We analyze technology adoption in industries where network externalities are significant. The pattern of adoption depends on whether technologies are sponsored. A sponsor is an entity that has property rights to the technology and hence is willing to make investments to promote it. Key findings include the following: (1) compatibility tends to be undersupplied by the market, but excessive standardization can occur; (2) in the absence of sponsors, the technology superior today has a strategic advantage and is likely to dominate the market; (3) when one of two rival technologies is sponsored, that technology has a strategic advantage and may be adopted even if it is inferior; (4) when two competing technologies both are sponsored, the technology that will be superior tomorrow has a strategic advantage.

This paper analyzes data on union and employer rankings of different panels of arbitrators in an actual arbitration system. A random utility model of bargainer preferences is developed and estimated. The estimates indicate that unions and employers have similar preferences: in favor of lawyers, more experienced arbitrators, and arbitrators who seem to have previously favored their side. Tests of whether bargainers rank arbitrators strategically reveal no evidence of such behavior.

We examine the optimal licensing strategy of a research lab selling to firms who are product market competitors. We consider an independent lab as well as a research joint venture. We show that (1) demands are interdependent and hence the standard price mechanism is not the profit-maximizing licensing strategy; (2) the seller's incentives to develop the innovation may be excessive; (3) the seller's incentives to disseminate the innovation typically are too low; (4) larger ventures are less likely to develop the innovation, and more likely to restrict its dissemination in those cases where development occurs; and (5) a downstream firm that is not a member of the research venture is worse off as a result of the innovation.

Several observed features of takeover contests appear to be inconsistent with value-maximizing behavior on the part of the agents involved. For instance, managers occasionally resist takeover bids, presumably in order to facilitate competition among bidders. However, counterbids do not always materialize, suggesting that management resistance was not in the best interests of the firm's shareholders. On the other hand, a successful takeover is sometimes accompanied by a decrease in the value of the acquirer's shares. In addition, valuable combinations are occasionally not consummated. We present a simple illustration of sequential takeover bidding in which all managers act in the best interests of their respective shareholders. Within the context of this model, we provide an explanation of the type of behavior described above.

Several observed features of takeover contests appear to be inconsistent with value‐maximizing behavior on the part of the agents involved. For instance, managers occasionally resist takeover bids, presumably in order to facilitate competition among bidders. However, counterbids do not always materialize, suggesting that management resistance was not in the best interests of the firm's shareholders. On the other hand, a successful takeover is sometimes accompanied by a decrease in the value of the acquirer's shares. In addition, valuable combinations are occasionally not consummated. We present a simple illustration of sequential takeover bidding in which all managers act in the best interests of their respective shareholders. Within the context of this model, we provide an explanation of the type of behavior described above.

Community standards of fairness for the setting of prices and wages were elicited by telephone surveys. In customer or labor markets, it is acceptable for a firm to raise prices (or cut wages) when profits are threatened and to maintain prices when costs diminish. It is unfair to exploit shifts in demand by raising prices or cutting wages. Several market anomalies are explained by assuming that these standards of fairness influence the behavior of firms.