Learning, diffusion and the industry life cycle
An industry typically experiences initial mass entry and later shakeout of producers over its life cycle. It can be explained as a competitive equilibrium outcome driven by the dynamic interaction between technology progress and demand diffusion. When a new product is introduced, high-income consumers tend to adopt it first. Technology then improves with cumulative output and demand growth generates S-shaped diffusion as the product penetrates lower-income groups. Eventually fewer new adopters are available and the number of firms starts to decline. It is shown that faster technological learning, higher mean income or larger market size contributes to faster demand diffusion and earlier industry shakeout. Empirical studies on the US and UK television industries as well as ten other US industries confirm the theoretical findings. ; Alternate title: Income distribution, market size and the evolution of industry
|Date of creation:||2006|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, MO 64198-0001|
Phone: (816) 881-2254
Web page: http://www.kansascityfed.org/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Email: |
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.:
- Kiminori Matsuyama, 1999.
"The Rise of Mass Consumption Societies,"
1289, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Kiminori Matsuyama, 2000. "The Rise of Mass Consumption Societies," STICERD - Development Economics Papers - From 2008 this series has been superseded by Economic Organisation and Public Policy Discussion Papers 23, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
- Kiminori Matsuyama, 2000. "The rise of mass consumption societies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 6656, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
- Zeira, Joseph, 1999.
"Informational overshooting, booms, and crashes,"
Journal of Monetary Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 237-257, February.
- Utterback, James M. & Suarez, Fernando F., 1993. "Innovation, competition, and industry structure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 1-21, February.
- Jovanovic, B. & MacDonald, G.M., 1992.
"The Life-Cycle of Competitive Industry,"
92-09, Rochester, Business - Financial Research and Policy Studies.
- Jovanovic, B. & MacDonald, G., 1993. "The Life Cycle of a Competitive Industry," Working Papers 93-34, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
- Boyan Jovanovic & Glenn MacDonald, 1993. "The Life-Cycle of a Competitive Industry," NBER Working Papers 4441, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Steven Klepper & Kenneth L. Simons, 2000. "The Making of an Oligopoly: Firm Survival and Technological Change in the Evolution of the U.S. Tire Industry," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(4), pages 728-760, August.
- Dan Horsky, 1990. "A Diffusion Model Incorporating Product Benefits, Price, Income and Information," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(4), pages 342-365.
- Steven Klepper & Elizabeth Graddy, 1990. "The Evolution of New Industries and the Determinants of Market Structure," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 27-44, Spring.
- Diego Comin & Bart Hobijn, 2003.
"Cross-country technology adoption: making the theories face the facts,"
169, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
- Comin, D. & Hobijn, B., 2004. "Cross-country technology adoption: making the theories face the facts," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 39-83, January.
- Comin, D. & Hobijn, B., 2003. "Cross-Country Technology Adoption: Making the Theories Face the Facts," Working Papers 03-04, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
- Klepper, Steven, 1996. "Entry, Exit, Growth, and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 562-583, June.
- Hugo A. Hopenhayn, 1993. "The shakeout," Economics Working Papers 33, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
- Kenneth J. Arrow, 1962. "The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(3), pages 155-173.
- Robert E. Lucas Jr., 1978. "On the Size Distribution of Business Firms," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(2), pages 508-523, Autumn.
- Horvath, Michael & Schivardi, Fabiano & Woywode, Michael, 2001. "On industry life-cycles: delay, entry, and shakeout in beer brewing," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(7), pages 1023-1052, July.
- Boyan Jovanovic & Peter L. Rousseau, 2002.
"Moore's Law and Learning-By-Doing,"
Review of Economic Dynamics,
Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 5(2), pages 346-375, April.
- Audretsch, David B, 1991. "New-Firm Survival and the Technological Regime," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 73(3), pages 441-450, August.
- Gort, Michael & Klepper, Steven, 1982. "Time Paths in the Diffusion of Product Innovations," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(367), pages 630-653, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fip:fedkpw:psrwp04-01. 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: (Lu Dayrit)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.