IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prs/ecoprv/ecop_0249-4744_1992_num_102_1_5273.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choix technologiques et stratégies de dissuasion d'entrée

Author

Listed:
  • William James Adams
  • Bruno Crépon
  • David Encaoua

Abstract

[spa] Decisiones tecnológicas y estrategias de disuasión de entrada, . por Willian James Adams, Bruno Crépon y David Encaoua.. . Entre un conjunto de innovaciones, una empresa puede elegir la tecnología que le resuite más favorable para mantener su poder de mercado. En el presente artículo se expresa la hipótesis que la estructura de mercado es el resultado de una opción tecnológica. El modelo se présenta en forma de juego entre una empresa establecida en el mercado y un outsider potential. Estableciendo los nivelés del coste unitario mnimo y el tamaño eficaz, la empresa establecida en el mercado puede, en determinadas condiciones, disuadir a la empresa de la competencia para que no pénètre en su mercado. [ger] Technologische Optionen und Strategien zur Verhinderung des Marktzutritts von Konkurrenten, . von William James Adams, Bruno Crépon, David Encaoua.. . Aus einer Reihe von Innovationen kann ein Unternehmen die Technologie wählen, die sich für die Aufrechterhaltung seiner Marktmacht am besten eignet. In diesem Artikel wird die Hypothèse aufgestellt, daß die Struktur eines Marktes das Ergebnis der gewählten Technologie darstellt. Das Modell hat die Form eines Spiels zwischen einem etablierten Unternehmen und einem potentiellen "Newcomer". Indem das etablierte Untemehmen dann die Höhe der Mindeststückkosten und die für die Effizienz erf orderh'che Größe bestimmt, kann es unter bestimmten Bedingungen seinem Konkurrenten den Marktzutritt versperren. [fre] Choix technologiques et stratégies de dissuasion d'entrée, . par William James Adams, Bruno Crépon, David Encaoua.. . Une entreprise peut sélectionner, au sein d'un ensemble d'innovations, la technologie qui lui est le plus favorable pour maintenir son pouvoir de marché. On avance ici l'hypothèse que la structure de marché résulte du choix technologique. Le modèle se présente sous la forme d'un jeu entre une firme installée et un entrant potentiel. En décidant alors les niveaux du coût unitaire minimal et de la taille efficiente, la firme installée peut, dans certaines conditions, dissuader l'entrée de son concurrent. [eng] Technological Decisions and Entry Dissuasion Strategies, . by William James Adams, Bruno Crépon, David Encaoua.. . A firm may opt for the technology most suitable for maintaining its market power from a number of innovations. It is argued here that market structure is the result of a technological decision. The model is based on the relationship between a firm which is already set up and another one planning on coming in. By determining the minimum unit cost level and efficient size, the existing firm can, under certain conditions, prevent its competitor from moving in on its territory.

Suggested Citation

  • William James Adams & Bruno Crépon & David Encaoua, 1992. "Choix technologiques et stratégies de dissuasion d'entrée," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 102(1), pages 27-36.
  • Handle: RePEc:prs:ecoprv:ecop_0249-4744_1992_num_102_1_5273
    DOI: 10.3406/ecop.1992.5273
    Note: DOI:10.3406/ecop.1992.5273
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/ecop.1992.5273
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/ecop_0249-4744_1992_num_102_1_5273
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3406/ecop.1992.5273?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William J. Baumol & Dietrich Fischer, 1978. "Cost-Minimizing Number of Firms and Determination of Industry Structure," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 92(3), pages 439-467.
    2. Jennifer F. Reinganum, 1985. "Innovation and Industry Evolution," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 100(1), pages 81-99.
    3. Dasgupta, Partha & Stiglitz, Joseph, 1980. "Industrial Structure and the Nature of Innovative Activity," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 90(358), pages 266-293, June.
    4. Dasgupta, Partha & Stiglitz, Joseph, 1981. "Entry, innovation, exit : Towards a dynamic theory of oligopolistic industrial structure," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 137-158.
    5. 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.
    6. Avner Shaked & John Sutton, 1982. "Natural Oligopolies and the Gains from Trade," STICERD - Theoretical Economics Paper Series 51, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
    7. Gilbert, Richard J., 1989. "Mobility barriers and the value of incumbency," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 8, pages 475-535, Elsevier.
    8. Gerosky, P A & Pomroy, R, 1990. "Innovation and the Evolution of Market Structure," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 299-314, March.
    9. repec:adr:anecst:y:1989:i:15-16:p:03 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Vickers, John S, 1986. "The Evolution of Market Structure When There Is a Sequence of Innovations," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(1), pages 1-12, September.
    11. David Encaoua, 1989. "Différenciation des produits et structures de marché: un tour d'horizon," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 15-16, pages 51-83.
    12. Edwin Mansfield, 1984. "R&D and Innovation: Some Empirical Findings," NBER Chapters, in: R&D, Patents, and Productivity, pages 127-154, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Shaked, Avner & Sutton, John, 1987. "Product Differentiation and Industrial Structure," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 131-146, December.
    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. David Encaoua & Pierre Mohnen & Emmanuel Duguet & Bruno Crépon, 1993. "Diffusion du savoir et incitation à l'innovation : le rôle des accords de coopération en recherche et développement," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 266(1), pages 47-63.

