I analyse occupational licensing as an input regulation that requires minimum levels of human capital investment by professionals. By raising professionals' training levels, licensing helps alleviate moral hazard problems associated with the provision of high quality services. I also consider certification, whereby consumers are provided information about professionals' training levels. I show that licensing and certification tend to benefit consumers who value quality highly at the expense of those who do not. Licensing may raise total surplus if sellers' investments are not observable, but is Pareto-worsening if training levels are observable. Certification may, however, lead to excessive investment as a signalling device, and thus be Pareto Inferior to either licensing or to a policy of laissez-faire.

When do oligopolists gain by sharing their private information about their costs with one another? What are the social welfare effects of such information exchange? I study these questions by comparing the oligopolists' expected profits under a cost sharing agreement with their expected profits in the Bayesian equilibrium that would arise without cost sharing. I also analyse the firms' decisions to form a trade association to share their cost data. Under conditions of linear demand and Cournot behaviour, industrywide information exchange is the unique point in the core of the trade association membership game. The exchange of cost data increases expected profits and welfare, but reduces expected consumer surplus. Cost sharing increases efficiency by raising the market shares of lower cost firms and reducing the variability of aggregate output. Consumer surplus is diminished, however, because the variance of output is reduced, and consumer surplus is a convex function of output.

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.

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.

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.