IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea02/19842.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Should The Public Sector Conduct Genomics R&D?

Author

Listed:
  • Naseem, Anwar
  • Oehmke, James F.

Abstract

The nature of the observed market structure and R&D competition in genomics research is used as the basis for a comparative analysis of research under a mixed oligopoly, pure oligopoly and monopoly when the timing of the innovation outcome is uncertain (as in an R&D race), the winner-take-all assumption is relaxed and the profits in later stages are a function of the R&D expenditures of prior stages. The sufficient conditions under which a mixed oligopoly performs more R&D than the pure oligopoly and monopoly markets are derived and are shown to be a function of a) that public firm's objective is strictly greater than in the winning state then in the losing state, b) profits for the winning and losing private firms in the private duopoly are equal, post innovation, and c) the objective function of the firms in the mixed duopoly are increasing in research faster than they are for firms in the other two cases. It is suggested that when these conditions are met, the public firm can play a role in increasing the level of research in genomics.

Suggested Citation

  • Naseem, Anwar & Oehmke, James F., 2002. "Should The Public Sector Conduct Genomics R&D?," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19842, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea02:19842
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.19842
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/19842/files/sp02na05.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.19842?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. Kamien,Morton I. & Schwartz,Nancy L., 1982. "Market Structure and Innovation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521293853, December.
    2. Delbono, Flavio & Denicolo, Vincenzo, 1993. "Regulating innovative activity : The role of a public firm," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 35-48, March.
    3. Universities-National Bureau Committee for Economic Research & Committee on Economic Growth of the Social Science Research Council, 1962. "The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number univ62-1, March.
    4. Flavio DELBONO & Vincenzo DENICOLÒ, 1991. "Races of Research and Development between Firms with Different Incentives to Innovate," Discussion Papers (REL - Recherches Economiques de Louvain) 1991021, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    5. Richard Nelson, 1962. "Introduction to "The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors"," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 1-16, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Bontems, Philippe & Vercammen, James, 2006. "Public regulation of R&D racings," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21367, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    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. David Paul A., 2008. "The Historical Origins of 'Open Science': An Essay on Patronage, Reputation and Common Agency Contracting in the Scientific Revolution," Capitalism and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-106, October.
    2. Laura Magazzini & Fabio Pammolli & Massimo Riccaboni & Maria Alessandra Rossi, 2009. "Patent disclosure and R&D competition in pharmaceuticals," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(5), pages 467-486.
    3. Anja, Breitwieser & Neil, Foster, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey," MPRA Paper 36094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Hanna Hottenrott & Bettina Peters, 2012. "Innovative Capability and Financing Constraints for Innovation: More Money, More Innovation?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(4), pages 1126-1142, November.
    5. Mario Coccia, 2006. "Classifications of innovations: Survey and future directions," CERIS Working Paper 200602, CNR-IRCrES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth - Torino (TO) ITALY - former Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO) ITALY.
    6. Fagerberg, Jan & Fosaas, Morten & Sapprasert, Koson, 2012. "Innovation: Exploring the knowledge base," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1132-1153.
    7. Naseem, Anwar & Oehmke, James F., 2006. "Spillovers, Joint Ventures and Social Welfare in a Mixed Duopoly R&D Race," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21351, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. José L. González-Pernía & Iñaki Peña-Legazkue, 2011. "The impact of export-oriented entrepreneurship on regional economic growth," ERSA conference papers ersa11p1526, European Regional Science Association.
    9. Giovanni Immordino & Michele Polo, 2011. "Optimal Legal Standards in Antitrust: Traditional v. Innovative Industries," Working Papers 420, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    10. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2015. "Ranking Games," Evaluation Review, , vol. 39(1), pages 102-129, February.
    11. Philippe Aghion & Paul A. David & Dominique Foray, 2007. "Science, Technology and Innovation for Economic Growth: Towards Linking Policy Research and Practice in 'STIG Systems'," Discussion Papers 06-039, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, revised Oct 2008.
    12. Julien Jacob, 2011. "Innovation and diffusion in risky industries under liability law: the case of “double-impact” innovations," Working Papers of BETA 2011-24, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    13. Bergman, Karin, 2011. "Productivity Effects of Privately and Publicly Funded R&D," Working Papers 2011:28, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    14. Avagyan, Vardan & Esteban-Bravo, Mercedes & Vidal-Sanz, Jose M., 2014. "Licensing radical product innovations to speed up the diffusion," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 542-555.
    15. Waśniewski, Krzysztof, 2010. "Patterns of technological progress and corporate innovation," MPRA Paper 25186, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Waśniewski, Krzysztof, 2010. "Emergence of alternative capital markets in developing countries as a process of institutional change," MPRA Paper 26681, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Herrmann, Roland & Schröck, Rebecca, 2011. "Determinanten des Innovationserfolgs: eine Analyse mit Scannerdaten für den deutschen Joghurtmarkt," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 60(03), pages 1-16, August.
    18. Gilberto Tadeu Lima, 2000. "Market concentration and technological innovation in a dynamic model of growth and distribution," BNL Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 53(215), pages 447-475.
    19. Helen Weeds, 2002. "Strategic Delay in a Real Options Model of R&D Competition," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 69(3), pages 729-747.
    20. Gersbach, Hans & Schneider, Maik & Schneller, Olivier, 2010. "Optimal Mix of Applied and Basic Research, Distance to Frontier, and Openness," CEPR Discussion Papers 7795, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    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:ags:aaea02:19842. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.