R&amp;D cooperation or competition?

Petit, Maria Luisa; Tolwinski, Boleslaw

doi:10.1016/s0014-2921(97)00111-6

Cited by 73 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other side, detractors of interfirm cooperation argue that these collaborative activities may be anticompetitive because of the risks that the cooperation may lead to outcomes harmful to consumer welfare (Clarke 1983;Petit and Tolwinski 1999;Wright 1986). For example, Wright (1986) suggests that alliances among competitors may suffer from "overinclusiveness."…”

Section: Sivadas and Dwyer 2000)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interfirm Cooperation and Customer Orientation

Rindfleisch

Moorman

2003

Journal of Marketing Research

231

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the implications of interfirm cooperation for a firm's level of customer orientation. Drawing on research in marketing, organizational theory, and economics, the authors suggest that firms engaged in cooperative alliances with competitors will become less customer oriented over time. Using longitudinal survey data, the authors find that firms in alliances dominated by competitors experience a significant decrease in their level of customer orientation. In contrast, the authors do not observe this type of decrease for firms in alliances dominated by channel members. Moreover, the authors find that both behavioral and structural mechanisms influence the relationship between alliance type and customer orientation. Behaviorally, firms in competitor-dominated alliances with weak relational ties with their collaborators exhibit a greater decrease in customer orientation compared with firms with strong ties with their collaborators. Structurally, firms that collaborate with competitors in alliances with a third-party monitor, such as a government agency, experience a smaller decrease in customer orientation than firms in alliances without such a monitor.

show abstract

Section: Sivadas and Dwyer 2000)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interfirm Cooperation and Customer Orientation

Rindfleisch

Moorman

2003

Journal of Marketing Research

231

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been a long-standing indication in the literature, confirmed in a dynamic framework by Petit and Tolwinski (1999), that larger spillovers can prevent the monopolization of the industry by easing imitation. Using a richer analytical framework and considering all possible absolute and relative differences in firms' production costs, this paper shows that while intuitive, the above result is not universally true.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Surveying this literature, De Bondt (1997) reports that while the amount of R&D done by each firm tends to decrease as spillovers increase (due to a free-riding effect), industry output and welfare increase as long as the level of spillovers is below some critical intermediate value (0.5 in the homogenous goods case of d' Aspremont and Jacquemin (1988)). Petit and Tolwinski (1999) consider asymmetric firms in a dynamic, though deterministic, context. They show that when firms are symmetric, high spillovers are not desirable from the consumers' perspective as they lead to low R&D efforts and high prices.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Among Copycats: R&D, Spillovers, and Feedback Strategies

Smrkolj

Wagener

2014

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. We study a stochastic dynamic game of process innovation in which firms can initiate and terminate R&D efforts and production at different times. We discern the impact of knowledge spillovers on the investments in existing markets, as well as on the likely structure of newly forming markets, for all possible asymmetries between firms. We show that the relation between spillovers, R&D efforts, and surpluses is non-monotonic and dependent on both the relative and absolute efficiency of firms. Larger spillovers increase the likelihood that a new technology is brought to production, but they do not necessarily make the industry more competitive. Terms of use: Documents in

show abstract

“…2 Norbäck (2001) analyzes the same issue but considers a single firm that produces a good whose demand is located in another country. The firm decides its technology, which can be implemented at home without cost or abroad with a transfer cost (since it must be adapted to 1 See, e. g. d 'Aspremont and Jacquemin (1988), Kamien et al (1992) and Petit and Tolwinski (1998). local conditions).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relocation and investment in R&D by firms

Bárcena‐Ruiz

Garzón

2014

Port Econ J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature on foreign direct investment has analyzed firms' location decisions when they invest in R&D to reduce production costs. Such firms may set up new plants in other developed countries while maintaining their domestic plants. In contrast, here we consider firms that close down their domestic operations and relocate to countries where wage costs are lower. Thus, we assume that firms may reduce their production costs by investing in R&D and also by moving their plants abroad. We show that these two mechanisms are complementary. When a firm relocates it invests more in R&D than when it does not change its location and, therefore, its production cost is lower in the first case. As a result, investment in R&D encourages firms to relocate. When firms do not invest in R&D on relocation, R&D discourages firms to relocate since the investment made by the firms that remain in the country partially offsets the labor cost advantage obtained by the firms that move their plants abroad.JEL classification: D6; F16; J51; L13.

show abstract

R&D cooperation or competition?

Cited by 73 publications

References 8 publications

Interfirm Cooperation and Customer Orientation

Interfirm Cooperation and Customer Orientation

Research Among Copycats: R&D, Spillovers, and Feedback Strategies

Relocation and investment in R&D by firms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About