IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/indorg/v27y2009i4p508-518.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Process and product innovation by a multiproduct monopolist: A dynamic approach

Author

Listed:
  • Lambertini, Luca
  • Mantovani, Andrea

Abstract

We adopt a dynamic approach to model the behaviour of a multiproduct monopolist investing in process innovation, and either product differentiation, or product proliferation, or both. Irrespective of the number of activities appearing in the R&D portfolio, we prove that, depending on initial conditions, there may exists substitutability between process innovation and either form of product innovation along the optimal path towards the steady state, while in the latter only complementarity emerges. Looking at the threefold investment plan, we qualitatively characterise the ranking of R&D activities in terms of the consumer reservation price and the extent of the spectrum of varieties.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:indorg:v:27:y:2009:i:4:p:508-518
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-7187(08)00139-2
    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 below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susan Athey & Armin Schmutzler, 1995. "Product and Process Flexibility in an Innovative Environment," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(4), pages 557-574, Winter.
    2. 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.
    3. Lambertini, Luca & Poddar, Sougata & Sasaki, Dan, 1998. "Standardization and the stability of collusion," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 303-310, March.
    4. Dasgupta, Partha & Maskin, Eric, 1987. "The Simple Economics of Research Portfolios," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 97(387), pages 581-595, September.
    5. Andrea Mantovani, 2006. "Complementarity between product and process innovation in a monopoly setting," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 219-234.
    6. Rosenkranz, Stephanie, 2003. "Simultaneous choice of process and product innovation when consumers have a preference for product variety," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 183-201, February.
    7. Lambertini, Luca & Orsini, Raimondello, 2000. "Process and product innovation in a vertically differentiated monopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 333-337, September.
    8. Bonanno, Giacomo & Haworth, Barry, 1998. "Intensity of competition and the choice between product and process innovation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 495-510, July.
    9. Amir, Rabah, 1996. "Continuous Stochastic Games of Capital Accumulation with Convex Transitions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 111-131, August.
    10. Luca Lambertini, 2004. "Process and product R&D by a multiproduct monopolist: a reply to Lin," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 56(4), pages 745-749, October.
    11. Utterback, James M & Abernathy, William J, 1975. "A dynamic model of process and product innovation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 3(6), pages 639-656, December.
    12. Lin, Ping & Saggi, Kamal, 2002. "Product differentiation, process R&D, and the nature of market competition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 201-211, January.
    13. 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.
    14. Klepper, Steven, 1996. "Entry, Exit, Growth, and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 562-583, June.
    15. 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.
    16. Lambertini, Luca & Rossini, Gianpaolo, 1998. "Product homogeneity as a prisoner's dilemma in a duopoly with R&D," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 297-301, March.
    17. Vives, Xavier, 1990. "Nash equilibrium with strategic complementarities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 305-321.
    18. Amir, Rabah, 1996. "Cournot Oligopoly and the Theory of Supermodular Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 132-148, August.
    19. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1990. "Rationalizability, Learning, and Equilibrium in Games with Strategic Complementarities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(6), pages 1255-1277, November.
    20. Ron Adner & Daniel Levinthal, 2001. "Demand Heterogeneity and Technology Evolution: Implications for Product and Process Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 611-628, May.
    21. Curtat, Laurent O., 1996. "Markov Equilibria of Stochastic Games with Complementarities," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 177-199, December.
    22. Spence, Michael, 1976. "Product Differentiation and Welfare," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(2), pages 407-414, May.
    23. Harrington Jr. , Joseph E., 1995. "Experimentation and Learning in a Differentiated-Products Duopoly," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 275-288, June.
    24. Cellini, Roberto & Lambertini, Luca, 2002. "A differential game approach to investment in product differentiation," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 51-62, November.
    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. Luca Lambertini & Andrea Mantovani, 2010. "Process and product innovation: A differential game approach to product life cycle," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 6(2), pages 227-252, June.
    2. Andrea Mantovani, 2006. "Complementarity between product and process innovation in a monopoly setting," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 219-234.
    3. Saha, Souresh, 2014. "Firm's objective function and product and process R&D," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 484-494.
    4. Christine Halmenschlager & Andrea Mantovani & Michael Troege, 2011. "Demand Expansion And Elasticity Improvement As Complementary Marketing Goals," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 79(1), pages 145-158, January.
    5. Amir, Rabah & De Castro, Luciano, 2017. "Nash equilibrium in games with quasi-monotonic best-responses," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 220-246.
    6. Li, Shoude & Ni, Jian, 2016. "A dynamic analysis of investment in process and product innovation with learning-by-doing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 104-108.
    7. Banholzer, Nicolas & Behrens, Vanessa & Feuerriegel, Stefan & Heinrich, Sebastian & Rammer, Christian & Schmoch, Ulrich & Seliger, Florian & Wörter, Martin, 2019. "Knowledge spillovers from product and process inventions in patents and their impact on firm performance. End report," ZEW Expertises, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research, number 222367.
    8. Lambertini, Luca & Mantovani, Andrea, 2006. "Identifying reaction functions in differential oligopoly games," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 252-271, December.
    9. Amir, Rabah & Wooders, John, 2000. "One-Way Spillovers, Endogenous Innovator/Imitator Roles, and Research Joint Ventures," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 1-25, April.
    10. Lambertini, Luca & Orsini, Raimondello & Palestini, Arsen, 2017. "On the instability of the R&D portfolio in a dynamic monopoly. Or, one cannot get two eggs in one basket," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 703-712.
    11. L. Lambertini & R. Orsini, 2014. "Process Innovation and Product Quality Improvement in a Dynamic Monopoly," Working Papers wp926, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    12. Pan, Xiaojun & Li, Shoude, 2016. "Dynamic optimal control of process–product innovation with learning by doing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(1), pages 136-145.
    13. Susan Athey & Armin Schmutzler, 1999. "Innovation and the Emergence of Market Dominance," Working papers 99-18, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
    14. Maria Rosa Battaggion & Piero Tedeschi, 2006. "Do Process Innovations Induce Product Ones?," Working Papers (-2012) 0601, University of Bergamo, Department of Economics.
    15. Cellini, Roberto & Lambertini, Luca, 2002. "A differential game approach to investment in product differentiation," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 51-62, November.
    16. Chenavaz, Régis, 2012. "Dynamic pricing, product and process innovation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 222(3), pages 553-557.
    17. R. Cellini & L. Lambertini, 2000. "Differential Games and Oligopoly Theory: An Overview," Working Papers 369, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    18. Rabah Amir, 2018. "Special issue: supermodularity and monotone methods in economics," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 66(3), pages 547-556, October.
    19. Noriaki Matsushima & Tomomichi Mizuno, 2009. "Input specificity and product differentiation," ISER Discussion Paper 0745, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    20. Christian Ewerhart, 2020. "Ordinal potentials in smooth games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(4), pages 1069-1100, November.

    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:indorg:v:27:y:2009:i:4:p:508-518. 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: . General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505551 .

    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/inca/505551 .

    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.