IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpio/0502004.html

Product Introductions and Price Measures for Microprocessor Chips in the 1990s

Author

Listed:
  • Ana Aizcorbe

    (Bureau of Economic Analysis)

Abstract

The semiconductor industry is credited with one of the fastest rates of product innovation and technical change within manufacturing, as chipmakers generate wave after wave of ever more powerful chips at prices not much higher than those of existing chips. This industry has undoubtedly been an important driver of productivity growth as advances in semiconductors paved the way for co-invention in downstream industries that, taken together, provide firms with more efficient ways to do business and the ability to provide new goods and services that ultimately increase consumer welfare. In the mid-1990s, measured productivity growth for the industry shows a pickup that coincided with an economy-wide pickup in labor productivity growth. The acceleration in the semiconductor market stems from an increase in the growth of real output that was, in turn, generated by what Jorgenson (2001) calls an “inflection point” in price indexes for the semiconductor industry. Within semiconductors, microprocessors (MPUs) produced by Intel were the primary contributor to both the trend and inflection point in this price index. This paper explores movements in the price index for MPU chips over the 1990s to better understand sources of the pickup in measured productivity growth. Three major developments in MPU markets that roughly coincided with the measured increase in productivity are reviewed: 1) the introduction of more sophisticated lithography equipment that could have allowed Intel to increase its rate of product innovation; 2) an increase in competitive pressure from AMD; and 3) a pickup in the rate of product introductions at Intel. A stylized framework for decision-making at Intel is developed and used to show that the increase in the rate of product introductions at Intel could have been a profit-maximizing response to increased competition from AMD. The model is then used to explore the implications for price measurement.

Suggested Citation

  • Ana Aizcorbe, 2005. "Product Introductions and Price Measures for Microprocessor Chips in the 1990s," Industrial Organization 0502004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpio:0502004
    Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 26
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/io/papers/0502/0502004.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Feenstra, Robert C, 1995. "Exact Hedonic Price Indexes," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 77(4), pages 634-653, November.
    2. Nile W. Hatch & David C. Mowery, 1998. "Process Innovation and Learning by Doing in Semiconductor Manufacturing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(11-Part-1), pages 1461-1477, November.
    3. Ana M. Aizcorbe, 2002. "Why are semiconductor prices falling so fast? Industry estimates and implications for productivity measurement," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2002-20, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    4. Coase, Ronald H, 1972. "Durability and Monopoly," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(1), pages 143-149, April.
    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. Ana Aizcorbe & Samuel Kortum, 2005. "Moore's Law and the Semiconductor Industry: A Vintage Model," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 107(4), pages 603-630, December.
    2. Bart Hobijn, 2002. "On both sides of the quality bias in price indexes," Staff Reports 157, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    3. Kathryn E. Spier, 2003. "“Tied to the Mast”: Most-Favored-Nation Clauses in Settlement Contracts," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 91-120, January.
    4. Vincent Mak & Amnon Rapoport & Eyran J. Gisches & Jiaojie Han, 2014. "Purchasing Scarce Products Under Dynamic Pricing: An Experimental Investigation," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 16(3), pages 425-438, July.
    5. Dubey, Pradeep & Sondermann, Dieter, 2009. "Perfect competition in an oligopoly (including bilateral monopoly)," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 124-141, January.
    6. James J. Anton & Gary Biglaiser, 2010. "Quality, Upgrades, and Equilibrium in a Dynamic Monopoly Model," Working Papers 10-36, Duke University, Department of Economics.
    7. Galiani, Sebastian & Jaitman, Laura & Weinschelbaum, Federico, 2020. "Crime and durable goods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 146-163.
    8. Wong, Maisy, 2010. "The Relationship between Marginal Willingness-to-Pay in the Hedonic and Discrete Choice Models," MPRA Paper 51218, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Wesley Nimon & John Beghin, 1999. "Are Eco-Labels Valuable? Evidence From the Apparel Industry," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(4), pages 801-811.
    10. Edward Kutsoati & Jan Zabojnik, 2001. "Durable Goods Monopoly, Learning-by-doing and "Sleeping Patents"," Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University 0105, Department of Economics, Tufts University.
    11. Tian Xia & Richard Sexton, 2010. "Brand or Variety Choices and Periodic Sales as Substitute Instruments for Monopoly Price Discrimination," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 36(4), pages 333-349, June.
    12. Walter Beckert, 2004. "Dynamic Monopolies with Stochastic Demand," Birkbeck Working Papers in Economics and Finance 0404, Birkbeck, Department of Economics, Mathematics & Statistics.
    13. Tsuyoshi Toshimitsu, 2005. "Quality choice, the Coase problem, and a fixed cost function of quality: a note," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(7), pages 453-455.
    14. Clerides, Sofronis & Hadjiyiannis, Costas, 2008. "Quality standards for used durables: An indirect subsidy?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 268-282, July.
    15. Buehler, Stefan & Nicolas Eschenbaum, 2018. "Explaining Escalating Fines and Prices: The Curse of Positive Selection," Economics Working Paper Series 1807, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    16. Victor M. Bennett & Robert Seamans & Feng Zhu, 2015. "Cannibalization and option value effects of secondary markets: Evidence from the US concert industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(11), pages 1599-1614, November.
    17. Robert C. Feenstra & Christopher R. Knittel, 2009. "Reassessing the US Quality Adjustment to Computer Prices: The Role of Durability and Changing Software," NBER Chapters, in: Price Index Concepts and Measurement, pages 129-160, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Ridley, David B. & Zhang, Su, 2017. "Regulation of price increases," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 186-213.
    19. Pasquale Schiraldi, 2006. "Second-Hand Markets and Collusion by Manufacturers of Semidurable Goods," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series WP2006-028, Boston University - Department of Economics.
    20. Gaudet, Gerard & Salant, Stephen W., 2003. "The effects of periodic quotas limiting the stock of imports of durables," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 402-419, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • L - Industrial Organization

    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:wpa:wuwpio:0502004. 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: EconWPA The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask EconWPA to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    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.