IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bol/bodewp/391.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Monopolist's Optimal R&D Portfolio

Author

Listed:
  • L. Lambertini

Abstract

The monopolist’s incentives towards product and process innovations are evaluated against the social optimum. The main findings are that (i) the incentive to invest in cost-reducing R&D is inversely related to the number of varieties being supplied at equilibrium, under both regimes; (ii) distortions obtain under monopoly, w.r.t. both the number of varieties and the technology. With substitutes (respectively, complements), the monopolist’s product range is smaller (respectively, larger) than under social planning. For any given number of goods, the monopolist operates at a higher marginal cost than the planner does.

Suggested Citation

  • L. Lambertini, 2000. "The Monopolist's Optimal R&D Portfolio," Working Papers 391, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
  • Handle: RePEc:bol:bodewp:391
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://amsacta.unibo.it/4910/1/391.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Klemperer & A. Jorge Padilla, 1997. "Do Firms' Product Lines Include Too Many Varieties?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 28(3), pages 472-488, Autumn.
    2. Sudipto Bhattacharya & Dilip Mookherjee, 1986. "Portfolio Choice in Research and Development," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(4), pages 594-605, Winter.
    3. Champsaur, Paul & Rochet, Jean-Charles, 1989. "Multiproduct Duopolists," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 533-557, May.
    4. Giacomo Bonanno, 1987. "Location Choice, Product Proliferation and Entry Deterrence," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 54(1), pages 37-45.
    5. Rosenkranz, Stephanie, 1996. "Simultaneous Choice of Process and Product Innovation," CEPR Discussion Papers 1321, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Brander, James A & Eaton, Jonathan, 1984. "Product Line Rivalry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(3), pages 323-334, June.
    7. Klemperer, Paul, 1992. "Competition When Consumers Have Switching Costs: An Overview," CEPR Discussion Papers 704, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Mussa, Michael & Rosen, Sherwin, 1978. "Monopoly and product quality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 301-317, August.
    9. Avinash Dixit, 1979. "A Model of Duopoly Suggesting a Theory of Entry Barriers," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 20-32, Spring.
    10. Wernerfelt, Birger, 1986. "Product Line Rivalry: Note," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 842-844, September.
    11. Anderson, Simon P & de Palma, Andre, 1992. "Multiproduct Firms: A Nested Logit Approach," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 261-276, September.
    12. MacDonald, Glenn M & Slivinski, Alan, 1987. "The Simple Analytics of Competitive Equilibrium with Multiproduct Firms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 941-953, December.
    13. De Fraja, Giovanni, 1994. "A General Characterization of Multiproduct Cournot Competition," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 171-183, April.
    14. Eric Maskin & John Riley, 1984. "Monopoly with Incomplete Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(2), pages 171-196, Summer.
    15. Lambertini, Luca & Orsini, Raimondello, 2000. "Process and product innovation in a vertically differentiated monopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 333-337, September.
    16. Klemperer, Paul, 1992. "Equilibrium Product Lines: Competing Head-to-Head May Be Less Competitive," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(4), pages 740-755, September.
    17. Jaskold Gabszewicz, Jean & Shaked, Avner & Sutton, John & Thisse, Jacques-Francois, 1986. "Segmenting the market: The monopolist's optimal product mix," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 273-289, August.
    18. Panzar, John C., 1989. "Technological determinants of firm and industry structure," Handbook of Industrial Organization,in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 3-59 Elsevier.
    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. Andrea Mantovani, 2006. "Complementarity between product and process innovation in a monopoly setting," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 219-234.
    2. repec:eee:proeco:v:193:y:2017:i:c:p:703-712 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Saha, Souresh, 2014. "Firm's objective function and product and process R&D," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 484-494.
    4. Luca Lambertini & Raimondello Orsini, 2015. "Quality Improvement and Process Innovation in Monopoly: A Dynamic Analysis," Working Paper series 15-12, Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis.
    5. L. Lambertini & R. Orsini, 2014. "Process Innovation and Product Quality Improvement in a Dynamic Monopoly," Working Papers wp926, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    6. Dawid, Herbert & Keoula, Michel Y. & Kopel, Michael & Kort, Peter M., 2015. "Product innovation incentives by an incumbent firm: A dynamic analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 411-438.
    7. Li, Shoude & Ni, Jian, 2016. "A dynamic analysis of investment in process and product innovation with learning-by-doing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 104-108.

    More about this item

    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:bol:bodewp:391. 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: (Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/sebolit.html .

    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.