Schumpeter argued that economic downturns had positive effects, in the incentives that it provided for firms to increase their efficiency. Part 1. provides a simple model confirming Schwnpeter's insight At thesame time, the model shows that there are real costs to economic fluctuations which extend well beyond the temporary losses in output and the economic waste resulting from unused resources: the future productivity of the economy is adversely affected, e.g, because of reduced expenditures on R&D. These long run losses are likely to be far more significant than any temporary gains from any induced cost cutting. While traditional Schumpeterian analyses have focused on the relationships between market structure and innovation, they have paid less attention to the relationship between innovation and capital market imperfections (resulting, in many cases, from problems of costly and imperfect information which are particularly important in the context of innovation). It is these capital market imperfections which give result in the deleterious effect of economic downturns on technological progress. Part II. of the paper shows that the nexus between fluctuations and innovation goes in both directions: fluctuations in economic activity not only cause fluctuations in innovation, fluctuations in innovation may give rise to fluctuations in economic activity. The positive feedback relationship between innovation and economic activity may, under a variety of conditions, give rise to multiple equilibria. There is no presumption that the free market, left to itself, will choose the best among them. Moreover, it is shown that under certain circumstances, the only market equilibrium entails economic fluctuations. It is the structure of the economy, not exogenous disturbances (as in real business cycle theory) which give rise to cyclical behavior.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number
4286.
Length: Date of creation: Mar 1993 Date of revision: Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:4286
Note: EFG Contact details of provider: Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A. Phone: 617-868-3900 Email: Web page: http://www.nber.org More information through EDIRC
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: ().
Related research
Keywords:
Other versions of this item:
References listed on IDEAS 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.:
Jonathan Eaton & Mark Gersovitz & Joseph E. Stiglitz, 1986.
"The Pure Theory of Country Risk,"
NBER Working Papers
1894, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Other versions:
Jonathan Eaton & Mark Gersovitz & Joseph E. Stiglitz, 1991.
"The Pure Theory of Country Risk,"
NBER Chapters,
in: International Volatility and Economic Growth: The First Ten Years of The International Seminar on Macroeconomics, pages 391-435
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
[Downloadable!]
Cited by: (explanations, 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.)