IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/esprep/121851.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Incentives for Process Innovations under Discrete Structural Alternatives of Competition Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Šastitko, Andrej E.
  • Kurdin, Alexander A.

Abstract

This study analyses the incentives for process innovations under different conditions determined by the competition policy for intellectual property rights (IPR) and particular features of markets and technologies. Competition policy is defined by the presence or absence of compulsory licensing, markets are characterized by technological leadership or technological competition. The results of modelling show that the uncertainty engendered by technological competition may lower the intensity of innovative activities, if there are no mechanisms of coordination between participants. Voluntary licensing generally improves social welfare but does not guarantee an increase in innovative efforts. Compulsory licensing can impede innovations due to the opportunistic behaviour of market participants but certain measures of state policy can prevent this negative effect.

Suggested Citation

  • Šastitko, Andrej E. & Kurdin, Alexander A., 2015. "Incentives for Process Innovations under Discrete Structural Alternatives of Competition Policy," EconStor Preprints 121851, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:esprep:121851
    DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2594664
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/121851/1/92EC2015.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2139/ssrn.2594664?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Encaoua & Abraham Hollander, 2002. "Competition Policy and Innovation," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 18(1), pages 63-79, Spring.
    2. Daron Acemoglu & Ufuk Akcigit, 2012. "Intellectual Property Rights Policy, Competition And Innovation," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 1-42, February.
    3. Nancy T. Gallini & Ralph A. Winter, 1985. "Licensing in the Theory of Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(2), pages 237-252, Summer.
    4. Fan, Cuihong & Jun, Byoung Heon & Wolfstetter, Elmar G., 2013. "Licensing process innovations when losersʼ messages determine royalty rates," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 388-402.
    5. 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.
    6. Gallini, Nancy T, 1984. "Deterrence by Market Sharing: A Strategic Incentive for Licensing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(5), pages 931-941, December.
    7. Daniel Arce, 1997. "Correlated strategies as Institutions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 271-285, May.
    8. Fiestras-Janeiro, Gloria & Borm, Peter & van Megen, Freek, 1998. "Protective and Prudent Behaviour in Games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 167-175, January.
    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. A. Shastitko & A. Kurdin, 2016. "Incentives for process innovations under discrete structural alternatives of competition policy," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 4.
    2. Sen, Debapriya, 2005. "On the coexistence of different licensing schemes," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 393-413.
    3. Li, Qing & Zhang, Huaige & Hong, Xianpei, 2020. "Knowledge structure of technology licensing based on co-keywords network: A review and future directions," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 154-165.
    4. Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2002. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 51-78, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Douglas Cumming & Jeffrey MacIntosh, 2000. "The Determinants of R & D Expenditures: A Study of the Canadian Biotechnology Industry," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 17(4), pages 357-370, December.
    6. Shastitko. Andrey (Шаститко, Андрей) & Komkova, Anastasia Andreevna (Комкова, Анастасия Андреевна) & Kurdin, Alexander (Курдин, Александр) & Shastitko, Anastasia (Шаститко, Анастасия), 2016. "Competition Policy and Incentives for Innovation [Конкурентная Политика И Стимулы К Инновационной Деятельности]," Working Papers 1447, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    7. Georg von Graevenitz, 2005. "Integrating Competition Policy and Innovation Policy: The Case of R&D Cooperation," Industrial Organization 0503006, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Henry Wang, X., 2002. "Fee versus royalty licensing in a differentiated Cournot duopoly," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 253-266.
    9. Joshua S. Gans & Scott Stern, 2000. "Incumbency and R&D Incentives: Licensing the Gale of Creative Destruction," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(4), pages 485-511, December.
    10. Jean-François Sattin, 2016. "Exploring the survival of patent licensing: some evidence from French foreign agreements," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 610-630, June.
    11. Isabelle Brocas, 2003. "Les enjeux de la réglementation de la recherche et développement," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 113(1), pages 125-148.
    12. Arijit Mukherjee, 2014. "Licensing under convex costs," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 111(3), pages 289-299, April.
    13. Jay Pil Choi, 2002. "A Dynamic Analysis of Licensing: The "Boomerang" Effect and Grant-Back Clauses," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 43(3), pages 203-229, August.
    14. Sen, Debapriya & Stamatopoulos, Giorgos, 2009. "Drastic innovations and multiplicity of optimal licensing policies," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 7-10, October.
    15. Yair Tauman & Debrapiya Sen, 2012. "Patents and Licenses," Department of Economics Working Papers 12-05, Stony Brook University, Department of Economics.
    16. Nancy Gallini, 2017. "Do patents work? Thickets, trolls and antibiotic resistance," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 50(4), pages 893-926, November.
    17. Seifert, Jacob, 2013. "Compulsory Licensing, Innovation and Welfare," VfS Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 79778, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    18. Arijit Mukherjee & Sugata Marjit, 2004. "R&D organization and technology transfer," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 243-258, May.
    19. Steven Bond‐Smith, 2022. "Discretely innovating: The effect of limited market contestability on innovation and growth," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 69(3), pages 301-327, July.
    20. Magnus Henrekson & Anders Kärnä & Tino Sanandaji, 2022. "Schumpeterian entrepreneurship: coveted by policymakers but impervious to top-down policymaking," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 867-890, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    competition policy; compulsory licensing; process innovations;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L24 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Contracting Out; Joint Ventures
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law

    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:zbw:esprep:121851. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.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.