IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/7607.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Monopoly, Diversification through Adjacent Technologies, and Market Structure

Author

Listed:
  • Karaaslan, Mehmet E.

Abstract

The theoretical literature on technological competition has been mostly concerned with various aspects of innovative activity in a single market. By contrast, this paper studies the adoption of a sequence of product innovations in two markets characterized by a common technology base, and illustrates the effects of technological rivalry and preemption. Under a perfect information scenario, it is shown in a two incumbent model that if the innovation is drastic (total replacement of the old product), under certain conditions the fear of being preempted by the entrant forces the firms to diversify their product lines by adopting the innovations across each other's markets. On the other hand, with non-drastic innovation (partial replacement of the old product), it is more likely for the firms to diversify in their own product lines. Out of a class of equilibria characterized under non-drastic innovation, one is optimal in which innovations are adopted in the firms' own markets. In the Pareto inferior equilibria, the firms either adopt innovations in each other's market so that incumbency changes hands or jointly adopt both innovations in two separate product lines. Perfect Bayesian equilibria are characterized under an asymmetric information scenario where one of the firms is assumed to have complete information about the relevant costs of adopting an innovation in a separate product line. If the priors are based on pessimism, it is more often subject to exploitation by the informed firm leading to pooling equilibrium, while optimistism more often leads to diversification and to a competitive market structure in both product lines under a separating equilibrium. In all the cases considered, both innovations are adopted, and in most cases they are adopted by the high cost entrant. The former is socially desirable, but the latter is not. More competitiveness necessarily implies wasteful expenditure by the high cost firm. Lack of competitiveness and technological rivalry, on the other hand, imply that maximum product diversity may not be achieved.

Suggested Citation

  • Karaaslan, Mehmet E., 2007. "Monopoly, Diversification through Adjacent Technologies, and Market Structure," MPRA Paper 7607, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:7607
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/7607/1/MPRA_paper_7607.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McLean, Richard P. & Riordan, Michael H., 1989. "Industry structure with sequential technology choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 1-21, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Kamien, Morton I & Schwartz, Nancy L, 1975. "Market Structure and Innovation: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 13(1), pages 1-37, March.
    4. Harris, Christopher J & Vickers, John S, 1985. "Patent Races and the Persistence of Monopoly," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(4), pages 461-481, June.
    5. Vickers, John S, 1986. "The Evolution of Market Structure When There Is a Sequence of Innovations," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(1), pages 1-12, September.
    6. Bhattacharya, Sudipto & Chatterjee, Kalyan & Samuelson, Larry, 1986. "Sequential Research and the Adoption of Innovations," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(0), pages 219-243, Suppl. No.
    7. 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 514-526, June.
    8. Jennifer F. Reinganum, 1981. "Market Structure and the Diffusion of New Technology," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 12(2), pages 618-624, Autumn.
    9. Posner, Richard A, 1975. "The Social Costs of Monopoly and Regulation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 83(4), pages 807-827, August.
    10. Glazer, Amihai, 1985. "The Advantages of Being First," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 473-480, June.
    11. Hannan, Timothy H & McDowell, John M, 1987. "Rival Precedence and the Dynamics of Technology Adoption: An Empirical Analysis," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 54(214), pages 155-171, May.
    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. Ping Lin & Tianle Zhang & Wen Zhou, 2020. "Vertical integration and disruptive cross‐market R&D," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 51-73, January.
    2. Robin Kleer, 2009. "Acquisitions in a Patent Contest Model with Large and Small Firms," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 307-328, December.
    3. David Moroz, 2005. "Production of Scientific Knowledge and Radical Uncertainty: The Limits of the Normative Approach in Innovation Economics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, November.
    4. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 315-380, Elsevier.
    5. Robin Kleer, 2008. "Acquisitions in a Patent Contest Model with Large and Small Firms," Working Papers 061, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    6. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Kraft, Kornelius, 2004. "An empirical test of the asymmetric models on innovative activity: who invests more into R&D, the incumbent or the challenger?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 153-173, June.
    7. Houngbonon, Georges Vivien & Jeanjean, François, 2016. "What level of competition intensity maximises investment in the wireless industry?," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 774-790.
    8. Jacob Seifert, 2015. "Welfare effects of compulsory licensing," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 317-350, December.
    9. Zhaozhao He, 2015. "Rivalry, Market Structure and Innovation: The Case of Mobile Banking," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 47(2), pages 219-242, September.
    10. Bertrand, Olivier & Zuniga, Pluvia, 2006. "R&D and M&A: Are cross-border M&A different? An investigation on OECD countries," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 401-423, March.
    11. Chakravarthi Narasimhan & Z. John Zhang, 2000. "Market Entry Strategy Under Firm Heterogeneity and Asymmetric Payoffs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 313-327, November.
    12. Maxim Kotsemir & Alexander Abroskin & Dirk Meissner, 2013. "Innovation concepts and typology – an evolutionary discussion," HSE Working papers WP BRP 05/STI/2013, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    13. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2002. "When Does Start-Up Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 571-586, Winter.
    14. Michael Reksulak & William F. Shughart & Robert D. Tollison, 2008. "Innovation and the opportunity cost of monopoly," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(8), pages 619-627.
    15. Bruno Cassiman & Masako Ueda, 2006. "Optimal Project Rejection and New Firm Start-ups," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 262-275, February.
    16. Claude D'Aspremont & Rodolphe Dos Santos Ferreira & Louis‐André Gérard‐Varet, 2010. "Strategic R&D investment, competitive toughness and growth," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 6(3), pages 273-295, September.
    17. Joshua Gans & Scott Stern, 2003. "When does funding research by smaller firms bear fruit?: Evidence from the SBIR program," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 361-384.
    18. Haneda, Shoko & Ito, Keiko, 2018. "Organizational and human resource management and innovation: Which management practices are linked to product and/or process innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 194-208.
    19. 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.
    20. Manfred Neumann, 1999. "Monopoly Welfare Losses in the Long Run," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 26(1), pages 1-9, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    tehnological rivalry; preemption; adoption of innovations; upgrading;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L10 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - General
    • 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:pra:mprapa:7607. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.