• How should firms evaluate success in university-industry alliances? A performance measurement system
  

• What are Business Models? Developing a Theory of Performative Representations
  

• Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations
  

• Value Co-Creation In The Delivery of Outcome-Based Contracts For Business-To-Business Service
  

• We Don’t Need No Education: Or Do We? Management Education and Alumni Adoption of Strategy Tools
  

WP No. 022-August-2005

Rachel Griffith, Jan Boone, Rupert Harrison

We investigate the empirical usefulness of a new measure of the degree of competition in a market, proposed by Boone (2000). This measure is based on the reduction in profits that firms experience as a result of cost inefficiencies. We compare this with measures commonly used by policy makers and in empirical work - market shares, concentration indices, the Herfindahl index and price cost margins. Using simulated data we show that in markets where goods are symmetrically differentiated, and where firms differ in their marginal costs, traditional measures can be poor indicators of the degree of competition, while the new relative profits measure performs better. Using accounting data on UK firms we investigate the relationship between the relative profits measure and traditional measures. Our results suggest that concentration-based measures perform worst, while the relative profits measure may provide a useful empirical complement to price-cost margins in both policy and econometric analysis.

Abstract

Full Working Paper

For Further information about the authors please check the profile page of Rachel Griffith, Jan Boone and Rupert Harrison or contact the AIM office.

Previous page: WP 002 - Innovation and Organizational Performance: Evidence and a Research Agenda
Next page: WP 058- Antecedents of New Business Idea Generation in Large, Established Firms