IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v38y2009i1p181-191.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do 'liberal market economies' really innovate more radically than 'coordinated market economies'?: Hall and Soskice reconsidered

Author

Listed:
  • Akkermans, Dirk
  • Castaldi, Carolina
  • Los, Bart

Abstract

In Varieties of Capitalism; The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, Peter A. Hall and David Soskice (H&S) argue that technological specialization patterns are largely determined by the prevailing "variety of capitalism". They hypothesize that "liberal market economies" (LMEs) specialize in radical innovation, while "coordinated market economies" (CMEs) focus more on incremental innovation. Mark Zachary Taylor [Taylor, M.Z., 2004. Empirical evidence against varieties of capitalism's theory of technological innovation. International Organization 58, 601-631.] convincingly argued that Hall and Soskice's empirical test is fundamentally flawed and proposed a more appropriate test of their conjecture. He rejected the varieties of capitalism explanation of innovation patterns. We extend and refine Taylor's analysis, using a broader set of radicality indicators and making industry-level comparisons. Our results indicate that Hall and Soskice's conjecture cannot be upheld as a general rule, but that it survives closer scrutiny for a substantial number of industries and an important dimension of radicality.

Suggested Citation

  • Akkermans, Dirk & Castaldi, Carolina & Los, Bart, 2009. "Do 'liberal market economies' really innovate more radically than 'coordinated market economies'?: Hall and Soskice reconsidered," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 181-191, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:38:y:2009:i:1:p:181-191
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048-7333(08)00218-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Archibugi, Daniele & Pianta, Mario, 1992. "Specialization and size of technological activities in industrial countries: The analysis of patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 79-93, February.
    2. Manuel Trajtenberg, 1990. "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 172-187, Spring.
    3. Stefano Breschi, 2000. "The Geography of Innovation: A Cross-sector Analysis," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(3), pages 213-229.
    4. Silverberg, Gerald & Verspagen, Bart, 2007. "The size distribution of innovations revisited: An application of extreme value statistics to citation and value measures of patent significance," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 139(2), pages 318-339, August.
    5. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(3), pages 577-598.
    6. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Marjolein C.J. Caniëls, 2000. "Knowledge Spillovers and Economic Growth," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1936.
    8. Utterback, James M & Abernathy, William J, 1975. "A dynamic model of process and product innovation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 3(6), pages 639-656, December.
    9. Klepper, Steven, 1996. "Entry, Exit, Growth, and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 562-583, June.
    10. Jacques Michel & Bernd Bettels, 2001. "Patent citation analysis.A closer look at the basic input data from patent search reports," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(1), pages 185-201, April.
    11. Albert, M. B. & Avery, D. & Narin, F. & McAllister, P., 1991. "Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 251-259, June.
    12. Bjørn Asheim & Lars Coenen, 2006. "Contextualising Regional Innovation Systems in a Globalising Learning Economy: On Knowledge Bases and Institutional Frameworks," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 163-173, January.
    13. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    14. Taylor, Mark Zachary, 2004. "Empirical Evidence Against Varieties of Capitalism's Theory of Technological Innovation," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(3), pages 601-631, July.
    15. Roberta Piergiovanni & Enrico Santarelli, 2001. "Patents and the Geographic Localization of R&D Spillovers in French Manufacturing," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(8), pages 697-702.
    16. Scott Shane, 2001. "Technological Opportunities and New Firm Creation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(2), pages 205-220, February.
    17. Carolina Castaldi & Bart Los, 2008. "The identification of important innovations using tail estimators," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-07, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Feb 2008.
    18. Steven Casper & Hannah Kettler, 2001. "National Institutional Frameworks And The Hybridization Of Entrepreneurial Business Models: The German And Uk Biotechnology Sectors," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 5-30.
    19. F. M. Scherer & Dietmar Harhoff & J, rg Kukies, 2000. "Uncertainty and the size distribution of rewards from innovation," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 175-200.
    20. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Audretsch, David B & Feldman, Maryann P, 1996. "R&D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation and Production," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 630-640, June.
    22. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    23. Joshua Lerner, 1994. "The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 319-333, Summer.
