2000
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.218048
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Innovative Activity with Sunk Cost

Abstract: We analyze innovative activity in a general framework with time-dependent rewards and sunk costs. When¯rms are identical, innovation is delayed by an increase in the number of¯rms or a decrease in the size of the reward. When one¯rm has higher pro¯t potential, it is more likely to innovate¯rst. Our framework generalizes an all-pay auction; however, we show that under certain conditions there is qualitatively di®erent equilibrium behavior.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
21
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
2
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The result is proven in Konrad and Leininger (2007), who combine and extend results of Baye et al (1996) and Kaplan et al (2003). Intuitively, if t 1 = l and t j = e for all j = 2, .…”
Section: Lemmamentioning
confidence: 71%
“…The result is proven in Konrad and Leininger (2007), who combine and extend results of Baye et al (1996) and Kaplan et al (2003). Intuitively, if t 1 = l and t j = e for all j = 2, .…”
Section: Lemmamentioning
confidence: 71%
“…Participating in the auction generates a fixed cost c i for bidder i which is private information and is drawn independently from the interval [0,1] according to the distribution function F . 6 We assume that F is continuously twice differentiable with F (0) = 0 and is common knowledge. 7 The bidders' entry costs are wasted in the sense that the seller does not benefit from these costs.…”
Section: The Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Under complete information, Kaplan et al [2000] show that the existence of this relationship may introduce substantial qualitative changes to the behavior of the contestants. In this paper, we study such bid-dependent rewards under incomplete information.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%