IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea11/107832.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Endogenous R&D Investment and Market Structure: A Case Study of the Agricultural Biotechnology Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Anderson, Benjamin
  • Sheldon, Ian M.

Abstract

Over the past three decades, the agricultural biotechnology sector has been characterized by rapid innovation, market consolidation, and a more exhaustive definition of property rights. The industry attributes consistently identified by the literature and important to this analysis include: (i) endogenous sunk costs in the form of expenditures on R&D; (ii) seed and agricultural chemical technologies that potentially act as complements within firms and substitutes across firms; and (iii) property rights governing plant and seed varieties that have become more clearly defined since the 1970s. This paper adds to the stylized facts of the agricultural biotechnology industry to include the ability of firms to license technology, a phenomenon observed only recently in the market as licensing was previously precluded by high transactions costs and “anti-stacking” provisions. We extend Sutton's theoretical framework of endogenous sunk costs and market structure to incorporate the ability of firms to license technology under well-defined property rights, an observed characteristic not captured in previous analyses of the sector. Our model implies that technology licensing leads to lower levels of industry concentration then what would be found under Sutton's model, but that industry concentration remains bounded away from perfect competition as market size becomes large.

Suggested Citation

  • Anderson, Benjamin & Sheldon, Ian M., 2011. "Endogenous R&D Investment and Market Structure: A Case Study of the Agricultural Biotechnology Industry," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 107832, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea11:107832
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.107832
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/107832/files/Anderson%20and%20Sheldon.%202011.%20Endogenous%20R_D%20Investment%20and%20Market%20Structure.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.107832?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. Arora, Ashish & Fosfuri, Andrea, 2003. "Licensing the market for technology," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 277-295, October.
    2. Goodhue, Rachael E & Rausser, Gordon C. & Scotchmer, Suzanne & Simon, Leo K., 2002. "Biotechnology, Intellectual Property and Value Differentiation in Agriculture," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt83h3x830, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    3. Guanming Shi, 2009. "Bundling and Licensing of Genes in Agricultural Biotechnology," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(1), pages 264-274.
    4. Aoki, Reiko & Prusa, Thomas J., 1997. "Sequential versus simultaneous choice with endogenous quality," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 103-121, February.
    5. Menell, Peter S. & Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2007. "Intellectual Property Law," Handbook of Law and Economics, in: A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell (ed.), Handbook of Law and Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 1473-1570, Elsevier.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Shi, Guanming & Stiegert, Kyle W. & Chavas, Jean-Paul, 2009. "An Analysis of Pricing in the U.S. Cotton Seed Market," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 51617, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Jean Gabszewicz & Ornella Tarola, 2012. "Product innovation and firms’ ownership," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 323-343, April.
    3. Munirul H. Nabin & Xuan Nguyen & Pasquale M. Sgro, 2013. "Technology Transfer, Quality Standards, and North–South Trade," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(4), pages 783-796, September.
    4. Shi, Guanming, 2004. "Bundling And Licensing Of Genes In Agricultural Biotechnology," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19913, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Arora, Ashish & Fosfuri, Andrea, 1999. "Exploring the internalization rationale for international investment: wholly owned subsidiary versus technology licensing in the worldwide chemical industry," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB 6430, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    6. Lambertini, Luca, 1999. "Endogenous timing and the choice of quality in a vertically differentiated duopoly," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 101-109, March.
    7. Shi, Guanming & Stiegert, Kyle & Chavas, Jean Paul, 2010. "An Analysis of Pricing in Horizontal and Vertical Markets: The Case of the Cottonseed Market," Working Papers 201439, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Food System Research Group.
    8. L. Lambertini & P. Tedeschi, 2003. "Sequential Entry in a Vertically Differentiated Duopoly," Working Papers 492, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    9. Tuomas Takalo, 2012. "Rationales and Instruments for Public Innovation Policies," Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, Lifescience Global, vol. 1, pages 157-167.
    10. Santiago, Leonardo P. & Martinelli, Marcela & Eloi-Santos, Daniel T. & Hortac, Luciana Hashiba, 2015. "A framework for assessing a portfolio of technologies for licensing out," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 242-251.
    11. Rey, Patrick & Salant, David, 2012. "Abuse of dominance and licensing of intellectual property," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 518-527.
    12. Figueroa, Nicolás & Serrano, Carlos J., 2019. "Patent trading flows of small and large firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1601-1616.
    13. Jerbashian Vahagn, 2016. "Knowledge licensing in a model of R&D-driven endogenous growth," The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, De Gruyter, vol. 16(2), pages 555-579, June.
    14. Naoto Jinji, 2003. "Strategic policy for product R&D with symmetric costs," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 993-1006, November.
    15. Mella-Barral, P. & Sabourian, H., 2023. "Repeated Innovations and Excessive Spin-Offs," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2347, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    16. Salzberger Eli M., 2011. "The Law and Economics Analysis of Intellectual Property: Paradigmatic Shift From Incentives to Traditional Property," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(2), pages 435-480, December.
    17. Mélanie Jaeck & Robert Lifran & Hubert Stahn, 2012. "Emergence of Organic Farming under Imperfect Competition: Economic Conditions and Incentives," Working Papers hal-02805961, HAL.
    18. Fosfuri, Andrea, 2004. "Determinants of international activity: evidence from the chemical processing industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1599-1614, December.
    19. Engel, Christoph & Kleine, Marco, 2015. "Who is afraid of pirates? An experiment on the deterrence of innovation by imitation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 20-33.
    20. Shen, Huijun & Coreynen, Wim & Huang, Can, 2022. "Exclusive licensing of university technology: The effects of university prestige, technology transfer offices, and academy-industry collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea11:107832. 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.