Abstract
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 88-100 |
| Number of pages | 13 |
| Journal | Manchester School |
| Volume | 70 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2002 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
Cite this
Monopoly versus Ramp;D-integrated duopoly. / Amir, R.; Nannerup, N.; Stepanova, A.; Eguiazarova, E.
In: Manchester School, Vol. 70, No. 1, 2002, p. 88-100.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Monopoly versus Ramp;D-integrated duopoly
AU - Amir, R.
AU - Nannerup, N.
AU - Stepanova, A.
AU - Eguiazarova, E.
PY - 2002
Y1 - 2002
N2 - In the standard two‐stage framework of R&D/product market competition, this paper provides a performance comparison between monopoly and the cartelized research joint venture, using two well‐known models based on different versions of the R&D spillover process. According to the model with a wider scope of application, monopoly always leads to a higher propensity for R&D and, when R&D costs are low, to the best overall market performance. The results also allow for a comparison between the two underlying models of strategic R&D.
AB - In the standard two‐stage framework of R&D/product market competition, this paper provides a performance comparison between monopoly and the cartelized research joint venture, using two well‐known models based on different versions of the R&D spillover process. According to the model with a wider scope of application, monopoly always leads to a higher propensity for R&D and, when R&D costs are low, to the best overall market performance. The results also allow for a comparison between the two underlying models of strategic R&D.
U2 - 10.1111/1467-9957.00285
DO - 10.1111/1467-9957.00285
M3 - Article
VL - 70
SP - 88
EP - 100
JO - Manchester School
JF - Manchester School
SN - 1463-6786
IS - 1
ER -