This paper empirically assesses the relationship between upstream access (worksharing) and innovation in the postal sector through the study of the United States Postal Service (USPS) case. Three measures are used as proxies for innovation: (1) number of published patent applications made by USPS; (2) labour productivity; and (3) an innovation index based on a survey conducted for this purpose. In order to build the innovation index we have collected data on seventeen critical innovations for eighteen countries. Worksharing is measured through the percentage of worksharing volume. The correlation between the innovation measures and the percentage of worksharing volume is analysed. We find evidence of a positive relationship between innovation and upstream access.
AghionP.BloomN. (2005) “Competition and innovation: An inverted-U relationship”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics: 701–728.
2.
AghionP.HarrisC. (1997) “Competition and growth with step-by-step innovation: An example”, European Economic Review, 41: 771–782.
3.
ArrowK. (1962) “Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention”, In NelsonR. (ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. 609–625.
4.
ArthurD.Little Limited (2004) Technology and innovation in the postal sector – a competitive market review.
5.
BesterH. and PetrakisE. (1993) “The incentives for cost reduction in a differentiated industry”, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 11: 519–534.
6.
BlundellR.GriffithR. (1999) “Market share, market value and innovation in a panel of British manufacturing firms”, The Review of Economic Studies, 66 (3): 529–554.
7.
BooneJ. (2000) “Competitive pressure: The effects on investments in product and process innovation”, The RAND Journal of Economics, 31 (3): 549–569.
8.
BooneJ. (2001) “Intensity of competition and the incentive to innovate”, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 19: 705–726.
9.
BooneJ. and DijkT. V. (1998) “Competition and innovation”, De Economist, 3 (146): 445–461.
10.
CelliniR. and LambertiniL. (2005) “R&D Incentives under Bertrand Competition: A Differential Game”, Preprints of the 16th IFAC World Congress. Prague.
11.
CohenR. H.FergusonW. W. (2006) “Worksharing: How much productive efficiency, at what cost and what price?”, In CrewM. A. and KleindorferP. R. (eds), Progress toward liberalization of the postal and delivery sector. New York: Springer.
12.
CrewM. A. and KleindorferP. R. (2008) “Pricing for Postal Access and Worksharing”, In CrewM. A.KleindorferP. R. and CampbellJ. I. (eds), Handbook Of Worldwide Postal Reform. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. pp. 480.
13.
DelbonoF. and DenicoloV. (1991) “Incentives to innovate in a Cournot oligopoly”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106 (3): 951–961.
14.
DixitA. and StiglitzJ. (1977) “Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity”, American Economic Review, 67 (3): 297–308.
15.
DubeyP. and WuC.-W. (2001) “When less competition induces more product innovation”, Economics Tetters, 74: 309–312.
16.
GrossmanG. M. and HelpmanE. (1991) Innovation and growth in the global economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
17.
KamienM. I. and SchwartzN. L. (1975) “Market structure and innovation: A survey”, Journal of Economic Literature, 13 (1): 1–37.
18.
KamienM. I. and SchwartzN. L. (1976) “On the degree of rivalry for maximum innovative activity”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90 (2): 245–260.
19.
LeeT. and WildeL. L. (1980) “Market structure and innovation: A reformulation”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 94 (2): 429–436.
20.
LeibensteinH. (1966) “Allocative efficiency vs. “X-efficiency””, The American Economic Review, 56 (3): 392–415.
21.
LouryG. C. (1979) “Market structure and innovation”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 93 (3): 395–410.
22.
Nera (2004) Economics of postal services. London.
23.
NickellS. J. (1996) “Competition and corporate performance”, The Journal of Political Economy, 104 (4): 724–746.
24.
NiskanenW. A. J. (1971) Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago.
25.
PearsallE. S. (2005) “The effects of worksharing and other product innovations on U. S. postal volumes and revenues”, In CrewM. A. and KleindorferP. R. (eds), Regulatory and Economic Challenges in the Postal and Delivery Sector. Boston: Kluwer Acadmic Publishers. pp. 213–241.
26.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (1997) Employment trends in the European postal sector.
27.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (2006) The impact on universal service of the full market accomplishment of the postal internal market in 2009.
28.
PrimeauxW. J. (1977) “An assessment of X-efficiency gained through competition”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 59 (1): 105–108.
29.
RomerP. (1990) “Endogenous technological change”, Journal of Political Economy, 98 (5): S71–S102.
30.
SalopS. (1977) “The noisy monopolist: Imperfect information, price dispersion, and price discrimination”, Review of Economic Studies, 44 (3): 393–406.
31.
SchererF. M. (1967) “Research and development resource allocation under rivalry”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 81 (3): 359–394.
32.
SchumpeterJ. (1942) Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper.
33.
TangJ. (2006) “Competition and innovation behaviour”, Research Policy, 35: 68–82.
34.
WIK (2004) Main developments in the European postal sector. Bad Honnef.
35.
WIK (2006) Main developments in the postal sector (2004–2006). Bad Honnef.
36.
YiS.-S. (1999) “Market structure and incentives to innovate: The case of Cournot oligopoly”, Economics Letters, 65: 379–388.