    24. Manuel Trajtenberg & Adam B. Jaffe & Michael S. Fogarty, 2000. "Knowledge Spillovers and Patent Citations: Evidence from a Survey of Inventors," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(2), pages 215-218, May.
    25. Jung, Sungchang & Imm, Keun-Young, 2002. "The patent activities of Korea and Taiwan: a comparative case study of patent statistics," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 303-311, December.
    26. repec:bla:scandj:v:104:y:2002:i:4:p:531-45 is not listed on IDEAS
    27. Per Botolf Maurseth & Bart Verspagen, 2002. "Knowledge Spillovers in Europe: A Patent Citations Analysis," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 104(4), pages 531-545, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. repec:dgr:rugggd:gd-91 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Akkermans, Dirk & Castaldi, Carolina & Los, Bart, 2007. "Do ‘Liberal Market Economies’ Really Innovate More Radically than ‘Coordinated Market Economies’? Hall & Soskice Reconsidered," GGDC Research Memorandum GD-91, Groningen Growth and Development Centre, University of Groningen.
    3. Martin Kalthaus, 2020. "Knowledge recombination along the technology life cycle," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 643-704, July.
    4. Adam B. Jaffe & Gaétan de Rassenfosse, 2017. "Patent citation data in social science research: Overview and best practices," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(6), pages 1360-1374, June.
    5. Manuel Acosta & Daniel Coronado & Esther Ferrándiz & Manuel Jiménez, 2022. "Effects of knowledge spillovers between competitors on patent quality: what patent citations reveal about a global duopoly," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1451-1487, October.
    6. Carolina Castaldi & Bart Los, 2008. "The identification of important innovations using tail estimators," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-07, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Feb 2008.
    7. Hur, Wonchang & Oh, Junbyoung, 2021. "A man is known by the company he keeps?: A structural relationship between backward citation and forward citation of patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    8. Aaron K. Chatterji & Kira Fabrizio, 2012. "How Do Product Users Influence Corporate Invention?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 971-987, August.
    9. Inchae Park & Yujin Jeong & Byungun Yoon, 2017. "Analyzing the value of technology based on the differences of patent citations between applicants and examiners," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 665-691, May.
    10. Blomkvist, Katarina & Kappen, Philip & Zander, Ivo, 2014. "Superstar inventors—Towards a people-centric perspective on the geography of technological renewal in the multinational corporation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 669-682.
    11. Ufuk Akcigit & William Kerr, 2015. "Growth through Heterogeneous Innovation, Second Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 15-020, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 25 Mar 2015.
    12. Gerald A. Carlino & Robert M. Hunt, 2009. "What explains the quantity and quality of local inventive activity?," Working Papers 09-12, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
    13. Pierre-Alexandre Balland & David L. Rigby, 2015. "The geography and evolution of complex knowledge," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1502, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jan 2015.
    14. Ufuk Akcigit & William R. Kerr, 2018. "Growth through Heterogeneous Innovations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1374-1443.
    15. Leonie Koch & Martin Simmler, 2020. "How Important are Local Knowledge Spillovers of Public R&D and What Drives Them?," EconPol Working Paper 42, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    16. Ahmad Barirani & Bruno Agard & Catherine Beaudry, 2013. "Discovering and assessing fields of expertise in nanomedicine: a patent co-citation network perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1111-1136, March.
    17. Maryann Feldman & Dieter Kogler & David Rigby, 2013. "rKnowledge: The Spatial Diffusion of rDNA Methods," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1311, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Aug 2013.
    18. Jurriën Bakker & Dennis Verhoeven & Lin Zhang & Bart Van Looy, 2016. "Patent citation indicators: One size fits all?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 187-211, January.
    19. Nelson, Andrew J., 2009. "Measuring knowledge spillovers: What patents, licenses and publications reveal about innovation diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 994-1005, July.
    20. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2009. "Why Challenge the Ivory Tower? New Evidence on the Basicness of Academic Patents," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(4), pages 488-499, November.
    21. repec:zbw:bofrdp:2013_028 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. C. Gay & C. Le Bas, 2005. "Uses without too many abuses of patent citations or the simple economics of patent citations as a measure of value and flows of knowledge," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 333-338.

    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:eee:respol:v:38:y:2009:i:1:p:181-191. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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.