Showing 1 - 10 of 11
We offer a new explanation of equilibrium rationing. As is well known, a monopolist selling a durable good and not able to commit to a price sequence has an incentive to lower the price once the consumers with the greatest willingness to pay have bought, but this induces consumers to postpone...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10014208652
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10001713795
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10009697972
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10011752297
It is shown in this paper that there exist cost innovations for which a monopolist has a higher incentive to invest than a social planner. This unveils the limits of the claim, based on Arrow (1959), that a monopoly always has a lower incentive to innovate than a social planner and therefore...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10010580490
It is here shown that there exist cost innovations for which a monopolist has a higher incentive to invest than a social planner. This unveils the limits of the claim, based on Arrow (1959), that a monopoly always has a lower incentive to innovate than a social planner and therefore than...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10013094895
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10000925742
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10011916491
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10012385282
[We analyze a dynamic model of repeated innovation where inventors may be acquired by an incumbent or else challenge its leadership. In the short run, acquisitions always spur innovation because of the invention-for-buyout effect. In the long-run, however, acquisitions may stifle innovation...
Persistent link: https://www.econbiz.de/10013310461