On the tradeoff between similarity and diversity in the creation of novelty in basic science
AbstractWhat is the impact of institutional frames on knowledge diversity in basic science? Institutional frames such as the peer-review process in academia influence the way knowledge is created. This also concerns knowledge diversity as well as knowledge similarity. Similar research activities tend to generate related knowledge, reduce the costs of its economic exploitation while increasing the costs of duplicate research; a high degree of knowledge diversity impedes its prompt economic exploitation but enhances long-term economic growth. A simple model substantiates this tradeoff and serves as the basis for a general reflection on institutional frames in basic science. A Monte–Carlo simulation delivers structural equilibria subject to knowledge overlaps among researchers induced by institutional frames.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Structural Change and Economic Dynamics.
Volume (Year): 27 (2013)
Issue (Month): C ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/525148
Knowledge diversity; Similarity; Economics of science; Knowledge creation; Basic science;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- B4 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology
- B5 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Current Heterodox Approaches
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Pavitt, Keith, 1998. "Technologies, Products and Organization in the Innovating Firm: What Adam Smith Tells Us and Joseph Schumpeter Doesn't," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 433-52, September.
- Dasgupta, Partha & Stiglitz, Joseph, 1980. "Industrial Structure and the Nature of Innovative Activity," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 90(358), pages 266-93, June.
- Arthur M. Diamond Jr., 1986. "What is a Citation Worth?," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 21(2), pages 200-215.
- Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1977.
"Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 67(3), pages 297-308, June.
- Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1975. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 64, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
- Magee, Gary B., 2005.
"Rethinking invention: cognition and the economics of technological creativity,"
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 29-48, May.
- Gary B. Magee, 2002. "Rethinking Invention: Cognition and the Economics of Technological Creativity," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 861, The University of Melbourne.
- Grebel, Thomas, 2009. "Technological change: A microeconomic approach to the creation of knowledge," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 301-312, December.
- Jiandong Ju, 2003. "Oligopolistic Competition, Technology Innovation, and Multiproduct Firms," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(2), pages 346-359, 05.
- Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67, pages 297.
- Granstrand, Ove, 1998. "Towards a theory of the technology-based firm1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 465-489, September.
- Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco & Malerba, Franco, 2003. "Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 69-87, January.
- Witt, Ulrich, 2009. "Propositions about novelty," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 311-320, May.
- Lionel Nesta & Pier-Paolo Saviotti, 2006. "Firm knowledge and market value in biotechnology," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(4), pages 625-652, August.
- Hodgson, Geoffrey M. & Knudsen, Thorbjorn, 2006. "Why we need a generalized Darwinism, and why generalized Darwinism is not enough," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 1-19, September.
- Weitzman, Martin L, 1996. "Hybridizing Growth Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(2), pages 207-12, May.
- Tuckman, Howard P & Leahey, Jack, 1975. "What Is an Article Worth?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 83(5), pages 951-67, October.
- Rosenberg, Nathan, 1990. "Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 165-174, April.
- Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Thomas Grebel, 2012. "Network evolution in basic science," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 443-457, July.
- Partha, Dasgupta & David, Paul A., 1994. "Toward a new economics of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 487-521, September.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.