IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jacrfn/v21y2009i1p8-23.html

The Venturesome Economy: How Innovation Sustains Prosperity in a More Connected World

Author

Listed:
  • Amar Bhidé

Abstract

Many observers have warned that the next stage of globalization—the offshoring of research and development to China and India—threatens the foundations of Western prosperity. But in this article, the author explains why the doomsayers are likely to be wrong. Using extensive field studies on venture capital‐backed businesses to examine how technology is really used to create value in modern economies, this article explains how and why scientific advances abroad generally contribute to prosperity at home, and why trying to maintain the U.S. lead by subsidizing more research or training more scientists is likely to do more harm than good. When breakthrough ideas have no borders, a nation's capacity to exploit cutting‐edge research regardless of where it originates is the key to its economic competitiveness. “Venturesome consumption”—that is, the willingness and ability of businesses and consumers to use products and technologies derived from scientific research in the most effective ways—is far more important than having a share of the research. And for this reason, well‐developed and “venturesome” economies like the U.S. benefit disproportionately from scientific innovations abroad. To cite just one example discussed at length in this article, the success of Apple's iPod owes much to technologies that were developed largely in Asia and Europe. The proven ability of the United States to remain at the forefront of the global “innovation game” reflects the contributions of many players—not just a few brilliant scientists and engineers, but literally millions of U.S. entrepreneurs, managers, financiers, salespersons, and, to a very large degree, U.S. consumers. As long as their venturesome spirit remains alive and well, advances abroad should not be feared but welcomed.

Suggested Citation

  • Amar Bhidé, 2009. "The Venturesome Economy: How Innovation Sustains Prosperity in a More Connected World," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 21(1), pages 8-23, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jacrfn:v:21:y:2009:i:1:p:8-23
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6622.2009.00211.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6622.2009.00211.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1745-6622.2009.00211.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edwin Mansfield & John Rapoport & Anthony Romeo & Samuel Wagner & George Beardsley, 1977. "Social and Private Rates of Return from Industrial Innovations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 91(2), pages 221-240.
    2. Edmund S. Phelps, 2008. "Macroeconomics for a Modern Economy," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 52(1), pages 3-22, March.
    3. Paul Krugman, 1995. "Growing World Trade: Causes and Consequences," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 26(1, 25th A), pages 327-377.
    4. David, Paul A, 1990. "The Dynamo and the Computer: An Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity Paradox," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 355-361, May.
    5. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Productivity, R&D, and the Data Constraint," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 347-374, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. von Hippel, Eric, 1976. "The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 212-239, July.
    7. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    8. Richard R. Nelson, 2006. "What Makes an Economy Productive and Progressive? What Are the Needed Institutions?," LEM Papers Series 2006/24, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    9. Nelson, Richard R & Wright, Gavin, 1992. "The Rise and Fall of American Technological Leadership: The Postwar Era in Historical Perspective," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(4), pages 1931-1964, December.
    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. Mozhdeh Mokhber & Gi G. Tan & Amin Vakilbashi & Nor Aiza Mohd Zamil & Rohaida Basiruddin, 2016. "Impact of Entrepreneurial Leadership on Organization Demand for Innovation: Moderating Role of Employees Innovative Selfefficacy," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 6(3), pages 415-421.
    2. Olha Usatenko & Andrii Makurin, 2019. "Interaction between Managerial Reporting and Managerial Decision-Making: Cause-Effect Relationships in Startups' Accounting," Oblik i finansi, Institute of Accounting and Finance, issue 2, pages 54-60, June.
    3. Martina Musteen & Mujtaba Ahsan, 2013. "Beyond Cost: The Role of Intellectual Capital in Offshoring and Innovation in Young Firms," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 37(2), pages 421-434, March.
    4. Ross Brown & Suzanne Mawson, 2016. "Targeted support for high growth firms: Theoretical constraints, unintended consequences and future policy challenges," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(5), pages 816-836, August.

    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. John Van Reenen, 2001. "The new economy: reality and policy," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 22(3), pages 307-336, September.
    2. Harabi, Najib, 1994. "Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz: Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht [Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz:Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht]," MPRA Paper 6725, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Simon Wiederhold, 2012. "The Role of Public Procurement in Innovation: Theory and Empirical Evidence," ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 43.
    4. Isaksson, Olov H.D. & Simeth, Markus & Seifert, Ralf W., 2016. "Knowledge spillovers in the supply chain: Evidence from the high tech sectors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 699-706.
    5. T. Gries & R. Grundmann & I. Palnau & M. Redlin, 2017. "Innovations, growth and participation in advanced economies - a review of major concepts and findings," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 293-351, April.
    6. Pedro de Faria & Francisco Lima, 2012. "Interdependence and spillovers: is firm performance affected by others’ innovation activities?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(36), pages 4765-4775, December.
    7. Hötte, Kerstin, 2023. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and the direction of technological change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    8. Mathew, Nanditha & Paily, George, 2020. "STI-DUI innovation modes and firm performance in the Indian capital goods industry: Do small firms differ from large ones?," MERIT Working Papers 2020-008, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    9. Bulat Sanditov & Saurabh Arora, 2016. "Social network and private provision of public goods," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 195-218, March.
    10. Anja, Breitwieser & Neil, Foster, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey," MPRA Paper 36094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Mauro Napoletano & Andrea Roventini & Sandro Sapio, 2004. "Yeast vs. Mushrooms: A Note on Harberger's "A Vision of the Growth Process"," LEM Papers Series 2004/03, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    12. Bulat Sanditov & Saurabh Arora, 2016. "Social network and private provision of public goods," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 195-218, March.
    13. Liao, Hailin & Wang, Bin & Li, Baibing & Weyman-Jones, Tom, 2016. "ICT as a general-purpose technology: The productivity of ICT in the United States revisited," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 10-25.
    14. Godin, Benoit, 2004. "The New Economy: what the concept owes to the OECD," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 679-690, July.
    15. Migliori, Stefania & De Massis, Alfredo & Maturo, Fabrizio & Paolone, Francesco, 2020. "How does family management affect innovation investment propensity? The key role of innovation impulses," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 243-256.
    16. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Mairesse, Jacques & Mohnen, Pierre, 2010. "Measuring the Returns to R&D," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1033-1082, Elsevier.
    17. Kemnitz, Alexander & Knoblach, Michael, 2020. "Endogenous sigma-augmenting technological change: An R&D-based approach," CEPIE Working Papers 02/20, Technische Universität Dresden, Center of Public and International Economics (CEPIE).
    18. Faïz Gallouj, 1999. "Interactional innovation: a neo-Schumpeterian model," Post-Print halshs-01113802, HAL.
    19. Smits, Jan-Pieter & Jong, Herman de & Ark, Bart van, 1999. "Three phases of Dutch economic growth and technological change, 1815-1997," CCSO Working Papers 199916, University of Groningen, CCSO Centre for Economic Research.
    20. Elif Bascavusoglu-Moreau & Qian Cher Li, 2013. "Knowledge Spillovers & Sources of Knowledge in the Manufacturing Sector: Literature Review & Empirical Evidence for the UK," Working Papers wp451, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.

    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:bla:jacrfn:v:21:y:2009:i:1:p:8-23. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1078-1196 .

    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.