IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joevec/v25y2015i5p875-899.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“…then came Cisco, and the rest is history”: a ‘history friendly’ model of the Local Area Networking industry

Author

Listed:
  • Roberto Fontana

    ()

  • Lorenzo Zirulia

    ()

Abstract

We study the role that switching costs, compatibility, and mergers and acquisitions play in influencing the evolution of a multi-market industry. By looking at the case of the Local Area Networking industry, we propose a ‘history friendly model’ to replicate its evolution during the 1990s. Our model explains how a firm can start from a dominant position in one of the existing markets and exploit switching costs and compatibility to enter a new market. Mergers and acquisitions also play an important role as the new market is pioneered by a start-up, which is soon acquired by the dominant incumbent. As a result of the acquisition, the acquiring firm becomes the leader also in the new market. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Roberto Fontana & Lorenzo Zirulia, 2015. "“…then came Cisco, and the rest is history”: a ‘history friendly’ model of the Local Area Networking industry," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 875-899, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:joevec:v:25:y:2015:i:5:p:875-899
    DOI: 10.1007/s00191-015-0422-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00191-015-0422-8
    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 below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Malerba, Franco, 2002. "Sectoral systems of innovation and production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 247-264, February.
    2. Franco Malerba & Richard Nelson & Luigi Orsenigo & Sidney Winter, 2008. "Vertical integration and disintegration of computer firms: a history-friendly model of the coevolution of the computer and semiconductor industries," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 197-231, April.
    3. R. Cowan & N. Jonard & J.-B. Zimmermann, 2006. "Evolving networks of inventors," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 155-174, April.
    4. Bresnahan, Timothy F & Greenstein, Shane, 1999. "Technological Competition and the Structure of the Computer Industry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 1-40, March.
    5. Christian Garavaglia & Franco Malerba & Luigi Orsenigo & Michele Pezzoni, 2012. "Technological regimes and demand structure in the evolution of the pharmaceutical industry," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 677-709, September.
    6. Weisbuch, Gerard & Kirman, Alan & Herreiner, Dorothea, 2000. "Market Organisation and Trading Relationships," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 411-436, April.
    7. Roberto Fontana & Lionel Nesta, 2006. "Product entry in a fast growing industry: the LAN switch market," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 45-64, April.
    8. Guido Buenstorf & Steven Klepper, 2010. "Submarket dynamics and innovation: the case of the US tire industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(5), pages 1563-1587, October.
    9. Sidney Winter & Yuri Kaniovski & Giovanni Dosi, 2003. "A baseline model of industry evolution," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 355-383, October.
    10. Joseph Farrell & Carl Shapiro, 1988. "Dynamic Competition with Switching Costs," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(1), pages 123-137, Spring.
    11. Franco Malerba & Richard Nelson & Luigi Orsenigo & Sidney Winter, 2007. "Demand, innovation, and the dynamics of market structure: The role of experimental users and diverse preferences," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 371-399, August.
    12. Paul Windrum, 2005. "Heterogeneous preferences and new innovation cycles in mature industries: the amateur camera industry 1955--1974," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(6), pages 1043-1074, December.
    13. Andrew A. King & Christopher L. Tucci, 2002. "Incumbent Entry into New Market Niches: The Role of Experience and Managerial Choice in the Creation of Dynamic Capabilities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 171-186, February.
    14. 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.
    15. Roberto Fontana & Lionel Nesta, 2009. "Product Innovation and Survival in a High-Tech Industry," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 34(4), pages 287-306, June.
    16. Steven Klepper & Peter Thompson, 2006. "Submarkets and the evolution of market structure," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(4), pages 861-886, December.
    17. Marie Carpenter & William Lazonick & Mary O'Sullivan, 2003. "The stock market and innovative capability in the New Economy: the optical networking industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(5), pages 963-1034, October.
    18. Franco Malerba & Luigi Orsenigo, 2002. "Innovation and market structure in the dynamics of the pharmaceutical industry and biotechnology: towards a history-friendly model," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(4), pages 667-703, August.
    19. Paul Klemperer, 1987. "Markets with Consumer Switching Costs," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 102(2), pages 375-394.
    20. repec:rje:randje:v:37:y:2006:i:4:p:861-886 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Bottazzi, Giulio & Dosi, Giovanni & Rocchetti, Gaia, 2001. "Modes of Knowledge Accumulation, Entry Regimes and Patterns of Industrial Evolution," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 609-638, September.
    22. Jain, Sanjay, 2012. "Pragmatic agency in technology standards setting: The case of Ethernet," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1643-1654.
    23. Roberto Fontana, & Diana Moriniello, & Andrea Vezzulli, 2014. "An empirical study of technological leadership and persistence in product innovation," Working Papers Department of Economics 2014/21, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.
    24. Malerba, Franco & Nelson, Richard & Orsenigo, Luigi & Winter, Sidney, 2001. "Competition and industrial policies in a 'history friendly' model of the evolution of the computer industry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 635-664, April.
    25. Windrum, Paul & Birchenhall, Chris, 1998. "Is product life cycle theory a special case? Dominant designs and the emergence of market niches through coevolutionary-learning," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 109-134, March.
    26. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 2010. "User-producer relations, innovation and the evolution of market structures under alternative contractual regimes," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 26-40, March.
    27. Garavaglia, Christian, 2010. "Modelling industrial dynamics with "History-friendly" simulations," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 258-275, November.
    28. Ron Adner & Daniel Levinthal, 2001. "Demand Heterogeneity and Technology Evolution: Implications for Product and Process Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 611-628, May.
    29. Beggs, Alan W & Klemperer, Paul, 1992. "Multi-period Competition with Switching Costs," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(3), pages 651-666, May.
    30. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1996. "The Dynamics and Evolution of Industries," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 51-87.
    31. Chang-Wook Kim & Keun Lee, 2003. "Innovation, technological regimes and organizational selection in industry evolution: a 'history friendly model' of the DRAM industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(6), pages 1195-1221, December.
    32. Steven Klepper, 2002. "The capabilities of new firms and the evolution of the US automobile industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(4), pages 645-666, August.
    33. Klemperer, Paul D, 1987. "Entry Deterrence in Markets with Consumer Switching Costs," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 97(388a), pages 99-117, Supplemen.
    34. Malerba, Franco, et al, 1999. "'History-Friendly' Models of Industry Evolution: The Computer Industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 3-40, March.
    35. Giorgio Fagiolo & Alessio Moneta & Paul Windrum, 2007. "A Critical Guide to Empirical Validation of Agent-Based Models in Economics: Methodologies, Procedures, and Open Problems," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 30(3), pages 195-226, October.
    36. David Mayer & Martin Kenney, 2004. "Economic Action Does Not Take Place in a Vacuum: Understanding Cisco's Acquisition and Development Strategy," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 299-325.
    37. Roberto Fontana, 2008. "Competing technologies and market dominance: standard "battles" in the Local Area Networking industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(6), pages 1205-1238, 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. repec:spr:eurasi:v:9:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s40821-019-00121-0 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Simulation; History friendly models; Switching costs; Compatibility; D22; G34; O30; L10; L63;

    JEL classification:

    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
    • L10 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - General
    • L63 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Microelectronics; Computers; Communications Equipment

    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:spr:joevec:v:25:y:2015:i:5:p:875-899. 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 (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

    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.