IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/13483.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Experimentation, Learning, and Preemption

Author

Listed:
  • Ozdenoren, Emre
  • Hoppe-Wewetzer, Heidrun C.
  • Katsenos, Georgios

Abstract

This paper offers a model of experimentation and learning with uncertain outcomes as suggested by Arrow (1969). Investigating a two-player stopping game, we show that competition leads to less experimentation, which extends existing results for preemption games to the context of experimentation with uncertain outcomes. Furthermore, we inquire about the extent of experimentation under two information settings: when the researchers share information about the outcomes of their experiments and when they do not share such information. We discover that the sharing of information can generate more experimentation and higher value for a relatively wide range of parameters. We trace this finding to the stronger ability to coordinate on the information obtained through experimentation when it is shared. Our model allows to shed light on recent criticism of the current scientific system.

Suggested Citation

  • Ozdenoren, Emre & Hoppe-Wewetzer, Heidrun C. & Katsenos, Georgios, 2019. "Experimentation, Learning, and Preemption," CEPR Discussion Papers 13483, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:13483
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP13483
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicolas Klein & Sven Rady, 2011. "Negatively Correlated Bandits," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 78(2), pages 693-732.
    2. Sabatier, Mareva & Chollet, Barthélemy, 2017. "Is there a first mover advantage in science? Pioneering behavior and scientific production in nanotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 522-533.
    3. Godfrey Keller & Sven Rady & Martin Cripps, 2005. "Strategic Experimentation with Exponential Bandits," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(1), pages 39-68, January.
    4. Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1982. "A Dynamic Game of R and D: Patent Protection and Competitive Behavior," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(3), pages 671-688, May.
    5. , & ,, 2010. "Strategic experimentation with Poisson bandits," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 5(2), May.
    6. Hoppe, Heidrun C. & Lehmann-Grube, Ulrich, 2005. "Innovation timing games: a general framework with applications," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 30-50, March.
    7. Bobtcheff, Catherine & Mariotti, Thomas, 2012. "Potential competition in preemption games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 53-66.
    8. Hugo A. Hopenhayn & Francesco Squintani, 2011. "Preemption Games with Private Information," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 78(2), pages 667-692.
    9. Moscarini, Giuseppe & Squintani, Francesco, 2010. "Competitive experimentation with private information: The survivor's curse," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 639-660, March.
    10. Jay P. Choi, 1991. "Dynamic R&D Competition under "Hazard Rate" Uncertainty," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 22(4), pages 596-610, Winter.
    11. Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, 1985. "Preemption and Rent Equalization in the Adoption of New Technology," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 52(3), pages 383-401.
    12. Kamien, Morton I & Schwartz, Nancy L, 1972. "Timing of Innovations Under Rivalry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 40(1), pages 43-60, January.
    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. Bobtcheff, Catherine & Mariotti, Thomas & Levy, Raphaël, 2021. "Negative results in science: Blessing or (winner’s) curse," TSE Working Papers 21-1202, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).

    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. Francis Bloch & Simona Fabrizi & Steffen Lippert, 2015. "Learning and collusion in new markets with uncertain entry costs," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 58(2), pages 273-303, February.
    2. Heidhues, Paul & Rady, Sven & Strack, Philipp, 2015. "Strategic experimentation with private payoffs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 531-551.
    3. Bobtcheff, Catherine & Levy, Raphaël & Mariotti, Thomas, 2021. "Negative results in science: Blessing or (winner's) curse ?," CEPR Discussion Papers 16024, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Asaf Cohen & Eilon Solan, 2013. "Bandit Problems with Lévy Processes," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 38(1), pages 92-107, February.
    5. Rosenberg, Dinah & Salomon, Antoine & Vieille, Nicolas, 2013. "On games of strategic experimentation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 31-51.
    6. Smirnov, Vladimir & Wait, Andrew, 2015. "Innovation in a generalized timing game," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 23-33.
    7. Ufuk Akcigit & Qingmin Liu, 2011. "The Role of Information in Competitive Experimentation," PIER Working Paper Archive 11-038, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    8. Song, Yangbo & Zhao, Mofei, 2021. "Dynamic R&D competition under uncertainty and strategic disclosure," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 169-210.
    9. Kostas Bimpikis & Shayan Ehsani & Mohamed Mostagir, 2019. "Designing Dynamic Contests," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 339-356, March.
    10. Thomas, Caroline, 2020. "Stopping with congestion and private payoffs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 18-42.
    11. Thomas, Caroline, 2019. "Experimentation with reputation concerns – Dynamic signalling with changing types," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 366-415.
    12. Boyarchenko, Svetlana, 2021. "Inefficiency of sponsored research," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    13. Smirnov, Vladimir & Wait, Andrew, 2021. "Preemption with a second-mover advantage," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 294-309.
    14. Hoppe-Wewetzer, Heidrun & Katsenos, Georgios & Ozdenoren, Emre, 2023. "The effects of rivalry on scientific progress under public vs private learning," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    15. Svetlana Boyarchenko, 2020. "Super- and submodularity of stopping games with random observations," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(4), pages 983-1022, November.
    16. Kaustav Das, 2014. "Strategic Experimentation with Competition and Private Arrival of Information," Discussion Papers 1404, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.
    17. Cary Deck & Erik O. Kimbrough, 2017. "Experimenting with Contests for Experimentation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 84(2), pages 391-406, October.
    18. Nicolas Klein & Tymofiy Mylovanov, 2011. "Should the Flatterers be Avoided?," 2011 Meeting Papers 1273, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    19. Roland G. Fryer, Jr. & Philipp Harms, 2013. "Two-Armed Restless Bandits with Imperfect Information: Stochastic Control and Indexability," NBER Working Papers 19043, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Bobtcheff, Catherine & Mariotti, Thomas, 2012. "Potential competition in preemption games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 53-66.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    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:cpr:ceprdp:13483. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    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.