The R&D Investment Decision Game with Product Differentiation

IF 0.3 4区 经济学 Q4 ECONOMICS
D. Buccella, L. Fanti, L. Gori
{"title":"The R&D Investment Decision Game with Product Differentiation","authors":"D. Buccella, L. Fanti, L. Gori","doi":"10.1515/bejte-2021-0129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article extends the cost-reducing R&D model with spillovers by d’Aspremont and Jacquemin (1988. “Cooperative and Noncooperative R&D in Duopoly with Spillovers.” The American Economic Review 78: 1133–7, 1990. “Cooperative and Noncooperative R&D in Duopoly with Spillovers: Erratum.” The American Economic Review 80: 641–2) to allow quantity-setting firms (Cournot rivalry) to play the non-cooperative R&D investment decision game with horizontal product differentiation. Unlike Bacchiega, Lambertini, and Mantovani (2010. “R&D-hindering Collusion.” The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 10 (Topics): 66), who identify a parametric region (defined by the extent of technological spillovers and the efficiency of R&D activity), in which the game is a prisoner’s dilemma (self-interest and mutual benefit of cost-reducing innovation conflict), this work shows that product differentiation changes the game into a deadlock (self-interest and mutual benefit do not conflict), regardless of the parameter scale (i.e. also in the absence of spill-over effects). Then investing in R&D challenges the improvement of interventions aimed at favouring product differentiation. This is because social welfare when firms invest in cost-reducing R&D is greater than when firms do not invest in R&D. Alternatively, R&D subsidies can be used as a social welfare maximising tool also in the absence of R&D spillovers. These results also hold for price-setting firms (Bertrand rivalry).","PeriodicalId":44773,"journal":{"name":"B E Journal of Theoretical Economics","volume":"23 1","pages":"601 - 637"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"B E Journal of Theoretical Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/bejte-2021-0129","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract This article extends the cost-reducing R&D model with spillovers by d’Aspremont and Jacquemin (1988. “Cooperative and Noncooperative R&D in Duopoly with Spillovers.” The American Economic Review 78: 1133–7, 1990. “Cooperative and Noncooperative R&D in Duopoly with Spillovers: Erratum.” The American Economic Review 80: 641–2) to allow quantity-setting firms (Cournot rivalry) to play the non-cooperative R&D investment decision game with horizontal product differentiation. Unlike Bacchiega, Lambertini, and Mantovani (2010. “R&D-hindering Collusion.” The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 10 (Topics): 66), who identify a parametric region (defined by the extent of technological spillovers and the efficiency of R&D activity), in which the game is a prisoner’s dilemma (self-interest and mutual benefit of cost-reducing innovation conflict), this work shows that product differentiation changes the game into a deadlock (self-interest and mutual benefit do not conflict), regardless of the parameter scale (i.e. also in the absence of spill-over effects). Then investing in R&D challenges the improvement of interventions aimed at favouring product differentiation. This is because social welfare when firms invest in cost-reducing R&D is greater than when firms do not invest in R&D. Alternatively, R&D subsidies can be used as a social welfare maximising tool also in the absence of R&D spillovers. These results also hold for price-setting firms (Bertrand rivalry).
产品差异化下的研发投资决策博弈
本文对d’aspremont和Jacquemin(1988)提出的具有溢出效应的成本降低型研发模型进行了扩展。“具有溢出效应的双寡头合作与非合作研发”。《经济评论》(英文版),1990。“具有溢出效应的双寡头合作与非合作研发:勘误”。(《美国经济评论》80:641-2)允许数量设定型企业(古诺竞争)进行具有横向产品差异化的非合作研发投资决策博弈。不像Bacchiega, Lambertini和Mantovani(2010)。“R&D-hindering勾结。”B.E.经济分析与政策杂志(专题):66),他们确定了一个参数区域(由技术溢出的程度和研发活动的效率定义),其中的博弈是一个囚徒困境(自利和互利的成本降低创新冲突),这项工作表明,产品差异化使博弈陷入僵局(自利和互利不冲突),无论参数规模(即也没有溢出效应)。然后,研发投资对旨在促进产品差异化的干预措施的改进提出了挑战。这是因为企业投资于降低成本的研发时的社会福利大于不投资于研发时的社会福利。或者,在没有研发溢出效应的情况下,研发补贴也可以作为社会福利最大化的工具。这些结果同样适用于定价公司(Bertrand竞争)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
25.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: We welcome submissions in all areas of economic theory, both applied theory and \"pure\" theory. Contributions can be either innovations in economic theory or rigorous new applications of existing theory. Pure theory papers include, but are by no means limited to, those in behavioral economics and decision theory, game theory, general equilibrium theory, and the theory of economic mechanisms. Applications could encompass, but are by no means limited to, contract theory, public finance, financial economics, industrial organization, law and economics, and labor economics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信