Subsidizing cooperative and noncooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers

Comparing the effect on private R&D investments of allowing firms to cooperate in R&D with that of providing R&D subsidies reveals that in general the latter policy is more effective than the former in promoting R&D activity. Analyzing the implementation of both policies simultaneously reveals that subsidizing cooperative and noncooperative R&D leads to the same market outcome. The preferred R&D-stimulating policy is to subsidize optimally an agreement according to which firms only share the outcomes of their independent research.     

Sequencing R&D decisions in a two-period duopoly with spillovers

Summary. We compare simultaneous versus sequential moves in R&;D decisions within an asymmetric R&;D/Cournot model with linear demand (for differentiated products), general R&;D costs, and spillovers. Simultaneous play and sequential play (with and without a specified leader) can emerge as appropriate formulations, depending on the ratios of spillover rate over demand cross-slope, but not on R&;D efficiency. When at least one ratio is above 1/2, a sequential solution mitigates competition and leads to higher profits for each firm, and to higher social welfare. When uniquely specified, the stronger firm emerges as the R&;D first-mover.     

More on subsidizing cooperative and noncooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers

In an earlier article in this journal I compared two R&D-stimulating policies: allowing for R&D cooperatives and providing direct R&D subsidies (see Hinloopen, 1997:Journal of Economics 66: 151–175). I also considered the implementation of both policies simultaneously. Since then Amir (1998: Discussion Paper 1/1998, Odense University) has shown that the model I used as a starting point (i.e., that of d'Aspremont and Jacquemin, 1988:American Economic Review 78: 1133–1137) is not well-defined with respect to a crucial parameter (the technological spillover) and subsequently proposes an augmentation of the model. Replicating then my original analysis with this augmented model reveals that all results stated before remain valid. In addition I correct a minor error in Hinloopen (1997) related to the comparison of optimal R&D subsidies.     

Spillovers,subsidies, and second‐best socially optimal R&D

This paper provides a thorough second‐best welfare analysis of the standard two‐stage model of R&D/product market competition with R&D spillovers. The planner's solution is compared to the standard non‐cooperative scenario, the R&D cartel, and the cartelized research joint venture (or joint lab). We introduce the notion of a social joint lab, as a way for the planner to avoid wasteful R&D duplication. With no spillovers, the non‐cooperative scenario, the joint lab, and the second‐best planner's solutions coincide. However, with spillovers, all three scenarios yield R&D investments that fall short of the socially optimal level. To shed light on the role of the spillover level on these comparisons, we observe that the gaps between the market outcomes and the planners solutions widen as the spillover parameter increases. Finally, we establish that a social planner and a social joint lab solutions may be achieved starting from any of the three scenarios by offering firms respective suitably weighted quadratic R&D subsidization schedules.     

R&D subsidies in a duopoly market with outsourcing to the rival firm

This paper investigates the effects of a public uniform R&D subsidy policy in a downstream duopoly market in which a nonintegrated firm, which faces a lower marginal cost, outsources inputs from its vertically integrated rival. The findings show that, in this market structure, such a policy has relevant effects largely differentiated between downstream competitors, as it can significantly modify the relative market shares and profitability of competing firms. Unlike the standard Cournot setting augmented with R&D, results show that the subsidy policy can have different (counterintuitive) effects on R&D investments, output, and profits of the vertically integrated producer and the vertically separated firm, which hold in both cases of exogenous and endogenous (optimal) subsidy. Our findings offer some testable implications and suggest that a subsidy policy in a market with outsourcing to a rival should also consider the different effects of this approach on competitors.     

R&D subsidy and output subsidy in a duopoly: The role of technology spillover and R&D budget

Technology spillover and research and development (R&D) budget are relevant on government subsidies that aim at improving social welfare through enhancing R&D incentives of firms. However, there has not been related literature considering these two factors. To fill this gap, this paper examines the effect of technology spillover and R&D budget on R&D competition of duopolistic firms and government subsidies by constructing a game-theoretic model. We find that while each firm's profit sometimes increases with R&D budget for low coefficient of technology spillover, this profit may decrease with R&D budget for high coefficient of technology spillover due to the intensified R&D competition. We show that when both R&D budget and the coefficient of technology spillover remain high, R&D subsidy leads to higher social welfare than output subsidy and otherwise R&D subsidy results in lower social welfare.     

