Search Advanced

AIMS Mathematics

2023, Volume 8, Issue 12: 28833-28857. doi: 10.3934/math.20231478
Previous Article Next Article
Research article Special Issues

Key generic technology research and development decision-making in Stackelberg competition

  • 1.
    School of Economics and Management, Yanshan University, Qinhuangdao 066004, China
  • 2.
    School of Economics, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China
  • Received: 11 August 2023 Revised: 11 October 2023 Accepted: 16 October 2023 Published: 24 October 2023

  • MSC : 90B30, 91A35

  • Research and development (R&D) of key generic technology (KGT) is conducive to improving the innovation capacity of countries and regions and has a significant impact on economic development and social progress. Compared to other technologies, the factors affecting the R&D decisions of KGT are more complex and need to be explored in depth. This study constructs a Stackelberg model considering R&D effort level, R&D efficiency and product differentiation to investigate the leader's and follower's decisions on R&D of KGT under three types of R&D modes. The results reveal that firms' strategic decisions are affected by product differentiation, R&D efficiency and different R&D modes. Product differentiation and R&D efficiency have impacts on equilibrium results and government subsidies for KGT R&D are optimal for social welfare.

    Citation: Xiao Liang, Xinran Xie. Key generic technology research and development decision-making in Stackelberg competition[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(12): 28833-28857. doi: 10.3934/math.20231478

    Related Papers:

  • Research and development (R&D) of key generic technology (KGT) is conducive to improving the innovation capacity of countries and regions and has a significant impact on economic development and social progress. Compared to other technologies, the factors affecting the R&D decisions of KGT are more complex and need to be explored in depth. This study constructs a Stackelberg model considering R&D effort level, R&D efficiency and product differentiation to investigate the leader's and follower's decisions on R&D of KGT under three types of R&D modes. The results reveal that firms' strategic decisions are affected by product differentiation, R&D efficiency and different R&D modes. Product differentiation and R&D efficiency have impacts on equilibrium results and government subsidies for KGT R&D are optimal for social welfare.


