Monopoly and the Incentive to Innovate When Adoption Involves Switchover Disruptions
When considering the incentive of a monopolist to adopt an innovation, the textbook model assumes that it can instantaneously and seamlessly introduce the new technology. In fact, firms often face major problems in integrating new technologies. In some cases, firms have to (temporarily) produce at levels substantially below capacity upon adoption. We call such phenomena switchover disruptions, and present extensive evidence on them. If firms face switchover disruptions, then they may temporarily lose some unit sales upon adoption. If the firm loses unit sales, then a cost of adoption is the foregone rents on the sales of those units. Hence, greater market power will mean higher prices on those lost units of output, and hence a reduced incentive to innovate. We introduce switchover disruptions into some standard models in the literature, show they can overturn some famous results, and then show they can help explain evidence that firms in more competitive environments are more likely to adopt technologies and increase productivity.
|Date of creation:||Mar 2008|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||published as Holmes, Thomas J., David K. Levine, and James A. Schmitz. 2012. "Monopoly and the Incentive to Innovate When Adoption Involves Switchover Disruptions." American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4(3): 1-33. DOI: 10.1257/mic.4.3.1|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Plutarchos Sakellaris, 2000.
"Patterns of Plant Adjustment,"
Electronic Working Papers
00-001, University of Maryland, Department of Economics.
- Daniel Trefler, 2006.
"The Long and Short of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement,"
STICERD - Economics of Industry Papers
41, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
- Daniel Trefler, 2004. "The Long and Short of the Canada-U. S. Free Trade Agreement," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 870-895, September.
- Daniel Trefler, 2006. "The long and short of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 6721, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
- Daniel Trefler, 2001. "The Long and Short of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement," NBER Working Papers 8293, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Huggett, Mark & Ospina, Sandra, 2001. "Does productivity growth fall after the adoption of new technology?," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 173-195, August.
- Parente Stephen L., 1994. "Technology Adoption, Learning-by-Doing, and Economic Growth," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 346-369, August.
- Thomas J. Holmes & James A. Schmitz, Jr., 2001. "Competition at work : railroads vs. monopoly in the U.S. shipping industry," Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, issue Spr, pages 3-29.
- Michael J. Ginzberg, 1981. "Early Diagnosis of MIS Implementation Failure: Promising Results and Unanswered Questions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 459-478, April.
- Chad Syverson, 2001.
"Market Structure and Productivity: A Concrete Example,"
01-06, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
- Chad Syverson, 2004. "Market Structure and Productivity: A Concrete Example," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(6), pages 1181-1222, December.
- Chad Syverson, 2004. "Market Structure and Productivity: A Concrete Example," NBER Working Papers 10501, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Gilbert, Richard J & Newbery, David M G, 1982. "Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 514-26, June.
- Hiroshi Ohashi & Tsuyoshi Nakamura, 2005. "Technology Adoption, Learning by Doing, and Productivity: A Study from Steel Refining Furnaces," 2005 Meeting Papers 28, Society for Economic Dynamics.
- Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1983.
"Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 741-48, September.
- Reinganum, Jennifer R., 1982. "Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly," Working Papers 431, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
- 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.
- Schmutzler, Armin, 2010. "The relation between competition and innovation -- Why is it such a mess?," CEPR Discussion Papers 7640, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Klemperer, Paul, 1995. "Competition When Consumers Have Switching Costs: An Overview with Applications to Industrial Organization, Macroeconomics, and International Trade," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(4), pages 515-39, October.
- Jovanovic, B. & Nyarko, Y., 1996.
"Learning by Doing and the Choice of Technology,"
96-25, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
- Lewis, William W., 2004. "The Power of Productivity," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226476766.
- Kevin B. Hendricks & Vinod R. Singhal, 2005. "Association Between Supply Chain Glitches and Operating Performance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(5), pages 695-711, May.
- Axel Anderson & Luís M. B. Cabral, 2007.
"Go for broke or play it safe? Dynamic competition with choice of variance,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
RAND Corporation, vol. 38(3), pages 593-609, 09.
- Anderson, Axel & Cabral, Luís M B, 2004. "Go For Broke or Play it Safe? Dynamic Competition with Choice of Variance," CEPR Discussion Papers 4249, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Kira R. Fabrizio & Nancy L. Rose & Catherine D. Wolfram, 2007.
"Do Markets Reduce Costs? Assessing the Impact of Regulatory Restructuring on US Electric Generation Efficiency,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1250-1277, September.
- Kira Markiewicz & Nancy L. Rose & Catherine Wolfram, 2004. "Do Markets Reduce Costs? Assessing the Impact of Regulatory Restructuring on U.S. Electric Generation Efficiency," NBER Working Papers 11001, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Tsuyoshi Nakamura & Hiroshi Ohashi, 2005. "Technology Adoption, Learning by Doing, and Productivity: A Study of Steel Refining Furnaces," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-368, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
- Chari, V V & Hopenhayn, Hugo, 1991. "Vintage Human Capital, Growth, and the Diffusion of New Technology," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(6), pages 1142-65, December.
- Shawn Klimek & James Schmitz & Timothy Dunne, 2010. "Does Foreign Competition Spur Productivity? Evidence From Post WWII U.S. Cement Manufacturing," 2010 Meeting Papers 805, Society for Economic Dynamics.
- Shawn Klimek & James Schmitz & Timothy Dunne, 2008. "Does Competition Spur Productivity? Evidence From U.S.Cement Manufacturing in the 20th Century," 2008 Meeting Papers 784, Society for Economic Dynamics.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:13864. 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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.