Learning by Doing and Technology Sharing in Asymmetric Duopolies

  • Maria Luisa Petit
  • Boleslaw Tolwinski
Part of the Annals of the International Society of Dynamic Games book series (AISDG, volume 1)

Abstract

The existence of an experience curve for the firm has theoretical foundation in Arrow’s pioneering work (Arrow, 1962). The study of the learning-curve effect was initiated, however, almost thirty years earlier by Wright (1936). It was further developed by Alchian (1959), Hirschleifer (1962), Hirschmann (1964), and by an important work by the Boston Consulting Group (1972). The learning-curve phenomenon appears to be related, in the first place, to the introduction of new products. It has been observed that a doubling in accumulated production of a new product can result in a decline of unit costs by a factor of 10 to 50 percent of their initial level (Teng and Thompson, 1983). Empirical documentation concerning the learning curve can be found in several papers that appeared in the period from the early sixties to more recent years (e.g., Lundberg, 1961; Alchian, 1963; Hollander 1965; Zimmerman, 1982; Lieberman, 1984; Alder and Clark, 1991). This literature considers cost reduction as an outcome of experience and cumulative output is the variable commonly chosen to represent that experience. The revival of interest in the study of the learning curve can be attributed to some important recent contributions that suggest the existence of a link between learning by firms and incremental innovations in both production processes and products (see in particular Rosenberg, 1976; Nelson and Winter, 1982).

Keywords

Nash Rium Allo Univer Monopoly 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Adler, P.S. and K.B. Clark, 1991, Behind the learning curve: a sketch of the learning process, Management Science, 37, 264–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Alchian, A., 1959, Costs and output, in: M. Abramovitz ed. The Allocation of Economic Resources (Stanford University Press, Stanford).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Alchian, A., 1963, Reliability of progress curves in airframe production, Econometrica, 31, 679–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Allen, R.C., 1983, Collective invention, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 4, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Arrow, K., 1962, The economic implications of learning by doing, The Review of Economic Studies, 29, 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Baumol, W.J., 1987, On formal dynamics: from Lundberg to chaos analysis, in: Jonung, L. ed. The Stockholm School of Economics Revisited (Cambridge University Press, New York).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Baumol, W.J., 1992, Horizontal collusion and innovation, The Economic Journal, 102, 129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Dasgupta, P. and J. Stiglitz, 1988, Learning-by-doing, market structure and industrial and trade policies, Oxford Economic Papers, 40, 246–269.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Filar, J.A. and B. Tolwinski, 1990, On the Algorithm of Pollatschek and Avi-Itzhak, in: T.E.S. Raghavan, T.S. Ferguson, and O.J. Vrieze, eds., Stochastic Games and Related Topics (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Friedman, J.W., 1991, Game Theory with Applications to Economics, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Fudenberg, D. and J. Tirole, 1983, Learning-by-doing and market performance, Bell Journal of Economics, 14, 522–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Fudenberg, D. and J. Tirole, 1986, Dynamic Models of Oligopoly (Harwood, Chur, Switzerland).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Hirschleifer, J., 1962, The firm’s cost functions -A successful reconstruction, Journal of Business, 35, 235–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Hirschmann, W.P., 1964, Profit from the learning curve, Harvard Business Review, 42, 826–836.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Hollander, S., 1965, The Sources of Increased Efficiency: A Study of Du Pont Rayon Plants (MIT Press, Cambridge).Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Lieberman, M.B., 1984, The learning curve and pricing in the chemical processing industries, Rand Journal of Economics, 15(2), 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Lundberg, E., 1961, Produktivitet och Rantabilitet (P.A. Norstedt and Soner, Stockholm).Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Nelson, R. and S. Winter, 1982, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.)Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Rosenberg, N., 1976, Perspectives on Technology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Scherer, F., 1980, Industrial Market Structure and Market Performance, 2nd ed. (Rand McNally, Chicago).Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Spence, A.M., 1981, The learning curve and competition, Bell Journal of Economics, 12, 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Stokey, L.S., 1986, The dynamics of industrywide learning, in: W.P. Heller, R.M. Starr and D.A. Starrett eds., Equilibrium Analysis: Essays in Honour of Kenneth J. Arrow, vol. II (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Teng, J.T. and G.L. Thompson, 1983, Oligopoly models for optimal advertising when production costs obey a learning curve, Management Science, 29, 1087–1101.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    The Boston Consulting Group, 1972, Perspectives on Experience, The Boston Consulting Group, Boston.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Tolwinski, B., 1989, Newton-type methods for stochastic games, in: T. Basar and P. Bernhard, eds., Differential Games and Applications Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg).Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Wright, T.P., 1936, Factors affecting the cost of airplanes, Journal of Aeronautical Sciences, 3, 122–128.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Zimmerman, MB., 1982, Learning effects and the commercialization of new energy technologies: the case of nuclear power, Bell Journal of Economics, 13, 297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Luisa Petit
    • 1
  • Boleslaw Tolwinski
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica e SistemisticaUniversity of Roma “La Sapienza”RomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsColorado School of MinesGoldenUSA

Personalised recommendations