Diversification and optimal hedges for socially responsible investment in Brazil

This study contributes to the literature on socially responsible investing by examining the diversification potential of commodities, specifically oil, gold and clean energy together with the Brazilian Corporate Sustainability Index (ISE). Multivariate GARCH models are used to model volatility spillovers and conditional correlation in pairs of stocks containing ISE. Specifically, A-BEKK and A-DCC models with spillovers are estimated. The models’ results are used to compute and analyze the optimal weights and hedge ratios for stock portfolio holdings. The greatest benefit from diversification is obtained through the acquisition of gold and then OVX.     

Non‐Scale Endogenous Growth with R&D and Human Capital

This paper examines the conditions under which increasing knowledge, encapsulated in ideas for new technology through R&D and embodied in human capital through education, sustains economic growth. A general model is developed where, consistent with recent literature, growth is non‐scale (not increasing in population size) and endogenous (generated by factors within R&D and education). Recent models feature the counterfactual assumption of constant returns to existing knowledge and restrict the substitutability of inputs within R&D and education. We find that non‐scale endogenous growth is possible under less stringent conditions. The findings reconcile sustained economic growth with evidence of diminishing marginal returns in education and R&D, which suggests an ambiguous role for R&D policy.     

Off‐Shoring,Specialization and R&D

This paper investigates whether off‐shoring promotes technological specialization by reallocating resources towards high‐tech industries and/or stimulating within industry R&D. Using data for the USA, Japan and Europe, our results show that material off‐shoring promotes high‐tech specialization through input reallocation between sectors, while service off‐shoring favors technologically advanced production by increasing within‐industry productivity, mainly via its positive impact on R&D. Conversely, we find that the increasing fragmentation of core production tasks, captured by narrow off‐shoring, has adverse effects on technological specialisation, which suggests that this type of off‐shoring is mainly pursued for cost‐reduction motives.     

Wage‐Setting Institutions and R&D Collaboration Networks

We analyse how union structures that differ in the degree of wage‐setting centralisation affect the pattern of R&D network formation. Within the context of a three‐firm industry, a central union that sets a uniform wage is shown to induce a partial R&D network that includes two firms but excludes the third. In contrast, we find that, under less centralised union structures, firms have incentives to form R&D networks with a larger number of alliances. This result is consistent with the stylised facts for industrialised countries: recent decades have seen an upsurge in R&D alliances along with labour market deregulation towards more flexible wage‐setting institutions.     

R&D and foreign direct investment with asymmetric spillovers

This paper analyzes how firms’ R&D investment decisions are affected by asymmetries in knowledge transmission, considering different sources of asymmetry such as unequal know-how management capabilities and spillovers localization within an international oligopoly. We show that a better ability to manage knowledge flows incentivizes the firm to invest more in R&D. By introducing geographically bounded spillovers, we also find that one-way foreign direct investment (FDI) stimulates the multinational enterprise to raise its own R&D and that an FDI equilibrium is more likely to occur. Finally, spillovers localization leading to two-way FDI is welfare improving when compared with non-localized spillovers.     

Indeterminate equilibrium growth with product and R&D spillovers

The paper revisits an endogenously growing economy à la Romer (1990) to explore the possibility of local and global indeterminacy where, along with the usual R&D spillover, a manufacturing sector generates a product spillover on R&D. When the product spillover facilitates R&D, the dynamic market equilibrium is unique and determinate. However, when the product spillover is strongly negative on R&D, multiple balanced market equilibria emerge and are therefore globally indeterminate. Furthermore, global indeterminacy coexists with local indeterminacy under the joint condition on the intertemporal elasticity of substitution of consumption. Local indeterminacy also emerges when the product spillover is mildly negative in tandem with a high intertemporal elasticity of substitution. Hence, a dynamic market economy with product spillovers in the R&D sector enriches the understanding of observable growth phenomena, including business and growth cycles and income and growth disparity, among countries with the same economic fundamentals.     

Comparing Cournot and Bertrand equilibria in an asymmetric duopoly with product R&D

We compare the Cournot and Bertrand equilibria in an asymmetric duopoly with product R&D competition. If a firm’s marginal cost is lower than that of its rival, then this firm (its rival) is referred to as the more (less) efficient firm. Under each mode of competition, there are three types of equilibria: blockaded-entry, deterred-entry, and accommodated-entry. Moreover, the presence of R&D investment makes it harder for the less efficient firm to survive. Cournot competition entails a unique equilibrium, whereas Bertrand competition may yield two equilibria. It is harder for the less efficient firm to survive under Bertrand competition than under Cournot competition. Versus Cournot competition, Bertrand competition yields higher industry output, and it shifts production from the less efficient firm to the more efficient firm. This result, together with the known size effect, explains the following three findings. First, the more efficient firm has a normal output ranking, whereas the less efficient firm may demonstrate an output reversal. Second, the more efficient firm may demonstrate a R&D reversal, whereas the less efficient firm has a normal R&D ranking (its Cournot R&D effort exceeds its Bertrand R&D effort). Third, Bertrand competition is more welfare-efficient than Cournot competition.     

