Three Essays in Industrial Organization with a Focus on Innovation, Advertising, Welfare, and Firm Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is comprised of three essays on the economic impacts of market structure, R&D and advertising activities.The first studies the impact of cooperative R&D on innovation, welfare, and profitability in vertically related industries where products are differentiated.The model incorporates two vertically related industries, with horizontal spillovers within each industry and vertical spillovers between the two industries.Upstream firms produce a homogeneous intermediate good.Downstream firms provide differentiated products.Three types of R&D cooperation are studied: no cooperation, horizontal cooperation, and vertical cooperation.Vertical spillovers always increase R&D, and welfare, whereas horizontal spillovers may increase or decrease them.The comparison of cooperation settings in terms of R&D shows that vertical cooperation dominates the other types of cooperation.Vertical cooperation may lead firms to overinvest in R&D.The ranking of cooperation settings rests on the sign and magnitudes of product differentiation, vertical and horizontal competitive externalities which reflect the impact of R&D of a firm on the profits of other firms.Higher product substitutability increases firms' concerns about the flow of technological information to the rival, affects firms' strategies of output and R&D.The second area of focus is the impact of cooperative R&D and advertising on innovation and welfare in a duopolistic industry.The model incorporates two symmetric firms which produce differentiated products.Firms participate in R&D and advertising activities in the presence of R&D spillovers and advertising spillovers.Advertising spillovers may be positive or negative.Four types of cooperative structures are studied: no cooperation, R&D cooperation, advertising cooperation, R&D and advertising 3.5.1.2Non-manufactures ........
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".