IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fth/teavfo/5-91.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Complementary Network Externalities and Technological Adoption

Author

Listed:
  • Church, J.
  • Gandal, N.

Abstract

We address the adoption of technology when there are network externalities and networks are characterized by complementary products produced by different firms. We show that the market outcome is efficient if the software firms are monopolistic competitors. If the software firms are Bertrand competitors, a hardware technology with lower software development costs is adopted for many parameter values for which it is socially optimal to adopt the other technology. The overadoption is due to a discrepancy between the private and social value of having a larger network: this divergence is increasing in the software development costs. We also examine various contractual arrangements between hardware firms and software firms which internalize the network externality.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Church, J. & Gandal, N., 1991. "Complementary Network Externalities and Technological Adoption," Papers 5-91, Tel Aviv.
    • Handle: RePEc:fth:teavfo:5-91
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1977. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(3), pages 297-308, June.
    2. Joseph Farrell & Nancy T. Gallini, 1988. "Second-Sourcing as a Commitment: Monopoly Incentives to Attract Competition," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 103(4), pages 673-694.
    3. Carmen Matutes & Pierre Regibeau, 1988. ""Mix and Match": Product Compatibility without Network Externalities," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(2), pages 221-234, Summer.
    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. Matutes, Carmen & Regibeau, Pierre, 1996. "A selective review of the economics of standardization. Entry deterrence, technological progress and international competition," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 183-209, September.
    2. Hagiu, Andrei & Jullien, Bruno & Wright, Julian, 2018. "Creating platforms by hosting rivals," TSE Working Papers 18-970, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Mar 2019.
    3. Rey, Patrick & Tirole, Jean, 2007. "A Primer on Foreclosure," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 33, pages 2145-2220, Elsevier.
    4. Desruelle, Dominique & Gaudet, Gerard & Richelle, Yves, 1996. "Complementarity, coordination and compatibility: The role of fixed costs in the economics of systems," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 14(6), pages 747-768, October.
    5. Holler ,Manfred J. & Knieps, Günter & Niskanen, Esko, 1997. "Standardization in Transportation Markets: A European Perspective," Discussion Papers 151, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    6. Church, Jeffrey & Gandal, Neil, 2012. "Direct and indirect network effects are equivalent: A comment on “Direct and Indirect Network Effects: Are They Equivalent?”," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 708-712.
    7. Michael L. Katz & Carl Shapiro, 1994. "Systems Competition and Network Effects," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 93-115, Spring.
    8. Andrei Hagiu & Bruno Jullien & Julian Wright, 2020. "Creating Platforms by Hosting Rivals," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(7), pages 3234-3248, July.
    9. Camacho-Cuena, Eva & Garcia-Gallego, Aurora & Georgantzis, Nikolaos & Sabater-Grande, Gerardo, 2005. "Buyer-seller interaction in experimental spatial markets," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 89-108, March.
    10. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899.
    11. Church Jeffrey & Gandal Neil & Krause David, 2008. "Indirect Network Effects and Adoption Externalities," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(3), pages 1-22, September.
    12. Kevin Boudreau, 2010. "Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(10), pages 1849-1872, October.
    13. Chou, Chien-fu & Shy, Oz, 1996. "Do consumers gain or lose when more people buy the same brand," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 309-330, September.
    14. Pradeep K. Chintagunta & Marco Shaojun Qin & Maria Ana Vitorino, 2018. "Licensing and Price Competition in Tied-Goods Markets: An Application to the Single-Serve Coffee System Industry," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(6), pages 883-911, November.
    15. Stanley M. Besen & Joseph Farrell, 1994. "Choosing How to Compete: Strategies and Tactics in Standardization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 117-131, Spring.
    16. Adnan Haider Bukhari & Safdar Ullah Khan, 2008. "A Small Open Economy DSGE Model for Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 47(4), pages 963-1008.
    17. Croce, M.M. & Nguyen, Thien T. & Raymond, S. & Schmid, L., 2019. "Government debt and the returns to innovation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(3), pages 205-225.
    18. Paolo Epifani & Gino Gancia, 2008. "The Skill Bias of World Trade," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(530), pages 927-960, July.
    19. Cukierman, Alex & Lippi, Francesco, 2001. "Labour Markets and Monetary Union: A Strategic Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(473), pages 541-565, July.
    20. Lutz Arnold & Christian Bauer, 2009. "On the growth and welfare effects of monopolistic distortions," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 19-40, May.

    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:fth:teavfo:5-91. 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: Thomas Krichel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fotauil.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.