IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rje/randje/v17y1986ispringp133-139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the Market Biased Against Risky R&D?

Author

Listed:
  • Tor Klette
  • David de Meza

Abstract

This article analyzes the riskiness of the R&D strategies chosen by firms engaged in a "winner-takes-all" patent race. In contradiction to Dasgupta and Stiglitz (1980) we show that, when the distribution of invention times is symmetric, the market equilibrium cannot be safer and may be riskier than is socially optimal. We identify the economic reason for the emergence but only if there are few competitors.

Suggested Citation

  • Tor Klette & David de Meza, 1986. "Is the Market Biased Against Risky R&D?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(1), pages 133-139, Spring.
    • Handle: RePEc:rje:randje:v:17:y:1986:i:spring:p:133-139
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0741-6261%28198621%2917%3A1%3C133%3AITMBAR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z&origin=repec
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to JSTOR subscribers. See http://www.jstor.org for details.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xing, Mingqing, 2014. "On the optimal choices of R&D risk in a market with network externalities," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 71-74.
    2. Yongmin Chen & Shiyuan Pan & Tianle Zhang, 2018. "Patentability, R&D Direction, And Cumulative Innovation," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(4), pages 1969-1993, November.
    3. Isabelle Brocas, 2003. "Les enjeux de la réglementation de la recherche et développement," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 113(1), pages 125-148.
    4. Nisvan Erkal & Deborah Minehart, 2007. "Optimal Sharing Strategies in Dynamic Games of Research and Development," EAG Discussions Papers 200707, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
    5. Bagwell, Kyle & Staiger, Robert W, 1992. "The Sensitivity of Strategic and Corrective R&D Policy in Battles for Monopoly," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 33(4), pages 795-816, November.
    6. Cabral, Luis M. B., 2002. "Increasing Dominance with No Efficiency Effect," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 471-479, February.
    7. Jay Pil Choi & Heiko Gerlach, 2014. "Selection Biases in Complementary R&D Projects," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(4), pages 899-924, December.
    8. Igor Letina, 2016. "The road not taken: competition and the R&D portfolio," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 47(2), pages 433-460, May.
    9. Andreas Fier & Dietmar Harhoff, 2002. "Die Evolution der bundesdeutschen Forschungs– und Technologiepolitik: Rückblick und Bestandsaufnahme," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 3(3), pages 279-301, August.
    10. Axel Anderson & Luís M. B. Cabral, 2007. "Go for broke or play it safe? Dynamic competition with choice of variance," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(3), pages 593-609, September.
    11. Liad Wagman & Vincent Conitzer, 2012. "Choosing fair lotteries to defeat the competition," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 41(1), pages 91-129, February.
    12. Kato, Atsushi, 2005. "Market structure and the allocation of R&D expenditures," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 55-59, April.
    13. José Luis Moraga‐González & Evgenia Motchenkova & Saish Nevrekar, 2022. "Mergers and innovation portfolios," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 53(4), pages 641-677, December.
    14. Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 1990. "Risky R&D in Oligopolistic Product Markets," Discussion Papers 872, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    15. Kaustav Das & Nicolas Klein, 2020. "Do Stronger Patents Lead to Faster Innovation? The Effect of Duplicative Search," Discussion Papers in Economics 20/03, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    16. Bagwell, Kyle & Staiger, Robert W., 1994. "The sensitivity of strategic and corrective R&D policy in oligopolistic industries," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1-2), pages 133-150, February.
    17. Bulut, Harun & Moschini, GianCarlo, 2006. "Patents, trade secrets and the correlation among R&D projects," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 131-137, April.
    18. Squicciarini, Mariagrazia & Loikkanen, Torsti, 2008. "Going Global: The Challenges for Knowledge-based Economies," MPRA Paper 9663, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Mark Whitmeyer, 2021. "Submission Fees in Risk-Taking Contests," Papers 2108.13506, arXiv.org.
    20. Tishler, Asher, 2008. "How risky should an R&D program be?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 268-271, May.
    21. Tse, Chung Yi, 2001. "Risky quality choice," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(1-2), pages 185-212, January.

    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:rje:randje:v:17:y:1986:i:spring:p:133-139. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.rje.org .

    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.