[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedmsr/402.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Monopoly and the incentive to innovate when adoption involves switchover disruptions

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas J. Holmes
  • David K. Levine
  • James A. Schmitz
Abstract
When considering the incentive of a monopolist to adopt an innovation, the textbook model assumes that it can instantaneously and seamlessly introduce the new technology. In fact, firms often face major problems in integrating new technologies. In some cases, firms have to (temporarily) produce at levels substantially below capacity upon adoption. We call such phenomena switchover disruptions, and present extensive evidence on them. If firms face switchover disruptions, then they may temporarily lose some unit sales upon adoption. If the firm loses unit sales, then a cost of adoption is the foregone rents on the sales of those units. Hence, greater market power will mean higher prices on those lost units of output, and hence a reduced incentive to innovate. We introduce switchover disruptions into some standard models in the literature, show they can overturn some famous results, and then show they can help explain evidence that firms in more competitive environments are more likely to adopt technologies and increase productivity.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas J. Holmes & David K. Levine & James A. Schmitz, 2008. "Monopoly and the incentive to innovate when adoption involves switchover disruptions," Staff Report 402, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
    • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedmsr:402
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/common/pub_detail.cfm?pb_autonum_id=1112
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/SR/SR402.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jan De Loecker, 2011. "Product Differentiation, Multiproduct Firms, and Estimating the Impact of Trade Liberalization on Productivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 79(5), pages 1407-1451, September.
    2. Nina Pavcnik, 2002. "Trade Liberalization, Exit, and Productivity Improvements: Evidence from Chilean Plants," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 69(1), pages 245-276.
    3. Head, Keith & Ries, John, 1999. "Rationalization effects of tariff reductions," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 295-320, April.
    4. Paul Klemperer, 1995. "Competition when Consumers have Switching Costs: An Overview with Applications to Industrial Organization, Macroeconomics, and International Trade," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 62(4), pages 515-539.
    5. Axel Anderson & Luís M. B. Cabral, 2007. "Go for broke or play it safe? Dynamic competition with choice of variance," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(3), pages 593-609, September.
    6. Fernandes, Ana M., 2007. "Trade policy, trade volumes and plant-level productivity in Colombian manufacturing industries," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 52-71, March.
    7. Jovanovic, Boyan & Nyarko, Yaw, 1996. "Learning by Doing and the Choice of Technology," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 64(6), pages 1299-1310, November.
    8. Daniel Trefler, 2004. "The Long and Short of the Canada-U. S. Free Trade Agreement," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 870-895, September.
    9. Thomas J. Holmes & James A. Schmitz, 2001. "Competition at work : railroads vs. monopoly in the U.S. shipping industry," Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, vol. 25(Spr), pages 3-29.
    10. Tybout, James R. & Westbrook, M. Daniel, 1995. "Trade liberalization and the dimensions of efficiency change in Mexican manufacturing industries," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1-2), pages 53-78, August.
    11. Chad Syverson, 2004. "Market Structure and Productivity: A Concrete Example," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(6), pages 1181-1222, December.
    12. Mary Amiti & Jozef Konings, 2007. "Trade Liberalization, Intermediate Inputs, and Productivity: Evidence from Indonesia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1611-1638, December.
    13. Hay, Donald A, 2001. "The Post-1990 Brazilian Trade Liberalisation and the Performance of Large Manufacturing Firms: Productivity, Market Share and Profits," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(473), pages 620-641, July.
    14. Shawn Klimek & James Schmitz & Timothy Dunne, 2008. "Does Competition Spur Productivity? Evidence From U.S.Cement Manufacturing in the 20th Century," 2008 Meeting Papers 784, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    15. George Symeonidis, 2008. "The Effect of Competition on Wages and Productivity: Evidence from the United Kingdom," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 90(1), pages 134-146, February.
    16. Bernard, Andrew B. & Jensen, J. Bradford & Schott, Peter K., 2006. "Trade costs, firms and productivity," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(5), pages 917-937, July.
    17. Kira R. Fabrizio & Nancy L. Rose & Catherine D. Wolfram, 2007. "Do Markets Reduce Costs? Assessing the Impact of Regulatory Restructuring on US Electric Generation Efficiency," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1250-1277, September.
    18. Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1983. "Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 741-748, September.
    19. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, April.
    20. Marc-Andreas Muendler, 2004. "Trade, Technology, and Productivity: A Study of Brazilian Manufacturers, 1986-1998," CESifo Working Paper Series 1148, CESifo.
    21. Lewis, William W., 2004. "The Power of Productivity," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226476766.
    22. Sakellaris, Plutarchos, 2004. "Patterns of plant adjustment," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 425-450, March.
    23. Kevin B. Hendricks & Vinod R. Singhal, 2005. "Association Between Supply Chain Glitches and Operating Performance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(5), pages 695-711, May.
    24. Yi, Sang-Seung, 1999. "Market structure and incentives to innovate: the case of Cournot oligopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 379-388, December.
    25. Peter Klenow, 1998. "Learning Curves and the Cyclical Behavior of Manufacturing Industries," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 1(2), pages 531-550, April.
    26. Casey Ichniowski & Kathryn Shaw, 1995. "Old Dogs and New Tricks: Determinants of the Adoption of Productivity-Enhancing Work Practices," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 26(1995 Micr), pages 1-65.
    27. Armin Schmutzler, 2007. "The relation between competition and innovation � Why is it such a mess?," SOI - Working Papers 0716, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich, revised Jan 2010.
