IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Innovation or imitation? The effect of spillovers and competitive pressure on firms’ R&D strategy choice

  • Olga Slivko


  • Bernd Theilen


In this paper a firm’s R&D strategy is assumed to be endogenous and allowed to depend on both internal firm characteristics and external factors. Firms choose between two strategies, either they engage in R&D or abstain from own R&D and imitate the outcomes of innovators. This yields three types of equilibria, in which either all firms innovate, some firms innovate and others imitate, or no firm innovates. Firms’ equilibrium strategies crucially depend on external factors. We find that the efficiency of intellectual property rights protection positively affects firms’ incentives to engage in R&D, while excessive competitive pressure has a negative effect. In addition, smaller firms are found to be more likely to become imitators when the product is homogeneous and the level of spillovers is high. Regarding social welfare our results indicate that strengthening intellectual property protection can have an ambiguous effect. In markets characterized by a high rate of innovation a reduction of intellectual property rights protection can discourage innovative performance substantially. However, a reduction of patent protection can also increase social welfare because it may induce imitation. This indicates that policy issues such as the optimal length and breadth of patent protection cannot be resolved without taking into account specific market and firm characteristics. Copyright Springer-Verlag Wien 2014

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:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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 Springer in its journal Journal of Economics.

Volume (Year): 112 (2014)
Issue (Month): 3 (July)
Pages: 253-282

in new window

Handle: RePEc:kap:jeczfn:v:112:y:2014:i:3:p:253-282
Contact details of provider: Web page:

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. Rabah Amir & John Wooders, 1998. "One-Way Spillovers, Endogenous Innovator/Imitator Roles and Research Jointventures," CIE Discussion Papers 1998-10, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. Centre for Industrial Economics.
  2. Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1983. "Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 741-48, September.
  3. Fershtman, Chaim & Markovich, Sarit, 2006. "Patents, Imitation and Licensing in an Asymmetric Dynamic R&D Race," CEPR Discussion Papers 5481, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  4. Boone, J., 2000. "Competitive pressure : The effects on investments in product and process innovation," Other publications TiSEM 88418185-7603-4c36-92fd-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
  5. repec:oup:restud:v:68:y:2001:i:3:p:467-92 is not listed on IDEAS
  6. Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2003. "Intellectual Property: When is it the Best Incentive System?," Levine's Working Paper Archive 618897000000000532, David K. Levine.
  7. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, 1996. "Scale, Scope, and Spillovers: The Determinants of Research Productivity in Drug Discovery," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(1), pages 32-59, Spring.
  8. 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 514-26, June.
  9. repec:oup:restud:v:66:y:1999:i:3:p:529-54 is not listed on IDEAS
  10. Philippe Aghion & Peter Howitt, 1990. "A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction," NBER Working Papers 3223, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  11. Bernd Theilen, 2012. "Product differentiation and competitive pressure," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 107(3), pages 257-266, November.
  12. Philippe Aghion & Nick Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 120(2), pages 701-728.
  13. De Bondt, Raymond & Slaets, Patrick & Cassiman, Bruno, 1992. "The degree of spillovers and the number of rivals for maximum effective R &D," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 35-54, March.
  14. Cefis, Elena & Orsenigo, Luigi, 2001. "The persistence of innovative activities: A cross-countries and cross-sectors comparative analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(7), pages 1139-1158, August.
  15. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2007. "The Impact of Uncertain Intellectual Property Rights on the Market For Ideas: Evidence From Patent Grant Delays," NBER Working Papers 13234, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  16. Dasgupta, Partha & Stiglitz, Joseph, 1980. "Industrial Structure and the Nature of Innovative Activity," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 90(358), pages 266-93, June.
  17. James Bessen & Eric Maskin, 2006. "Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation," Economics Working Papers 0025, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
  18. Elhanan Helpman, 1992. "Innovation, Imitation, and Intellectual Property Rights," NBER Working Papers 4081, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  19. Harris, Christopher & Howitt, Peter & Vickers, John & Aghion, Philippe, 2001. "Competition, Imitation and Growth with Step-by-Step Innovation," Scholarly Articles 12375013, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  20. Geroski, P A, 1990. "Innovation, Technological Opportunity, and Market Structure," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 586-602, July.
  21. Grossman, G.M. & Helpman, E., 1989. "Endogemour Product Cycles," Papers 10-89, Tel Aviv.
  22. Cefis, Elena, 2003. "Is there persistence in innovative activities?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 489-515, April.
  23. Robert Schmidt, 2013. "Price competition and innovation in markets with brand loyalty," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 109(2), pages 147-173, June.
  24. Zhou Wen, 2009. "Innovation, Imitation and Competition," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, July.
  25. Tishler, Asher & Milstein, Irena, 2009. "R&D wars and the effects of innovation on the success and survivability of firms in oligopoly markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 519-531, July.
  26. Grossman, G.M. & Helpman, E., 1989. "Endogenous Prduct Cycles," Papers 144, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
  27. 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 232-43, May.
  28. Halmenschlager C., 2004. "Spillovers and Absorptive Capacity in a Patent Race," Working Papers ERMES 0409, ERMES, University Paris 2.
  29. repec:oup:qjecon:v:120:y:2005:i:2:p:701-728 is not listed on IDEAS
  30. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction," Scholarly Articles 12490578, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  31. repec:oup:qjecon:v:94:y:1980:i:4:p:675-95 is not listed on IDEAS
  32. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Etro, Federico Gabriele & Kraft, Kornelius, 2008. "The Effect of Entry on R&D Investment of Leaders: Theory and Empirical Evidence," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-078, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  33. Serguey Braguinsky & Salavat Gabdrakhmanov & Atsushi Ohyama, 2007. "A Theory of Competitive Industry Dynamics With Innovation and Imitation," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 10(4), pages 729-760, October.
  34. Jiahua Che & Larry Qiu & Wen Zhou, 2009. "Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement in Imperfect Markets," Levine's Working Paper Archive 814577000000000242, David K. Levine.
  35. Tapio Palokangas, 2011. "Optimal patent length and breadth in an economy with creative destruction and non-diversifiable risk," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 1-27, January.
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:kap:jeczfn:v:112:y:2014:i:3:p:253-282. 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: (Sonal Shukla)

or (Christopher F. Baum)

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.