IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ijb/journl/v19y2020i1p47-60.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

R&D Expenditure in a Competitive Landscape: A Game Theoretic Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Salman Ali

    (Strategic Management Area Indian Institute of Management Shillong, India)

  • Syed Mizanur Rahman

    (Informatik Area Technische Universit?t Kaiserslautern, Germany)

Abstract

A firm’s R&D (Research & Development) expenditure is dependent on the competitive environment and the industry structure it operates in. The purpose of this paper is to understand the drivers of a firm’s R&D that are related to the industry structure and to predict the nature of R&D expenditure incurred by firms in different scenarios. We scroll through the extant literature on various game theoretic models related to R&D expenditure in different contexts before coming up with a conceptual model that can be tested and developed further. We anticipate this framework can be useful to understand as well as to forecast the R&D spending pattern at the level of individual firms and for a whole industry. Apart from its contribution to literature, we also discuss some prospective managerial and policy implications of this model.

Suggested Citation

  • Salman Ali & Syed Mizanur Rahman, 2020. "R&D Expenditure in a Competitive Landscape: A Game Theoretic Approach," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 19(1), pages 47-60, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:ijb:journl:v:19:y:2020:i:1:p:47-60
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ijbe.fcu.edu.tw/assets/ijbe/past_issue/No.19-1/pdf/vol_19-1-3.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ijbe.fcu.edu.tw/assets/ijbe/past_issue/No.19-1/abstract/03.html
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chang‐Yang Lee, 2005. "A New Perspective On Industry R&D And Market Structure," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 101-122, March.
    2. Louri, H. & Anagnostaki, V., 1995. "Entry and exit from Greek manufacturing industry: a test of the symmetry hypothesis," MPRA Paper 40575, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Wojan, Timothy R. & Crown, Daniel & Rupasingha, Anil, 2018. "Varieties of innovation and business survival: Does pursuit of incremental or far-ranging innovation make manufacturing establishments more resilient?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1801-1810.
    4. Jay Pil Choi, 1996. "Preemptive R&D, Rent Dissipation, and the "Leverage Theory"," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 111(4), pages 1153-1181.
    5. Douglas Cumming & Jeffrey MacIntosh, 2000. "The Determinants of R & D Expenditures: A Study of the Canadian Biotechnology Industry," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 17(4), pages 357-370, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Gamal Atallah, 2009. "A Three-Period Analysis of R&D Spillovers in the Presence of an Industry Life Cycle Pattern," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 8(1), pages 21-35, April.
    8. Jennifer F. Reinganum, 1981. "On the Diffusion of New Technology: A Game Theoretic Approach," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 48(3), pages 395-405.
    9. Masahiko Hattori & Yasuhito Tanaka, 2018. "Negative Royalty in Duopoly and Definition of License Fee: General Demand and Cost Functions," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 17(2), pages 163-178, September.
    10. Andres Almazan & Carlos A. Molina, 2005. "Intra‐Industry Capital Structure Dispersion," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 263-297, June.
    11. Jinyoung Kim & Sangjoon John Lee & Gerald Marschke, 2009. "Relation of Firm Size to R&D Productivity," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 8(1), pages 7-19, April.
    12. Peter Neuhäusler & Rainer Frietsch & Carolin Mund & Verena Eckl, 2017. "Identifying the Technology Profiles of R&D Performing Firms — A Matching of R&D and Patent Data," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(01), pages 1-30, February.
    13. Naoto Jinji, 2003. "Strategic policy for product R&D with symmetric costs," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 993-1006, November.
    14. Rosenkranz, Stephanie, 1995. "Innovation and cooperation under vertical product differentiation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, March.
    15. Salant, Stephen W, 1984. "Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(1), pages 247-250, March.
    16. 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.
    17. Lunn, John E, 1986. "An Empirical Analysis of Process and Product Patenting: A Simultaneous Equation Framework," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(3), pages 319-330, March.
    18. Joshi, Sumit & Vonortas, Nicholas S., 2001. "Convergence to symmetry in dynamic strategic models of R&D: The undiscounted case," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 25(12), pages 1881-1897, December.
    19. Pia Weiss, 2003. "Adoption of Product and Process Innovations in Differentiated Markets: The Impact of Competition," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 23(3), pages 301-314, December.
    20. Ortiz-Villajos, José M. & Sotoca, Sonia, 2018. "Innovation and business survival: A long-term approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1418-1436.
    21. Nancy T. Gallini & Ralph A. Winter, 1985. "Licensing in the Theory of Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(2), pages 237-252, Summer.
    22. Ulrich Kaiser, 2002. "R&D Spillovers and Endogenous Absorptive Capacity," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 158(2), pages 286-303, June.
    23. Catherine Liston-Heyes & Alan Pilkington, 2004. "Inventive concentration in the production of green technology: A comparative analysis of fuel cell patents," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 15-25, February.
    24. Lai, Yung-Lung & Lin, Feng-Jyh & Lin, Yi-Hsin, 2015. "Factors affecting firm's R&D investment decisions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 840-844.
    25. Tom Lee & Louis L. Wilde, 1980. "Market Structure and Innovation: A Reformulation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 94(2), pages 429-436.
    26. Kishi, Keiichi, 2018. "A Patentability Requirement And Industry-Targeted R&D," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(4), pages 719-753, June.
    27. Gallini, Nancy T, 1984. "Deterrence by Market Sharing: A Strategic Incentive for Licensing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(5), pages 931-941, December.
    28. Chung, Moon Young & Lee, Keun, 2015. "How Absorptive Capacity is Formed in a Latecomer Economy: Different Roles of Foreign Patent and Know-how Licensing in Korea," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 678-694.
    29. Bouncken, Ricarda B. & Kraus, Sascha, 2013. "Innovation in knowledge-intensive industries: The double-edged sword of coopetition," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(10), pages 2060-2070.
    30. Baskin, Jonathan B, 1987. "Corporate Liquidity in Games of Monopoly Power," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(2), pages 312-319, May.
    31. Trina Larsen Andras & Srini S. Srinivasan, 2003. "Advertising Intensity and R&D Intensity: Differences across Industries and Their Impact on Firm's Performance," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 2(2), pages 167-176, August.
    32. Harry Bloch, 2018. "Innovation and the Evolution of Industry Structure," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 73-83, January.
    33. Sang-Seung Yi, 1998. "Whom to license patented technology," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 189-195.
    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. Salman Ali, 2021. "Focused Strategies During Re-internationalization:Evidence from India," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 20(3), pages 249-263, December.