    28. Parente Stephen L., 1994. "Technology Adoption, Learning-by-Doing, and Economic Growth," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 346-369, August.
    29. Timothy Dunne & Shawn Klimek & James Schmitz, Jr., 2010. "Competition and Productivity: Evidence from the Post WWII U.S. Cement Industry," Working Papers 10-29, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    30. 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.
    31. Hiroshi Ohashi & Tsuyoshi Nakamura, 2005. "Technology Adoption, Learning by Doing, and Productivity: A Study from Steel Refining Furnaces," 2005 Meeting Papers 28, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    32. James A. Schmitz Jr., 2005. "What Determines Productivity? Lessons from the Dramatic Recovery of the U.S. and Canadian Iron Ore Industries Following Their Early 1980s Crisis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 113(3), pages 582-625, June.
    33. Gilbert, Richard J & Newbery, David M G, 1982. "Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 514-526, June.
    34. Huggett, Mark & Ospina, Sandra, 2001. "Does productivity growth fall after the adoption of new technology?," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 173-195, August.
    35. Tsuyoshi Nakamura & Hiroshi Ohashi, 2005. "Technology Adoption, Learning by Doing, and Productivity: A Study of Steel Refining Furnaces," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-368, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    36. Victor Gomes & Arilton Teixeira & Benjamin Bridgman, 2008. "The Threat of Competition Enhances Productivity," 2008 Meeting Papers 302, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    37. Demsetz, Harold, 1969. "Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, April.
    38. Michael J. Ginzberg, 1981. "Early Diagnosis of MIS Implementation Failure: Promising Results and Unanswered Questions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 459-478, April.
    39. Chari, V V & Hopenhayn, Hugo, 1991. "Vintage Human Capital, Growth, and the Diffusion of New Technology," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(6), pages 1142-1165, December.
    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. Shawn Klimek & James Schmitz & Timothy Dunne, 2010. "Does Foreign Competition Spur Productivity? Evidence From Post WWII U.S. Cement Manufacturing," 2010 Meeting Papers 805, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    2. Timothy Dunne & Shawn Klimek & James Schmitz, Jr., 2010. "Competition and Productivity: Evidence from the Post WWII U.S. Cement Industry," Working Papers 10-29, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    3. Pian Shu & Claudia Steinwender, 2019. "The Impact of Trade Liberalization on Firm Productivity and Innovation," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(1), pages 39-68.
    4. Chad Syverson, 2011. "What Determines Productivity?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 49(2), pages 326-365, June.
    5. Hansen, Thorsten, 2010. "Tariff Rates, Offshoring and Productivity: Evidence from German and Austrian Firm-Level Data," Discussion Papers in Economics 11465, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    6. Pérez, Carlos J. & Ponce, Carlos J., 2015. "Disruption costs, learning by doing, and technology adoption," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 64-75.
    7. Van Reenen, John, 2011. "Does competition raise productivity through improving management quality?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 306-316, May.
    8. Albert Guangzhou Hu & Zhengning Liu, 2014. "Trade Liberalization and Firm Productivity: Evidence from Chinese Manufacturing Industries," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 488-512, August.
    9. Marcela Eslava & John Haltiwanger & Adriana Kugler & Maurice Kugler, 2013. "Trade and Market Selection: Evidence from Manufacturing Plants in Colombia," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 16(1), pages 135-158, January.
    10. Olivier Cadot & Céline Carrère & Vanessa Strauss-Kahn, 2013. "Trade Diversification, Income, And Growth: What Do We Know?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 790-812, September.
    11. Pierce, Justin R., 2011. "Plant-level responses to antidumping duties: Evidence from U.S. manufacturers," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 222-233.
    12. Chen, Cheng & Steinwender, Claudia, 2021. "Import competition, heterogeneous preferences of managers, and productivity," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    13. Nataraj, Shanthi, 2011. "The impact of trade liberalization on productivity: Evidence from India's formal and informal manufacturing sectors," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 292-301.
    14. Eslava, Marcela & Haltiwanger, John C. & Kugler, Adriana & Kugler, Maurice, 2009. "Trade Reforms and Market Selection: Evidence from Manufacturing Plants in Colombia," IZA Discussion Papers 4256, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Iacovone, Leonardo, 2012. "The better you are the stronger it makes you: Evidence on the asymmetric impact of liberalization," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 474-485.
    16. Loren Brandt & Johannes Van Biesebroeck & Luhang Wang & Yifan Zhang, 2017. "WTO Accession and Performance of Chinese Manufacturing Firms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(9), pages 2784-2820, September.
    17. Ngo Van Long & Horst Raff & Frank Staehler, 2007. "The Effects of Trade Liberalization on Productivity and Welfare: The Role of Firm Heterogeneity, R&D and Market Structure," Working Papers 0710, University of Otago, Department of Economics, revised Jun 2007.
    18. Fieler, Ana Cecília & Harrison, Ann E., 2023. "Escaping import competition in China," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    19. Kasahara, Hiroyuki & Lapham, Beverly, 2013. "Productivity and the decision to import and export: Theory and evidence," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 297-316.
    20. Marion Dovis & Juliette Milgram‐Baleix, 2009. "Trade, Tariffs and Total Factor Productivity: The Case of Spanish Firms," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(4), pages 575-605, April.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L10 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - General
    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies

    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:fip:fedmsr:402. 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: Kate Hansel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cfrbmus.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.