[The choice of development period and consequent introduction time for a single innovation by an expected profit maximizing firm operating under conditions of rivalrous competition is studied. Factors taken into account by the firm are the increasing cost with compression of the development period, the reduction of profit opportunities with prolongation of the development period, and the probability of rival innovation and imitation which affect the potential rewards available to the firm. Comparisons is made with the timing that would be selected in the absence of rivalry. The effects of intense rivalry are also examined

Journal Article The Influence of Monopoly on Product Innovation: Rejoinder Get access Peter L. Swan Peter L. Swan Monash University, Australia Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 86, Issue 2, May 1972, Pages 346–349, https://doi.org/10.2307/1880572 Published: 01 May 1972

Journal Article A Note on the Influence of Monopoly on Product Innovation Get access Lawrence J. White Lawrence J. White Princeton University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 86, Issue 2, May 1972, Pages 342–345, https://doi.org/10.2307/1880571 Published: 01 May 1972

If a firm is considering replacing part of its productive facility because of obsolescence rather than wear-and-tear (e.g., purchasing a new model machine), it weighs the expected gains against the expected costs. A problem may arise when the rate of technological innovation for the type of machinery is extremely rapid. Such replacement may yield a gain if made today, but because innovations are so rapid, a year's delay in replacement may yield a greater net gain, and it would seem wiser to wait the year. But each year the same reasoning seems to hold; the more rapidly innovations seem likely to occur, the more likely a firm is to delay. If technology is advancing quickly enough, a firm may never consider any time a good time for replacement

This article is concerned with the systematic arrangement of concepts, for which tentative definitions and provisional symbols are needed to communicate. Classification is the primary intellectual activity of man, older even than girlwatching. Quantification is secondary. The major task in setting up any kind of taxonomy is that of selecting appropriate symbols, giving them precise and usable definitions, and securing the consensus of the group which is to use them. Classes may be nominal only, but the taxons must be ordered, so that an alpha class includes two or more beta classes. The usual treatment of "class and subclass" is not sufficient because the ordered levels of generality are essential to a rigorous and complete classification. One notable exception to the general neglect and the conspicuous absence of innovative inquiry by accountants into the classification problem is the work in accounting theory by Eldon Hendriksen. His classification of "approaches to accounting theory" is a novel contribution to literature

I NTERNATIONAL trade in commodities such as steel, synthetic rubbers, plastics, electronics, chemicals, and man-made fibers takes place primarily among the advanced, industrial countries of Western Europe, the United States, and Japan. The Heckscher-Ohlin model, which dominated the work of interna.tional economists from the twenties to the sixties, has proven inadequate to explain the trading patterns of these commodities. There appear to be two major reasons for this seemingly poor explanatory power: (1) the relative similarity of the factor endowments of the industrialized countries, and (2) the assumption of uniform global technology for each industry, an assumption which is untenable for a number of industries the products of which are traded internationally.' Two accepted theories which appear to be capable of explaining part of the trade which takes place among the advanced countries are the Doctrine of Comparative Costs and the scale economies theory. Both of these theories argue that trade takes place because of differences in unit production costs. One of the causes of different unit production costs is differences in the wages and productivity of workers. Unit production costs may also differ because total output of certain products in certain countries is such that the industries of these countries are larger than the industries of these countries are larger than the same industries in other countries. Since internal and external economies of sca.le are significant in a number of industries such as the steel industry, one would expect those countries with the larger industries to be able to produce commodities at lower unit production costs, ceteris paribus, than those countries whose industries are small, if the industry in question is subject to significant internal and/or external economies of scale.2 A third reason for differences in unit production costs is differences in the production, techniques used by industries producing a given array of products in different countries. Production techniques may differ because entrepreneurs in different countries may adopt innovations in an industry at different times. This is the essential argument put forward by the recently developed Posner Technological Gap Theory. The Posner Technological Gap Theory is among the most promising theoretical arguments put forward for the trading patterns of products traded principally among the advanced countries.3 Posner adopted all of the