IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v102y2012i3p447-52.html

Innovation in Space

Author

Listed:
  • Klaus Desmet
  • Esteban Rossi-Hansberg

Abstract

This paper shows how competition for land may lead firms to optimally innovate in spite of the market being perfectly competitive. When bidding for a location, firms can enhance their bid by investing in innovations that make the land more valuable. Firms are willing to innovate because the non-replicability of land implies that they will not be undercut by some other producer leading to losses as in the standard theory. In the absence of spillovers over space and over time, firms will optimally innovate. Empirical evidence from U.S. metropolitan areas supports the predictions of the theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Klaus Desmet & Esteban Rossi-Hansberg, 2012. "Innovation in Space," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(3), pages 447-452, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:102:y:2012:i:3:p:447-52
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.102.3.447
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to AEA members and institutional subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mansfield, Edwin, 1985. "How Rapidly Does New Industrial Technology Leak Out?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(2), pages 217-223, December.
    2. Hellwig, Martin & Irmen, Andreas, 2001. "Endogenous Technical Change in a Competitive Economy," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 1-39, November.
    3. Michele Boldrin & David K. Levine, 2004. "2003 Lawrence R. Klein Lecture The Case Against Intellectual Monopoly," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 45(2), pages 327-350, May.
    4. Davis, Morris A. & Palumbo, Michael G., 2008. "The price of residential land in large US cities," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 352-384, January.
    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. Gani Aldashev & Serik Aldashev & Timoteo Carletti, 2014. "On Convergence in the Spatial AK Growth Models," Papers 1401.4887, arXiv.org.
    2. Breinlich, Holger & Ottaviano, Gianmarco I.P. & Temple, Jonathan R.W., 2014. "Regional Growth and Regional Decline," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 4, pages 683-779, Elsevier.
    3. Wen, Jun & Duan, Hai-Peng & Chang, Chun-Ping & Zhao, Xin-Xin, 2025. "The impact of country risk on innovation: Global evidence," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    4. Liu, Ying & Liu, Steve & Wu, Ziqi & Xiao, Yi, 2022. "How do technological innovations affect corporate investment and hiring?," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    5. Cui, Huijie & Dai, Lixuan & Zhang, Yanan, 2021. "Organization Capital and Corporate Innovation: Evidence from China," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    6. Steven Bond-Smith, 2021. "The unintended consequences of increasing returns to scale in geographical economics [Investing for prosperity: skills, infrastructure and innovation]," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(5), pages 653-681.
    7. Sergey Kichko & Wen-Jung Liang & Chao-Cheng Mai & Jacques-Francois Thisse & Ping Wang & Sergei Kichko, 2020. "The Rise (and Fall) of Tech Clusters," CESifo Working Paper Series 8527, CESifo.
    8. Desmet, Klaus & Henderson, J. Vernon, 2015. "The Geography of Development Within Countries," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: Gilles Duranton & J. V. Henderson & William C. Strange (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 1457-1517, Elsevier.
    9. Steven Bond-Smith & Philip McCann & Les Oxley, 2018. "A regional model of endogenous growth without scale assumptions," Spatial Economic Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 5-35, January.
    10. Gregor Schwerhoff & Martin Stuermer, 2015. "Non-renewable resources, extraction technology, and endogenous growth," Working Papers 1506, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

    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. Olaf, POSCH & Klaus, WAELDE, 2005. "Natural volatility, welfare and taxation," Discussion Papers (ECON - Département des Sciences Economiques) 2005009, Université catholique de Louvain, Département des Sciences Economiques.
    2. Vincenzo Denicolò & Piercarlo Zanchettin, 2017. "Speculative Profits, Innovation, And Growth," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(1), pages 160-174, January.
    3. Boldrin, Michele & Levine, David K., 2005. "Innováció - a verseny szemszögéből [Innovation: the competitive view]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(6), pages 537-555.
    4. Sakakibara, Mariko, 1997. "Evaluating government-sponsored R&D consortia in Japan: who benefits and how?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4-5), pages 447-473, December.
    5. Lutz Arnold & Christian Bauer, 2009. "On the growth and welfare effects of monopolistic distortions," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 19-40, May.
    6. Jena, Anupam B. & Philipson, Tomas J., 2008. "Cost-effectiveness analysis and innovation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 1224-1236, September.
    7. Pierre-Philippe Combes & Gilles Duranton & Laurent Gobillon, 2012. "The Cost of Agglomeration: Land Prices in Cities," Working Papers hal-03461075, HAL.
    8. Fan, Joseph P.H. & Gillan, Stuart L. & Yu, Xin, 2013. "Property rights, R&D spillovers, and corporate accounting transparency in China," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 34-56.
    9. Klaus Desmet & Esteban Rossi-Hansberg, 2014. "Spatial Development," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(4), pages 1211-1243, April.
    10. Diewert, W. Erwin & Shimizu, Chihiro, 2016. "Hedonic regression models for Tokyo condominium sales," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 300-315.
    11. Comin, Diego & Mulani, Sunil, 2009. "A theory of growth and volatility at the aggregate and firm level," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 1023-1042, November.
    12. Vincenzo Denicolò & Luigi Alberto Franzoni, 2004. "Patents, Secrets, and the First‐Inventor Defense," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 517-538, September.
    13. Charles Ka Yui Leung & Joe Cho Yiu Ng, 2018. "Macro Aspects of Housing," GRU Working Paper Series GRU_2018_016, City University of Hong Kong, Department of Economics and Finance, Global Research Unit.
    14. Luintel, Kul B. & Khan, Mosahid, 2017. "Ideas production and international knowledge spillovers: Digging deeper into emerging countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1738-1754.
    15. Stefano Giglio & Matteo Maggiori & Johannes Stroebel, 2016. "No‐Bubble Condition: Model‐Free Tests in Housing Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 1047-1091, May.
    16. Bönte, Werner, 2008. "Inter-firm trust in buyer-supplier relations: Are knowledge spillovers and geographical proximity relevant?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(3-4), pages 855-870, September.
    17. Christoph Meister & Bart Verspagen & Guntram B. Wolff, 2006. "European Productivity Gaps: Is R&D the Solution?," Chapters, in: Susanne Mundschenk & Michael H. Stierle & Ulrike Stierle-von Schütz & Iulia Traistaru-Siedschlag (ed.), Competitiveness and Growth in Europe, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Boldrin Michele & Levine David K., 2009. "Does Intellectual Monopoly Help Innovation?," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 5(3), pages 991-1024, December.
    19. Koehler, Mila & Peters, Bettina, 2017. "Subsidized and non-subsidized R&D projects: Do they differ?," ZEW Discussion Papers 17-042, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    20. Stolpe, Michael, 1995. "Technology and the dynamics of specialization in open economies," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 738, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

    More about this item

    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:aea:aecrev:v:102:y:2012:i:3:p:447-52. 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: Michael P. Albert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.html .

    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.