    加载中


    [1] J. Wang, R. J. Xie, W. T. Hu, The influencing factors and promotion countermeasures of industrial generic technology diffusion based on differential game, Discrete. Dyn. Nat. Soc., 2021 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6643922 doi: 10.1155/2021/6643922
    [2] J. Ma, Developing joint R&D institutes between Chinese universities and international enterprises in China's innovation system: A case at Tsinghua University. Sustainability, 11 (2019), 7133. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247133 doi: 10.3390/su11247133
    [3] A. Gambardella, M. S. Giarratana, General technological capabilities, product market fragmentation, and markets for technology, Res. Policy., 42 (2013), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.08.002 doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.08.002
    [4] E. Maine, E. Garnsey, Commercializing generic technology: The case of advanced materials ventures, Res. Policy., 35 (2006), 375–393. https://doi.org/j.respol.2005.12.006
    [5] M. P. Feldman, J. W. Yoon, An empirical test for general purpose technology: An examination of the cohen-boyer rDNA technology, Ind. Corp. Change., 21 (2012), 249–275. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtr040 doi: 10.1093/icc/dtr040
    [6] M. Coccia, The source and nature of general purpose technologies for supporting next K-waves: Global leadership and the case study of the U.S. Navy's mobile user objective system, Technol. Forecast. Soc., 116 (2017), 331–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.05.019 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.05.019
    [7] A. Schaefer, D. Schiess, R. Wehrli, Long-term growth driven by a sequence of general purpose technologies, Econ. Model., 37 (2014), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2013.10.014 doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2013.10.014
    [8] L. Ardito, A. M. Petruzzelli, V. Albino, Investigating the antecedents of general purpose technologies: A patent perspective in the green energy field, J. Eng. Technol. Manage., 39 (2016), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2016.02.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jengtecman.2016.02.002
    [9] Y. Liu, J. Du, J. Yang, An incentive mechanism for general purpose technologies R&D based on the concept of super-conflict equilibrium: Empirical evidence from nano industrial technology in China, Technol. Forecast. Soc., 147 (2019), 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.07.014 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.07.014
    [10] S. Petralia, Mapping general purpose technologies with patent data, Res. Policy., 49 (2020), 104013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104013 doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.104013
    [11] L. Wang, H. Shu, G. P. Zhu, A study on the relationship between different technological absorptive capacities and R&D investment in joint R&D, In: 2013 International Conference on Management Science and Engineering 20th Annual Conference Proceedings, Harbin, China, 2013, 1974–1980. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMSE.2013.6586535
    [12] D. Rotolo, D. Hicks, B. R. Martin, What is an emerging technology? Res. Policy., 44 (2015), 1827–1843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.006 doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.006
    [13] Y. L. Zheng, B. Yang, L. Wang, Research on the evolution of industrial generic technology R&D behavior and multiple failures, Sci. Res. Manag., 40 (2019), 164–174. https://doi.org/10.13580/j.cnki.fstc.2019.05.004 doi: 10.13580/j.cnki.fstc.2019.05.004
    [14] R. Du, S. Z. Ai, Cross-organizational knowledge acquisition through flexible hiring and joint R&D: Insights from a survey in China, Expert. Syst. Appl., 35 (2008), 434–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.07.009 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2007.07.009
    [15] N. Arranz, J. C. F. de Arroyabe, Joint R&D projects: Experiences in the context of European technology policy, Technol. Forecast. Soc., 73 (2006), 860–885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.11.003 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2005.11.003
    [16] D. Zhao, M. Wang, X. Wang, Analysis and control strategy for relationship risk in manufacturer-supplier joint R&D, In: 2008 4th International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, Dalian, China, 2008, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/WiCom.2008.2469
    [17] J. Hagedoorn, Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences, Strateg. Manag. J., 14 (1993), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140505 doi: 10.1002/smj.4250140505
    [18] Y. C. Zhou, B. Zhang, J. Zou, J. Bi, K. Wang, Joint R&D in low-carbon technology development in China: A case study of the wind-turbine manufacturing industry, Energ. Policy, 46 (2012), 100–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.037 doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.037
    [19] J. Chen, C. Sun, Y. Wang, J. Liu, P. Zhou, Carbon emission reduction policy with privatization in an oligopoly model, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 30 (2023), 45209–45230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24256-2 doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-24256-2
    [20] N. Arranz, J. C. F. de Arroyabe, Joint R&D projects as complex systems: A framework of analysis, Ieee. T. Eng. Manage., 55 (2008), 552–565. https://doi.org/doi:10.1109/TEM.2008.927816
    [21] L. Leydesdorff, On the normalization and visualization of author co-citation data: Salton's cosine versus the Jaccard index, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Tec., 59 (2008), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20732 doi: 10.1002/asi.20732
    [22] C. Bekar, K. Carlaw, R. Lipsey, General purpose technologies in theory, application and controversy: A review, J. Evol. Econ., 28 (2018), 1005–1033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-017-0546-0 doi: 10.1007/s00191-017-0546-0
    [23] J. Heikkilä, J. Rissanen, T. Ali-Vehmas, Coopetition, standardization and general purpose technologies: A framework and an application, Telecommun. Policy., 47 (2023), N.PAG. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102488 doi: 10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102488
    [24] A. da Ponte, G. Leon, I. Alvarez, Technological sovereignty of the EU in advanced 5G mobile communications: An empirical approach, Telecommun. Policy., 47 (2023), N.PAG. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102459 doi: 10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102459
    [25] M. Shafique, J. Hagedoorn, Look at U: Technological scope of the acquirer, technological complementarity with the target, and post-acquisition R&D output, Technovation., 115 (2022), N.PAG. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102533 doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102533
