Monopoly and the Incentive to Innovate When Adoption Involves Switchover Disruptions

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.

[1]  P. Klemperer Competition when Consumers have Switching Costs: An Overview with Applications to Industrial Organization, Macroeconomics, and International Trade , 1992 .

[2]  Peter J. Klenow,et al.  Learning Curves and the Cyclical Behavior of Manufacturing Industries , 1998 .

[3]  G. Symeonidis,et al.  The Effect of Competition on Wages and Productivity: Evidence from the UK , 2007 .

[4]  Sandra Ospina,et al.  Does productivity growth fall after the adoption of new technology , 2001 .

[5]  Nina Pavcnik,et al.  Trade Liberalization, Exit, and Productivity Improvements: Evidence from Chilean Plants , 2000 .

[6]  George Hendrikse,et al.  The Theory of Industrial Organization , 1989 .

[7]  Herbert G. Heneman,et al.  Promise and peril in implementing pay‐for‐performance , 2004 .

[8]  H. James Nelson,et al.  Old dogs and new tricks , 2002, CACM.

[9]  Chad Syverson,et al.  Market Structure and Productivity: A Concrete Example , 2004, Journal of Political Economy.

[10]  Jozef Konings,et al.  Trade Liberalization, Intermediate Inputs, and Productivity: Evidence from Indonesia , 2005, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[11]  R. Crandall,et al.  Old Dogs and New Tricks: Determinants of the Adoption of Productivity-Enhancing Work Practices , 1995 .

[12]  K. Arrow Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention , 1962 .

[13]  X. Vives Innovation and Competitive Pressure , 2004 .

[14]  Sang-Seung Yi,et al.  Market structure and incentives to innovate: the case of Cournot oligopoly , 1999 .

[15]  Jennifer F. Reinganum Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly , 1982 .

[16]  J. Konings,et al.  Trade liberalization, intermediate imputs and productivity , 2005 .

[17]  J. V. Reenen,et al.  Trade induced technical change? The impact of Chinese imports on IT and innovation , 2008 .

[18]  Peter K. Schott,et al.  Trade costs, firms and productivity , 2006 .

[19]  M. Muendler Trade, Technology and Productivity: A Study of Brazilian Manufacturers 1986-1998 , 2004, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[20]  W. W. Lewis The Power of Productivity , 2004 .

[21]  Michael J. Ginzberg,et al.  Early Diagnosis of MIS Implementation Failure: Promising Results and Unanswered Questions , 1981 .

[22]  Boyan Jovanovic,et al.  Learning By Doing and the Choice of Technology , 1994 .

[23]  Timothy Dunne,et al.  Does Foreign Competition Spur Productivity? Evidence From Post WWII U.S. Cement Manufacturing , 2010 .

[24]  Kevin B. Hendricks,et al.  Association Between Supply Chain Glitches and Operating Performance , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[25]  Klaus M. Schmidt Managerial Incentives and Product Market Competition , 1997 .

[26]  A. Fernandes,et al.  Trade Policy, Trade Volumes and Plant-Level Productivity in Colombian Manufacturing Industries , 2003 .

[27]  N. Rose,et al.  Do Markets Reduce Costs? Assessing the Impact of Regulatory Restructuring on U.S. Electric Generation Efficiency , 2004 .

[28]  K. Head,et al.  Rationalization effects of tariff reductions , 1999 .

[29]  Stephen L. Parente Technology adoption, learning-by-doing, and economic growth , 1994 .

[30]  J. Tybout Plant- and Firm-Level Evidence on "New" Trade Theories , 2001 .

[31]  John T. Dunlop,et al.  Diffusion and Performance of Modular Production in the U.S. Apparel Industry , 1996 .

[32]  Donald A. Hay The Post‐1990 Brazilian Trade Liberalisation and the Performance of Large Manufacturing Firms: Productivity, Market Share and Profits , 2001 .

[33]  G. Symeonidis,et al.  The Effect of Competition on Wages and Productivity: Evidence from the United Kingdom , 2008, The Review of Economics and Statistics.

[34]  C. Speier,et al.  The Hidden Minefields in the Adoption of Sales Force Automation Technologies , 2002 .

[35]  Kevin B. Hendricks,et al.  The effect of supply chain glitches on shareholder wealth , 2003 .

[36]  Jan De Loecker,et al.  Product Differentiation, Multi-Product Firms and Estimating the Impact of Trade Liberalization on Productivity , 2007 .

[37]  Benjamin Bridgman,et al.  The Threat of Competition Enhances Productivity , 2008 .

[38]  Philippe Aghion,et al.  Competition and Innovation: An Inverted U Relationship , 2004 .

[39]  Armin Schmutzler,et al.  The Relation between Competition and Innovation -- Why is it Such a Mess? , 2010 .

[40]  Martin Schneider,et al.  Strategic Experimentation and Disruptive Technological Change , 2005 .

[41]  Jesse Rutherford,et al.  Technology Adoption , 2010, IEEE Pulse.

[42]  James A. Schmitz What determines productivity? lessons from the dramatic recovery of the U.S. and Canadian iron-ore industries following their early 1980s crisis , 2005 .

[43]  D. Newbery,et al.  Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly , 1982 .

[44]  Philippe Aghion,et al.  Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship , 2005 .

[45]  J. Tybout,et al.  Trade liberalization and the dimensions of efficiency change in Mexican manufacturing industries , 1995 .

[46]  James A. Schmitz,et al.  Competitive Pressure and Labor Productivity: World Iron-Ore Markets in the 1980's , 2002 .

[47]  Plutarchos Sakellaris,et al.  Patterns of Plant Adjustment , 2000 .

[48]  Varadarajan V. Chari,et al.  Vintage Human Capital, Growth, and the Diffusion of New Technology , 1991, Journal of Political Economy.

[49]  James A. Schmitz,et al.  Competition at Work: Railroads vs. Monopoly in the U.S. Shipping Industry , 2001 .

[50]  Michael Raith,et al.  Competition, Risk and Managerial Incentives , 2001 .

[51]  Luís M. B. Cabral,et al.  Go for Broke or Play it Safe? Dynamic Competition with Choice of Variance , 2004 .

[52]  Tsuyoshi Nakamura,et al.  Technology Adoption, Learning by Doing, and Productivity: A Study of Steel Refining Furnaces , 2005 .

[53]  H. Demsetz Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint. , 1969 .

[54]  J. Schumpeter Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung , 1913 .

[55]  N. Rose,et al.  Does Competition Reduce Costs? Assessing the Impact of Regulatory Restructuring on U.S. Electric Generation Efficiency , 2004 .

[56]  M. Whinston,et al.  Antitrust in Innovative Industries , 2005 .