IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mpg/wpaper/2010_17.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Entry and Incumbent Innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Philipp Weinscheink

    (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn)

Abstract

We explore how the threat of entry influences the innovation activity of an incumbent. We show that the incumbent’s investment is hump-shaped in the entry threat. When the entry threat is small and increases, the incumbent invests more to deter entry, or to make it unlikely. This is due to the entry deterrence effect. However, when the threat becomes huge, entry can no longer profitably be deterred or made unlikely and the investment becomes small. Then the Schumpeterian effect dominates. These results turn out to be very robust.

Suggested Citation

  • Philipp Weinscheink, 2010. "Entry and Incumbent Innovation," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2010_17, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    • Handle: RePEc:mpg:wpaper:2010_17
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.coll.mpg.de/pdf_dat/2010_17online.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philippe Aghion & Nick Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(2), pages 701-728.
    2. Nina Pavcnik, 2002. "Trade Liberalization, Exit, and Productivity Improvements: Evidence from Chilean Plants," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 69(1), pages 245-276.
    3. Flavio Delbono & Vincenzo Denicolo, 1991. "Incentives to Innovate in a Cournot Oligopoly," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(3), pages 951-961.
    4. Brian J. Aitken & Ann E. Harrison, 2022. "Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Direct Foreign Investment? Evidence from Venezuela," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Globalization, Firms, and Workers, chapter 6, pages 139-152, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Gilbert Richard J, 2006. "Competition and Innovation," Journal of Industrial Organization Education, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-23, December.
    6. Paul Belleflamme & Cecilia Vergari, 2011. "Incentives To Innovate In Oligopolies," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 79(1), pages 6-28, January.
    7. Austan Goolsbee & Chad Syverson, 2008. "How Do Incumbents Respond to the Threat of Entry? Evidence from the Major Airlines," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(4), pages 1611-1633.
    8. G. M.P. Swann, 2009. "The Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13211.
    9. Philippe Aghion & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt & Susanne Prantl, 2009. "The Effects of Entry on Incumbent Innovation and Productivity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 91(1), pages 20-32, February.
    10. John Vickers, 2010. "Competition Policy and Property Rights," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 120(544), pages 375-392, May.
    11. MacDonald, James M, 1994. "Does Import Competition Force Efficient Production?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(4), pages 721-727, November.
    12. Nancy T. Gallini, 1992. "Patent Policy and Costly Imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(1), pages 52-63, Spring.
    13. Xavier Vives, 2008. "Innovation And Competitive Pressure," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 419-469, December.
    14. Josh Lerner, 2009. "The Empirical Impact of Intellectual Property Rights on Innovation: Puzzles and Clues," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(2), pages 343-348, May.
    15. Tom Lee & Louis L. Wilde, 1980. "Market Structure and Innovation: A Reformulation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 94(2), pages 429-436.
    16. Howitt, Peter & Aghion, Philippe, 2006. "Appropriate Growth Policy: A Unifying Framework," Scholarly Articles 4554121, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    17. James Bessen & Eric Maskin, 2009. "Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(4), pages 611-635, December.
    18. Michele Boldrin & David K. Levine, 2009. "A Model of Discovery," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(2), pages 337-342, May.
    19. Ilya Segal & Michael D. Whinston, 2007. "Antitrust in Innovative Industries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1703-1730, December.
    20. Joel Mokyr, 2009. "Intellectual Property Rights, the Industrial Revolution, and the Beginnings of Modern Economic Growth," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(2), pages 349-355, May.
    21. Vincenzo Denicolò & Piercarlo Zanchettin, 2010. "Competition, Market Selection and Growth," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 120(545), pages 761-785, June.
    22. Philippe Aghion & Christopher Harris & Peter Howitt & John Vickers, 2001. "Competition, Imitation and Growth with Step-by-Step Innovation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 68(3), pages 467-492.
    23. James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, 2008. "Do Patents Perform Like Property?," Working Papers 0801, Research on Innovation.
    24. John Vickers, 2010. "Competition Policy and Property Rights," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 120(544), pages 375-392, May.
    25. Armin Schmutzler, 2007. "The relation between competition and innovation � Why is it such a mess?," SOI - Working Papers 0716, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich, revised Jan 2010.
    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. Ganguly, Madhuparna, 2021. "Competition and Innovation: the effects of scientist mobility and stronger patent rights," MPRA Paper 107831, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Alexander Steinmetz, 2015. "Competition, innovation, and the effect of R&D knowledge," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 199-230, July.
    3. Philippe Aghion & Peter Howitt & Susanne Prantl, 2015. "Patent rights, product market reforms, and innovation," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 223-262, September.
    4. Steinmetz, Alexander, 2010. "Competition, innovation, and the effect of knowledge accumulation," W.E.P. - Würzburg Economic Papers 81, University of Würzburg, Department of Economics.
    5. Aghion, Philippe & Akcigit, Ufuk & Howitt, Peter, 2014. "What Do We Learn From Schumpeterian Growth Theory?," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 515-563, Elsevier.
    6. Rachel Griffith & Rupert Harrison & Helen Simpson, 2010. "Product Market Reform and Innovation in the EU," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 112(2), pages 389-415, June.
    7. Ronald Goettler & Brett Gordon, 2014. "Competition and product innovation in dynamic oligopoly," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-42, March.
    8. Donja Darai & Dario Sacco & Armin Schmutzler, 2010. "Competition and innovation: an experimental investigation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(4), pages 439-460, December.
    9. Haucap, Justus & Rasch, Alexander & Stiebale, Joel, 2019. "How mergers affect innovation: Theory and evidence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 283-325.
    10. Michael Peneder & Martin Woerter, 2014. "Competition, R&D and innovation: testing the inverted-U in a simultaneous system," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 653-687, July.
    11. Stiebale, Joel, 2013. "The impact of cross-border mergers and acquisitions on the acquirers' R&D — Firm-level evidence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 307-321.
    12. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899.
    13. Chen, Yongmin & Pan, Shiyuan & Zhang, Tianle, 2014. "(When) Do stronger patents increase continual innovation?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 115-124.
    14. Marshall, Guillermo & Parra, Álvaro, 2019. "Innovation and competition: The role of the product market," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 221-247.
    15. Olga Slivko & Bernd Theilen, 2014. "Innovation or imitation? The effect of spillovers and competitive pressure on firms’ R&D strategy choice," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 112(3), pages 253-282, July.
    16. Guidi, Francesco & Solomon, Edna & Trushin, Eshref & Ugur, Mehmet, 2015. "Inverted-U relationship between innovation and survival: Evidence from firm-level UK data," EconStor Preprints 110896, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    17. Philippe Aghion & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt & Susanne Prantl, 2009. "The Effects of Entry on Incumbent Innovation and Productivity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 91(1), pages 20-32, February.
    18. Stiebale, Joel, 2016. "Cross-border M&As and innovative activity of acquiring and target firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 1-15.
    19. Paolo Buccirossi & Lorenzo Ciari & Tomaso Duso & Giancarlo Spagnolo & Cristiana Vitale, 2013. "Competition Policy and Productivity Growth: An Empirical Assessment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(4), pages 1324-1336, October.
    20. Brüggemann, Julia & Crosetto, Paolo & Meub, Lukas & Bizer, Kilian, 2016. "Intellectual property rights hinder sequential innovation. Experimental evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 2054-2068.

    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:mpg:wpaper:2010_17. 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: Marc Martin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mppggde.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.