    [26] K. Vu, P. Hanafizadeh, E. Bohlin, ICT as a driver of economic growth—a survey of the literature and directions for future research, Telecommun. Policy., 44 (2020), Article 101922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2020.101922 doi: 10.1016/j.telpol.2020.101922
    [27] F. P. Appio, A. Martini, G. Fantoni, The light and shade of knowledge recombination: Insights from a general-purpose technology, Technol. Forecast. Soc., 125 (2017), 154–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.07.018 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.07.018
    [28] O. Kokshagina, T. Gillier, P. Cogez, P. L. Masson, B. Weil, Using innovation contests to promote the development of generic technologies, Technol. Forecast. Soc., 114 (2017), 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.035 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.035
    [29] Y. Zheng, C. Bai, L. Wang, C. Han, M. Yang, A. Pappu, Evolutionary game analysis on the diffusion of general purpose technologies with government multiple supports, Econ. Innov. New Tech., 2023, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2023.2196418 doi: 10.1080/10438599.2023.2196418
    [30] S. Franzò, N. Doppio, A. Natalicchio, F. Frattini, L. Mion, Designing innovation contests to support external knowledge search in small and medium-sized enterprises, Technovation., 121 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102684 doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102684
    [31] J. Cen, L. Zhou, Z. Zhang, Who are building technical knowledge mansions? Impact of patent cooperation networks on the generic technology R&D performance of emerging enterprises, Technol. Anal. Strateg., 34 (2022), 1384–1401. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2021.1962521 doi: 10.1080/09537325.2021.1962521
    [32] W. M. Cohen, D. A. Levinthal, Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D, Econ. J., 99 (1989), 569–596. https://doi.org/10.2307/2233763 doi: 10.2307/2233763
    [33] K. Konstantinos, P. Alexandros, P. Margarita, I. George, Absorptive capacity, innovation, and financial performance, J. Bus. Res., 64 (2011), 1335–1343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.12.005 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.12.005
    [34] H. del Carmen, A. Daniel, L. Francisco Javier, R. M. Antonia, The impact of absorptive capacity on technological acquisitions engineering consulting companies, Technovation., 27 (2007), 417–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.04.003 doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2007.04.003
    [35] L. A. Grunfeld, Meet me halfway but don't rush: Absorptive capacity and strategic R&D investment revisited, Int. J. Ind. Organ., 21 (2003), 1091–1109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7187(03)00076-6 doi: 10.1016/S0167-7187(03)00076-6
    [36] F. Caputo, P. Soto-Acosta, C. Chiacchierini, A. Mazzoleni, P. Passaro, Smashing local boundaries for sustain companies' innovativeness: The role of international R&D teams, J. Bus. Res., 128 (2021), 641–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.062 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.062
    [37] P. Pourkarimi, E. Kam, The impact of R&D and advertising on firm performance in high-tech industries—evidence from the U.S. information and communications technology industry, J. Quant. Econ., 20 (2022), 723–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40953-022-00302-1 doi: 10.1007/S40953-022-00302-1
    [38] Q. Yan, L. Yang, Optimal licensing schemes for a mixed ownership firm when facing uncertain R&D outcomes and technology spillover, Int. Rev. Econ. Financ., 58 (2018), 550–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2018.06.003 doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2018.06.003
    [39] F. A. Blanco, F. J. Delgado, M. J. Presno, R&D expenditure in the EU: Convergence or divergence? Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraživanja., 33 (2020), 1685–1710. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2020.1756371 doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2020.1756371
    [40] J. Kučera, M. Fiľa, R&D expenditure, innovation performance and economic development of the EU countries, Entrep. Sustain., 9 (2022), 227–241. https://doi.org/10.9770/JESI.2022.9.3(14) doi: 10.9770/JESI.2022.9.3(14)
    [41] S. Kim, K. C. Park, Government funded R&D collaboration and it's impact on SME's business performance, J. Informetr., 15 (2021), 101197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101197 doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2021.101197
    [42] X. Tong, Z. Wang, X. Li, The influence of government subsidy on enterprise innovation: Based on Chinese high-tech enterprises, Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraživanja., 35 (2021), 1481–1499. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.1972818 doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2021.1972818
    [43] W. S. Wu, K. Zhao, Government R&D subsidies and enterprise R&D activities: Theory and evidence, Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraživanja., 35 (2021), 391–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.1893204 doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2021.1893204
    [44] A. M. Spence, Product differentiation and welfare, Am. Econ. Rev., 66 (1976), 407–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/0309‐586X(76)90008-X doi: 10.1016/0309‐586X(76)90008-X
    [45] J. Chen, X. Xie, J. Liu, Capacity sharing with different oligopolistic competition and government regulation in a supply chain, Manag. Decis. Econ., 41 (2020), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3094 doi: 10.1002/mde.3094
    [46] Q. Dong, J. C. Bárcena-Ruiz, Corporate social responsibility and partial privatization of state holding corporations, J. Econ., 132 (2021), 223–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00712-020-00725-5 doi: 10.1007/s00712-020-00725-5
    [47] X. Wang, X. Zhang, L. Zhu, Imperfect market, emissions trading scheme, and technology adoption: A case study of an energy-intensive sector, Energ. Econ., 81 (2019), 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.03.014. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2019.03.014
    [48] J. Chen, C. Sun, J. Shi, J. Liu, Technology R&D and sharing in carbon emission reduction in a duopoly, Technol. Forecast. Soc., 183 (2022), 121936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121936 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121936
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索
AIMS Mathematics
1.8 3.4

Metrics

Article views(972) PDF downloads(74) Cited by(0)

Preview PDF
Download XML
Export Citation
Article outline

Figures and Tables

Tables(2)

Other Articles By Authors

Related pages

Tools

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog