Leapfrogging in a Vertical Product Differentiation Model
The model considers a two-period duopoly game where in the first period the leader produces a good with a given quality and the other firm can only imitate it. It is the Stackelberg case where, in addition, the leader has the choice of the quality of the good and the imitation is costly, but not prohibitively so. Under this assumption quantities and profits in terms of the quality are derived as subgame perfect equilibrium. In the second period there exists the possibility for the leader and/or the follower to make an investment. The outcome of this is uncertain: it could either be the case that a good of better quality can be introduced, or that a cost-reduction in producing the existing good is attained. The former case is a product innovation, whereas the latter case is a process innovation. By solving the game backwards as a function of the quality of the first period, there exists the possibility of an equilibrium where the follower chooses to invest and the leader does not invest .
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.
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.
Volume (Year): 6 (1999)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/CIJB20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/CIJB20|
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.:
- Wauthy, X., 1994.
"Quality Choice in Models of Vertical Differentiation,"
Discussion Papers (IRES - Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales)
1994033, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
- Wauthy, Xavier, 1996. "Quality Choice in Models of Vertical Differentiation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 345-53, September.
- Jaskold Gabszewicz, J. & Thisse, J. -F., 1979.
"Price competition, quality and income disparities,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 340-359, June.
- Mussa, Michael & Rosen, Sherwin, 1978. "Monopoly and product quality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 301-317, August.
- Beath, John & Katsoulacos, Yannis & Ulph, David, 1987. "Sequential Product Innovation and Industry Evolution," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 97(388a), pages 32-43, Supplemen.
- 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.
- Motta, Massimo, 1993. "Endogenous Quality Choice: Price vs. Quantity Competition," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 113-31, June.
- Choi, Chong Ju & Shin, Hyun Song, 1992. "A Comment on a Model of Vertical Product Differentiation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(2), pages 229-31, June.
- Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Fudenberg, Drew & Gilbert, Richard & Stiglitz, Joseph & Tirole, Jean, 1983. "Preemption, leapfrogging and competition in patent races," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 3-31, June.
- Shaked, Avner & Sutton, John, 1982. "Relaxing Price Competition through Product Differentiation," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 3-13, January.
- Beath, John & Katsoulacos, Yannis & Ulph, David, 1989. "The Game-Theoretic Analysis of Innovation: A Survey," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 163-84, July.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:ijecbs:v:6:y:1999:i:2:p:245-256. 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: (Michael McNulty)
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.