    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. 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.
    2. Ping Lin & Tianle Zhang & Wen Zhou, 2020. "Vertical integration and disruptive cross‐market R&D," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 51-73, January.
    3. Uwe Cantner & Werner Güth & Andreas Nicklisch & Torsten Weiland, 2009. "Competition In Product Design: An Experiment Exploring Innovation Behavior," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(4), pages 724-752, November.
    4. Francesco Laforgia & Fabio Montobbio & Luigi Orsenigo, 2007. "IPRs, technological and industrial development and growth: the case of the pharmaceutical industry," KITeS Working Papers 206, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised Oct 2007.
    5. Puay Khoon Toh & Taekyu Kim, 2013. "Why Put All Your Eggs in One Basket? A Competition-Based View of How Technological Uncertainty Affects a Firm’s Technological Specialization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 1214-1236, August.
    6. Ted O'Donoghue, 1998. "A Patentability Requirement for Sequential Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 29(4), pages 654-679, Winter.
    7. David S. Evans & Richard Schmalensee, 2002. "Some Economic Aspects of Antitrust Analysis in Dynamically Competitive Industries," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 1-50, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Elie Ofek & Miklos Sarvary, 2003. "R&D, Marketing, and the Success of Next-Generation Products," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 355-370, July.
    9. Mathias Erlei & Anne-Kathrin Dimmig, 2012. "Quasi-Rational R&D Behavior in an Environment with Fundamental Uncertainty," TUC Working Papers in Economics 0008, Abteilung für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Technische Universität Clausthal (Department of Economics, Technical University Clausthal).
    10. Smolny, Werner, 1997. "Endogenous innovations in a model of the firm: Theory and empirical application for West-German manufacturing firms," Discussion Papers 39, University of Konstanz, Center for International Labor Economics (CILE).
    11. Hyunbae Chun & Sung-Bae Mun, 2014. "Innovative Activities of an Incumbent and a Potential Entrant: An Empirical Exploration of the Role of Uncertainty in Product and Process Innovations," Working Papers 1406, Nam Duck-Woo Economic Research Institute, Sogang University (Former Research Institute for Market Economy).
    12. Seyed H. Hosseini & Richard Gray & Mohammad Torshizi, 2019. "Cross‐licensing agreements in presence of technological improvements," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 67(1), pages 115-130, March.
    13. Lin, Ping, 1998. "Product market competition and R&D rivalry," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 105-111, January.
    14. 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.
    15. Boone, Jan, 2001. "Intensity of competition and the incentive to innovate," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 705-726, April.
    16. Jacob Seifert, 2015. "Welfare effects of compulsory licensing," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 317-350, December.
    17. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    18. Gert Brunekreeft & David Newbery, 2006. "Should merchant transmission investment be subject to a must-offer provision?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 233-260, November.
    19. Michael Reksulak & William F. Shughart & Robert D. Tollison, 2008. "Innovation and the opportunity cost of monopoly," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(8), pages 619-627.
    20. Gilbert, Richard J. & Katz, Michael L., 2011. "Efficient division of profits from complementary innovations," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 443-454, July.

    More about this item

    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:prs:ecoprv:ecop_0249-4744_1992_num_102_1_5273. 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: Equipe PERSEE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.persee.fr/collection/ecop .

    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.