing.
  28. Salop, Steven C & Scheffman, David T, 1983. "Raising Rivals' Costs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(2), pages 267-271, May.
  29. Alwyn Young, 1998. "Growth without Scale Effects," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(1), pages 41-63, February.
  30. J. Peter Neary, 2003. "Presidential Address: Globalization and Market Structure," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(2-3), pages 245-271, 04/05.
  31. Hannes Suppanz & Michael Wise & Michael Kiley, 2004. "Product Market Competition and Economic Performance in the United States," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 398, OECD Publishing.
  32. George J. Stigler, 1971. "The Theory of Economic Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 2(1), pages 3-21, Spring.
  33. Jens Høj & Michael Wise, 2004. "Product Market Competition and Economic Performance in Finland," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 413, OECD Publishing.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eecrev:v:52:y:2008:i:6:p:987-1008. 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: (Dana Niculescu)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.