IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02437831.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why was Schumpeter not more concerned with patents ?

Author

Listed:
  • Rémy Guichardaz

    (BETA - Bureau d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - UNISTRA - Université de Strasbourg - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Julien Pénin

    (BETA - Bureau d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - UNISTRA - Université de Strasbourg - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Although Schumpeter is widely acknowledged as a pioneer of the economic analysis of innovation and although the patent system occupies an important place today in this field of research, Schumpeter did not see patents as playing a key role for fostering innovation. He mentioned them only a couple of times, in passing, and never developed any scientific analysis of the patent system. In this paper, we propose an explanation of this blind spot based on three characteristics of Schumpeter's thought: first, entrepreneurs are largely motivated by non-monetary elements; second, they enjoy a first-mover advantage because imitation is difficult; third, Schumpeter viewed the innovation process as a relentless race in which firms are doomed to innovate in order to avoid disappearing. The Schumpeterian view of the economic process therefore largely reduces the economic importance of patents.

Suggested Citation

  • Rémy Guichardaz & Julien Pénin, 2019. "Why was Schumpeter not more concerned with patents ?," Post-Print hal-02437831, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02437831
    DOI: 10.1007/s00191-019-00643-w
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-02437831
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-02437831/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00191-019-00643-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cristiano Antonelli, 2015. "Innovation as a Creative Response. A Reappraisal of the Schumpeterian Legacy," History of Economic Ideas, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa - Roma, vol. 23(2), pages 99-118.
    2. Gilbert Richard J, 2006. "Competition and Innovation," Journal of Industrial Organization Education, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-23, December.
    3. Machlup, Fritz & Penrose, Edith, 1950. "The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 1-29, May.
    4. Richard Gilbert, 2006. "Looking for Mr. Schumpeter: Where Are We in the Competition-Innovation Debate?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 6, pages 159-215, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Schumpeter, Joseph A., 1947. "The Creative Response in Economic History," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 149-159, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adam Karbowski, 2021. "Unproductive entrepreneurship and patents," Bank i Kredyt, Narodowy Bank Polski, vol. 52(5), pages 473-494.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael Peneder & Martin Woerter, 2014. "Competition, R&D and innovation: testing the inverted-U in a simultaneous system," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 653-687, July.
    2. Klaus S. Friesenbichler & Michael Peneder, 2016. "Innovation, Competition and Productivity. Firm Level Evidence for Eastern Europe and Central Asia," WIFO Working Papers 516, WIFO.
    3. Nicolas Petit & David J Teece, 2021. "Innovating Big Tech firms and competition policy: favoring dynamic over static competition [Patterns of industrial innovation]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(5), pages 1168-1198.
    4. Aamir Rafique Hashmi & Johannes Van Biesebroeck, 2016. "The Relationship between Market Structure and Innovation in Industry Equilibrium: A Case Study of the Global Automobile Industry," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 98(1), pages 192-208, March.
    5. Aghion, Philippe & Akcigit, Ufuk & Howitt, Peter, 2014. "What Do We Learn From Schumpeterian Growth Theory?," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 515-563, Elsevier.
    6. Schmutzler, Armin, 2009. "The Relation Between Competition and Investment – Towards a Synthesis," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt8tt4457m, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    7. Ali, Ashiq & Klasa, Sandy & Yeung, Eric, 2014. "Industry concentration and corporate disclosure policy," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 240-264.
    8. Im, Hyun Joong & Park, Young Joon & Shon, Janghoon, 2015. "Product market competition and the value of innovation: Evidence from US patent data," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 78-82.
    9. Pedro Bento, 2014. "Competition as a Discovery Procedure: Schumpeter Meets Hayek in a Model of Innovation," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(3), pages 124-152, July.
    10. Brett Hollenbeck, 2020. "Horizontal mergers and innovation in concentrated industries," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 1-37, March.
    11. Daniel P. Gross, 2020. "Creativity Under Fire: The Effects of Competition on Creative Production," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(3), pages 583-599, July.
    12. Guidi, Francesco & Solomon, Edna & Trushin, Eshref & Ugur, Mehmet, 2015. "Inverted-U relationship between innovation and survival: Evidence from firm-level UK data," EconStor Preprints 110896, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    13. Cristiano Antonelli, 2017. "The Engines of the Creative Response: Reactivity and Knowledge Governance," Economía: teoría y práctica, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, México, vol. 47(2), pages 9-30, Julio-Dic.
    14. Taalbi, Josef, 2017. "What drives innovation? Evidence from economic history," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1437-1453.
    15. Bessonova, Evguenia & Gonchar, Ksenia, 2019. "How the innovation-competition link is shaped by technology distance in a high-barrier catch-up economy," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 86, pages 15-32.
    16. Charlotte Davies, 2020. "The supply side to procurement in a health market: competition and innovation in hip implants," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2020-01, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    17. Ugur, Mehmet & Trushin, Eshref & Solomon, Edna & Guidi, Francesco, 2016. "R&D and productivity in OECD firms and industries: A hierarchical meta-regression analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 2069-2086.
    18. Jie Ning & Volodymyr Babich, 2018. "R&D Investments in the Presence of Knowledge Spillover and Debt Financing: Can Risk Shifting Cure Free Riding?," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 97-112, February.
    19. Bourreau, Marc & Jullien, Bruno, 2018. "Mergers, investments and demand expansion," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 136-141.
    20. Philipp Weinschenk, 2009. "Persistence of Monopoly and Research Specialization," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2009_11, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Patents; Joseph Aloïs Schumpeter; innovation; incentives; creative destruction;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B25 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought since 1925 - - - Historical; Institutional; Evolutionary; Austrian; Stockholm School
    • B53 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Current Heterodox Approaches - - - Austrian
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02437831. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.