    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. Joshua S. Gans & Scott Stern, 2000. "Incumbency and R&D Incentives: Licensing the Gale of Creative Destruction," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(4), pages 485-511, December.
    2. Almeida Costa, Luis & Dierickx, Ingemar, 2002. "Licensing and bundling," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 251-267, February.
    3. Richard Gilbert, 2006. "Looking for Mr. Schumpeter: Where Are We in the Competition-Innovation Debate?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 6, pages 159-215, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. repec:cdl:compol:qt9xh5p5p9 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Levin, Mark (Левин, Марк) & Matrosova, Kseniya (Матросова, Ксения), 2017. "Development and Analysis of Economic Models of Innovation Incentives [Разработка И Исследование Экономических Моделей Стимулирования Инновационных Процессов]," Working Papers 061713, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    6. Isabelle Brocas, 2003. "Les enjeux de la réglementation de la recherche et développement," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 113(1), pages 125-148.
    7. repec:cdl:econwp:qt9xh5p5p9 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Arijit Mukherjee & Sugata Marjit, 2004. "R&D organization and technology transfer," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 243-258, May.
    9. David Moroz, 2005. "Production of Scientific Knowledge and Radical Uncertainty: The Limits of the Normative Approach in Innovation Economics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, November.
    10. Dhanora, Madan & Sharma, Ruchi & Khachoo, Qayoom, 2018. "Non-linear impact of product and process innovations on market power: A theoretical and empirical investigation," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 67-77.
    11. Dirk Czarnitzki & Kornelius Kraft, 2010. "Which Firms Buy Licenses? Market Positions and License Expenditures," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 112(3), pages 471-488, September.
    12. Carlo Capuano & Iacopo Grassi, 2019. "Imperfect patent protection, licensing, and Social Welfare," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 39(4), pages 2639-2649.
    13. Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2002. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 51-78, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Yongmin Chen & Marius Schwartz, 2013. "Product Innovation Incentives: Monopoly vs. Competition," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 513-528, September.
    15. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Kraft, Kornelius, 2004. "An empirical test of the asymmetric models on innovative activity: who invests more into R&D, the incumbent or the challenger?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 153-173, June.
    16. Carlo Capuano & Iacopo Grassi, 2020. "Imperfect patent protection, licensing, and willingness to pay for the innovation," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 47(2), pages 333-359, June.
    17. Kaplan, Todd R. & Luski, Israel & Wettstein, David, 2003. "Innovative activity and sunk cost," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(8), pages 1111-1133, October.
    18. Vishwasrao, Sharmila, 2007. "Royalties vs. fees: How do firms pay for foreign technology?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 741-759, August.
    19. Arijit Mukherjee & Soma Mukherjee, 2002. "Licensing and the Incentive for Innovation," Industrial Organization 0211008, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Hiller, R. Scott & Savage, Scott J. & Waldman, Donald M., 2018. "Using aggregate market data to estimate patent value: An application to United States smartphones 2010 to 2015," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1-31.
    21. Chang, Ray-Yun & Hwang, Hong & Peng, Cheng-Hau, 2013. "Technology licensing, R&D and welfare," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 396-399.
    22. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2002. "When Does Start-Up Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 571-586, Winter.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C79 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Other
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O39 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Other

    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:ijb:journl:v:19:y:2020:i:1:p:47-60. 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: Szu-Hsien Ho (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cbfcutw.html .

    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.