Cost‐reducing R&D Investment,Labor Market and Trade

This paper constructs a two‐country model in which oligopolistic firms export goods and undertake cost‐reducing R&D investment. Each country imposes tariffs. A decrease in the tariff rates in both countries decreases cost‐reducing R&D investment.     

Pareto‐optimal Delegation in Customs Unions*

Customs unions constitute agreements to engage in free intra‐union trade and to levy common external tariffs on trade with nonmembers. Existing theoretical models do not agree on how the common external tariffs are chosen. In this paper, a model of customs union formation is developed in which the Pareto principle and the assumption of unanimity are used to construct a mechanism for the choice of common external tariffs. The model is structured as a three‐stage game in which union members select common external tariffs yielding utility outcomes that are Pareto optimal and dominate the standalone alternative. Numerical examples demonstrate the wide range in the nature of these outcomes. Our results are discussed in relation to the delegation principle developed by Gatsios and Karp and to modeling approaches reported in the customs union literature. The paper emphasizes the importance of modeling the formation of the customs union agreement.     

R&D games in a Cournot duopoly with isoelastic demand functions: A comment

In a recent paper, Tramontana (Economic Modelling, 27; 350-357, 2010) investigates the stability properties of a Cournot Duopoly game when the demand function is isoelastic. In this note, we show that for some well known applications of two-stage Cournot games (D. Aspremont and Jacquemin, American Economic Review, 78, 1122-1137, 1988) an isoelastic demand function can guarantee both the existence and the uniqueness of a Nash Equilibrium even in cases where existence is not obtained with linear demands.     

Partial privatization in mixed duopoly with price and quality competition

We analyze price and quality competition in a mixed duopoly in which a profit-maximizing private firm competes against a state-owned public firm. We first show that the welfare-maximizing public firm provides a lower quality product than the private firm when they are equally efficient. In order to maximize social welfare, government manipulates the objective of the public firm that is given by a convex combination of profits and social welfare. It is demonstrated that an optimal incentive of the public firm is welfare maximization under the absence of quality competition, but it is neither welfare maximization nor profit maximization under the presence of quality competition. The result supports a completely mixed objective between welfare and profit maximizations or partial privatization of the public firm.      

Climate policy and the optimal extraction of high‐ and low‐carbon fossil fuels

Abstract. We study how restricting CO₂ emissions affects resource prices and depletion over time. We use a Hotelling‐style model with two non‐renewable fossil fuels that differ in their carbon content (e.g., coal and natural gas) and in addition are imperfect substitutes in final good production. We show that an economy facing a CO₂ flow‐constraint may substitute towards the relatively dirty input. As the economy tries to maximize output per unit of emissions it is not only carbon content that matters: productivity matters as well. With an announced constraint the economy first substitutes towards the less productive input such that more of the productive input is available when constrained. Preliminary empirical results suggest that it is cost‐effective to substitute away from dirty coal to cleaner oil or gas, but to substitute from natural gas towards the dirtier input oil.     

Price leadership in a duopoly with capacity constraints and product differentiation

This paper analyzes Stackelberg price leadership in a duopoly in which firms are capacity constrained and products are imperfect substitutes. Assuming symmetric substitutes, linear demand, and efficient rationing, we characterize the equilibria with an exogenously specified leader. Using the equilibrium profits derived from these games, we argue that over certain ranges of asymmetric capacities an endogenous price leader will emerge. When endogenous leadership does arise, it is the large capacity firm which is the leader. We thus provide a game theoretic model of dominant firm price leadership.Dave Furth's research has been undertaken as a part of the project Competition and Cooperation. Dan Kovenock has benefited from financial support from Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Krannert School of Management, and the Jay N. Ross Young Faculty Research Fellowship. We are grateful to Tom Faith for valuable research assistance. We have benefited from the comments of the editor, two anonymous referees, and participants at the European meetings of the Econometric Society in September 1989 and the North American Winter Meetings of the Econometric Society in December 1989.