A firm’s decision to invest in R&D depends on a number of factors such as the availability of funds, extent of R&D spillovers, market structure and success probability. However, the probability of success depends, to a large extent, on factors endogenous to a firm. This means that the success probability can be known to the firm undertaking R&D investment, but not to the rivals; hence, there is incomplete information about probability of success in R&D. There are also uncertainties about the rivals’ R&D decision and R&D status. In a duopoly, we show that there is a non-monotone relation between R&D incentives and the level of information. JEL Classifications: D43, D82, LI3, O3I

We construct a differentiated duopoly model to study whether free licensing can be profitable without network externalities and demand shift effect. The efficient firm possesses a superior input-saving technology and sells inputs to the backward firm. However, the optimal input price can be constrained or unconstrained in equilibrium depending on the constellation of parameters. We have shown that free licensing can be profitable if the innovation size is small and the transferee’s input production cost is sufficiently large. But free licensing is never profitable if products are homogeneous. An increase in market size also reduces the possibility of free licensing. We have also derived an implication of free licensing in the context of pollution problem.

The present paper introduces incomplete information about success probability of R D in a model of two firms interacting in R D and production and discusses the choice between research joint venture (RJV) and non-cooperative R D. We have shown that whenever the high-type firm prefers RJV, the low-type firm also prefers RJV, and if the low-type firm prefers non-cooperative R D, the other firm will do the same. On the other hand, when the high-type firm prefers non-cooperative research, the low-type firm will go for RJV or non-cooperative research depending on the constellation of parameters. However, the high-type firm preferring RJV and the low-type firm preferring non-cooperative research can never occur under incomplete information, although this can be a possibility under complete information. Finally, if the R D cost is at the intermediate level and the probability that a firm is of high type is above a critical level, RJV will occur irrespective of the type distribution of nature. RJV may also occur when both firms are low type and the corresponding probability belongs to an interval. In all other cases non-cooperative R D will occur.

The book elaborates the basic principles of Auction Theory in a non-technical language so as to make them easily accessible to even those not trained in the discipline. Auctions as allocation mechanisms have been in use across the world since antiquity and are still employed in different countries for purchase and sales of a wide range of objects, both by governments and by private agents. Auction has gained popularity over other allocation mechanisms since the rules of auctions are very precise, involve much less subjective judgements compared to other alternative allocation mechanisms and lead to a more efficient process of discovering the true willingness of the buyers to pay. Moreover, the principles of Auction Theory are used in other contexts, for example in designing contests, or in controlling emission levels through allocation of permits and licenses.

When tournament effect is negative, under complete information, whether patent protection increases the incentive for R&D is ambiguous. It depends on the extent of spillover of the new technology. In particular if that amount is less than a threshold value then patent protection increases the incentive for R&D, otherwise it does not. This note considers incomplete information framework where the spillover parameter is private information. In this framework it is shown that there are situations where patent protection unambiguously increases incentive for R&D. This happens if the distribution function of the spillover parameter is sufficiently skewed and the cost of doing research is sufficiently high even when tournament effect is negative.

It is commonly believed that spillover reduces R&D incentives of a firm. This happens because of the appropriability problem. However, some empirical literature shows the possibility of enhanced R&D incentives under spillovers. In the literature this is explained under incomplete information, but we show this theoretically under complete information. We show in particular that in a duopoly there are situations when with no spillovers only one firm invests in R&D, but under spillovers both the firms invest. This occurs when there is complementarity in research and the spillover rate lies in an interval specified by the size of R&D investment.

The availability of information about rivals may have a significant impact on a firm's decision about R&D investment. This paper investigates how the R&D incentive of a firm in a Cournot duopoly may depend on information structures. We show that asymmetric information about the rival's cost reduction may enhance the research incentive of each firm compared to the complete-information case. However, an additional dimension of asymmetry (e.g. the information about whether the rival has invested in R&D or not) will reduce the R&D incentive unambiguously compared to the one-dimensional asymmetry case.

Spillovers of R&D outcome affect the R&D decision of a firm. The present paper discusses the R&D incentives of a firm when the extent of R&D spillover is private information to each firm. We construct a two stage game involving two firms when the firms first decide simultaneously whether to invest in R&D or not, then they compete in quantity. Assuming general distribution function of firm types we compare R&D incentives of firms under alternative scenarios based on different informational structures. The paper shows that while R&D spillovers reduce R&D incentives under complete information unambiguously, however, it can be larger under incomplete information.

The logic for state monopoly of public utilities arises from increasing returns to scale and the concern that private business in these areas results in monopolistic exploitation of consumers. The state monopoly however is fraught with the danger of production inefficiency. In this backdrop, the market form of mixed oligopoly is contemplated in markets like health, education, electricity, gas, telecommunications etc, where public and private sector coexists. The private firms maximize profit but the public firm maximizes social welfare. Despite this theoretical exposition, it is often observed that public firms fail to make contributions according to their potentiality. The public firm in an industry with rapid change in technology can perform inefficiently due to decision making delay, adherence to social obligation. The policy makers must rise to these occasions then survival of public firms will be smooth. The option of public private partnership also derives affirmative results for the society and the particular industry per se.

Spillover of R&D results in oligopolistic industries may affect the R&D decisions of firms. How much a newly eveloped technology by a firm gets spilled over to its rival firms may or may not be observable by the concerned firm. This paper considers a two stage game involving two firms. In the first stage the firms decide whether to invest in R&D and in the next stage they compete in a Cournot duopoly market. The R&D incentives of firms are compared under alternative assumptions of complete and incomplete information scenarios involving general distribution function of types. The results indicate that the impact of availability of more information regarding rival’s ability to benefit from spilled over knowledge on R&D activities of firms is ambiguous.

Promoting competition in domestic markets is very often an important policy concern of governments in context of developmental objectives. Direct government intervention of different forms to promote competition becomes all the more necessary especially in the markets that have higher tendencies to concentrate. For example, in the market for telecom spectrum licenses, many countries impose ceilings on the number of licenses that a single individual company can possess. It is commonly believed that in the markets where permission from government is required for fresh operation or expansion of operation, e.g. through licenses, larger number of licenses lead to higher competition. But some earlier literature show that increasing the number of licenses might actually be detrimental to competition contrary to popular belief. This paper considers a situation where there is an incumbent monopolist in a market; the government is auctioning two new licenses, one for this same market and another one for a completely new market where no firm had been operating so far. A number of potential entrants are willing to bid for both the licenses. The incumbent firm is allowed to purchase only one of these licenses. If it purchases the license for its own market it can retain its monopoly position. The selling procedure dictates that only the potential entrants will be bidding and in order to purchase the license in its existing market, the incumbent monopolist has to match the highest bid in that auction. Alternatively, it can bid for the entry license for the new market. This paper tries to identify under what conditions the incumbent firm will bid for the outside market. It also tries to find under what conditions providing some other options to the incumbent firm leads to increased competition in the existing market, thus contributing to developmental prospects by enhancing social welfare.