¬ã°Q¤é´Á |
2010¦~08¤ë21¤é10:20 ~ 13:00 |
¬ã°Q¦aÂI |
¥x¤jªÀ·|¬ì¾Ç°|26±Ð«Ç |
ÃD¥Ø |
Strategic
R&D with Technology Transfer and Welfare |
§@ªÌ |
Ray-Yun
Chang, Hong Hwang and Cheng-Hau Peng |
¤åÄm¥X³B |
Working paper |
³ø§i¤H |
¬IÎr¥þ |
°Ñ¥[¤Hû |
»¯§Ó¹d¡B¶ÀÂE¡B±ç¤åºa¡B´^¥¿¯E¡B´¿ÀRªK¡B¤ý¨ÎµX¡BÒ\¥ú»õ¡B²ø´_½å¡B®}¹t¡B³\³Í«Â¡B°ª°ê峯¡B¼B«G§g¡BÄÁ暳³®¡B±ä¥j¾s¡B¤ý¬ý³Ç¡B¤Bi¤¯¡B±i·ç¶³¡B±i¥Á©¾¡BªL«T©ú¡B¬IÎr¥þ |
ºKn |
We set up a three-stage (R&D, technology licensing, and
output) duopoly game in which only one of the two firms undertakes
cost-reducing R&D and licenses the cost-reducing technology to the other
firm. The technology licensing mode can be either royalty licensing (a
per-unit fee) or fee licensing (a lump-sum fee). We compare the R&D
investment and social welfare under three regimes: no licensing, royalty licensing
and fee licensing. It is found that the positive
strategic effect on R&D proposed by Brander and Spencer (1983) is
reversed when licensing is considered. The effect of licensing does not
necessarily raise the firm¡¦s R&D as it depends on the R&D efficiency
and the mode of the licensing. The R&D investment
and social welfare are higher (lower) under no licensing than royalty
licensing if the R&D efficiency is high
(low). Namely, a royalty licensing is not necessarily welfare-enhancing.
Moreover, the optimal R&D investment is necessarily higher, but the
resulting social welfare is definitely lower under royalty licensing than
under fee licensing. |
³Æµù |
|