IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/indorg/v27y2009i5p632-638.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forgoing invention to deter entry

Author

Listed:
  • Creane, Anthony
  • Miyagiwa, Kaz

Abstract

A monopoly facing potential entry may not want to develop an efficient technology even at zero R&D costs. Such a phenomenon occurs if a new technology is distinct from the existing one so production uncertainty becomes technology-specific. Then the monopoly can reduce the entrant's post-entry profit to the point of deterrence by using the existing technology with which the entrant would enter. We show that the monopoly develops a new technology when the entrant faces a sufficiently high or low entry cost but forgoes invention when the entry cost is intermediate. These results hold both in quantity and price competition.

Suggested Citation

  • Creane, Anthony & Miyagiwa, Kaz, 2009. "Forgoing invention to deter entry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 632-638, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:indorg:v:27:y:2009:i:5:p:632-638
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-7187(09)00026-5
    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. Dasgupta, Partha & Maskin, Eric, 1987. "The Simple Economics of Research Portfolios," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 97(387), pages 581-595, September.
    2. Michael Waldman, 1987. "Noncooperative Entry Deterrence, Uncertainty, and the Free Rider Problem," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 54(2), pages 301-310.
    3. Rey, Patrick & Tirole, Jean, 1986. "The Logic of Vertical Restraints," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(5), pages 921-939, December.
    4. Jay Pil Choi & Sang-Seung Yi, 2000. "Vertical Foreclosure with the Choice of Input Specifications," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(4), pages 717-743, Winter.
    5. Salop, Steven C, 1979. "Strategic Entry Deterrence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(2), pages 335-338, May.
    6. Gilbert, Richard J & Newbery, David M G, 1982. "Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 514-526, June.
    7. Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1983. "Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 741-748, September.
    8. Salop, Steven C & Scheffman, David T, 1983. "Raising Rivals' Costs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(2), pages 267-271, May.
    9. Salop, Steven C & Scheffman, David T, 1987. "Cost-Raising Strategies," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 19-34, September.
    10. Eric S. Maskin, 1999. "Uncertainty and entry deterrence," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 14(2), pages 429-437.
    11. Takalo, Tuomas & Kanniainen, Vesa, 2000. "Do patents slow down technological progress?: Real options in research, patenting, and market introduction," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(7), pages 1105-1127, October.
    12. Joseph E. Harrington Jr., 1987. "Oligopolistic Entry Deterrence under Incomplete Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(2), pages 211-231, Summer.
    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. Mizuno, Tomomichi & Takauchi, Kazuhiro, 2013. "Rules of origin and uncertain cost of compliance," MPRA Paper 44431, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899, Fall.
    2. Upender Subramanian & Jagmohan S. Raju & Z. John Zhang, 2013. "Exclusive Handset Arrangements in the Wireless Industry: A Competitive Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 246-270, March.
    3. Michael Waldman, 1987. "Underinvestment in Entry Deterrence: When and Why," UCLA Economics Working Papers 456, UCLA Department of Economics.
    4. Karbowski, Adam, 2019. "Greed and fear in downstream R&D games," EconStor Open Access Articles, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 63-76.
    5. Langinier, Corinne & Moschini, GianCarlo, 2002. "Economics of Patents: An Overview, The," Staff General Research Papers Archive 2061, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    6. Krishnendu Ghosh DASTIDAR & YANO Makoto, 2017. "In many emerging economies corruption, poor quality of information and poor governance lead to restricted entry. In this paper we analyze the determinants of the .height.of entry barrier in a developi," Discussion papers 17010, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    7. Etro, Federico, 2016. "Research in economics and industrial organization," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 511-517.
    8. Zava Aydemir & Stefan Buehler, 2002. "Estimating Vertical Foreclosure in U.S. Gasoline Supply," SOI - Working Papers 0212, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
    9. 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.
    10. Isabelle Brocas, 2003. "Les enjeux de la réglementation de la recherche et développement," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 113(1), pages 125-148.
    11. Anthony Creane & Kaz Miyagiwa, 2007. "The Profitable Suppression of Inventions: Technology Choice and Entry Deterrence," ISER Discussion Paper 0702, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    12. Henkel, Joachim & Rønde, Thomas & Wagner, Marcus, 2010. "And the Winner Is--Acquired: Entrepreneurship as a Contest with Acquisition as the Prize," CEPR Discussion Papers 8147, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Athanasopoulos, Thanos, 2014. "Incentives to Innovate, Compatibility and Efficiency in Durable Goods Markets with Network Effects," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1054, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    14. O'Shea, Lucy & Ulph, Alistair, 2008. "The role of pest resistance in biotechnology R&D investment strategy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 213-228, March.
    15. Jay Pil Choi & Heiko Gerlach, 2018. "Optimal Cross-Licensing Arrangements: Collusion versus Entry Deterrence," CESifo Working Paper Series 7151, CESifo.
    16. Kenneth S. Corts, 2000. "Focused Firms and the Incentive to Innovate," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(3), pages 339-362, June.
    17. Bertrand, Olivier & Zuniga, Pluvia, 2006. "R&D and M&A: Are cross-border M&A different? An investigation on OECD countries," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 401-423, March.
    18. Barbara J. Spencer & Ronald W. Jones, 1991. "Vertical Foreclosure and International Trade Policy," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 58(1), pages 153-170.
    19. Chakravarthi Narasimhan & Z. John Zhang, 2000. "Market Entry Strategy Under Firm Heterogeneity and Asymmetric Payoffs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 313-327, November.
    20. Arlan Brucal & Michael Roberts, 2015. "Can Energy Efficiency Standards Reduce Prices and Improve Quality? Evidence from the US Clothes Washer Market," Working Papers 2015-5, University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

    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:5:p:632-638. 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: Nithya Sathishkumar (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.