¬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