IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/streco/v27y2013icp66-78.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the tradeoff between similarity and diversity in the creation of novelty in basic science

Author

Listed:
  • Grebel, Thomas

Abstract

What is the impact of institutional frames on knowledge diversity in basic science? Institutional frames such as the peer-review process in academia influence the way knowledge is created. This also concerns knowledge diversity as well as knowledge similarity. Similar research activities tend to generate related knowledge, reduce the costs of its economic exploitation while increasing the costs of duplicate research; a high degree of knowledge diversity impedes its prompt economic exploitation but enhances long-term economic growth. A simple model substantiates this tradeoff and serves as the basis for a general reflection on institutional frames in basic science. A Monte–Carlo simulation delivers structural equilibria subject to knowledge overlaps among researchers induced by institutional frames.

Suggested Citation

  • Grebel, Thomas, 2013. "On the tradeoff between similarity and diversity in the creation of novelty in basic science," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 66-78.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:streco:v:27:y:2013:i:c:p:66-78
    DOI: 10.1016/j.strueco.2013.08.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0954349X1300060X
    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. Jiandong Ju, 2003. "Oligopolistic Competition, Technology Innovation, and Multiproduct Firms," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(2), pages 346-359, May.
    2. Thomas Grebel, 2012. "Network evolution in basic science," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 443-457, July.
    3. Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco & Malerba, Franco, 2003. "Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 69-87, January.
    4. Tuckman, Howard P & Leahey, Jack, 1975. "What Is an Article Worth?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 83(5), pages 951-967, October.
    5. Lionel Nesta & Pier-Paolo Saviotti, 2006. "Firm knowledge and market value in biotechnology," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(4), pages 625-652, August.
    6. Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1977. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(3), pages 297-308, June.
    7. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters,in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Dasgupta, Partha & Stiglitz, Joseph, 1980. "Industrial Structure and the Nature of Innovative Activity," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 90(358), pages 266-293, June.
    9. Grebel, Thomas, 2009. "Technological change: A microeconomic approach to the creation of knowledge," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 301-312, December.
    10. Magee, Gary B., 2005. "Rethinking invention: cognition and the economics of technological creativity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 29-48, May.
    11. Pavitt, Keith, 1998. "Technologies, Products and Organization in the Innovating Firm: What Adam Smith Tells Us and Joseph Schumpeter Doesn't," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 433-452, September.
    12. Partha, Dasgupta & David, Paul A., 1994. "Toward a new economics of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 487-521, September.
    13. Kurt Dopfer & John Foster & Jason Potts, 2004. "Micro-meso-macro," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 263-279, July.
    14. Nathan ROSENBERG, 2009. "Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Studies On Science And The Innovation Process Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, chapter 11, pages 225-234 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. Hodgson, Geoffrey M. & Knudsen, Thorbjorn, 2006. "Why we need a generalized Darwinism, and why generalized Darwinism is not enough," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 1-19, September.
    16. Weitzman, Martin L, 1996. "Hybridizing Growth Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(2), pages 207-212, May.
    17. Witt, Ulrich, 2009. "Propositions about novelty," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 311-320, May.
    18. Granstrand, Ove, 1998. "Towards a theory of the technology-based firm1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 465-489, September.
    19. Arthur M. Diamond Jr., 1986. "What is a Citation Worth?," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 21(2), pages 200-215.
    20. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67, pages 297-297.
    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. Blind, Georg, 2015. "Behavioural rules: Veblen, Nelson-Winter, Oström and beyond," MPRA Paper 66866, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Knowledge diversity; Similarity; Economics of science; Knowledge creation; Basic science;

    JEL classification:

    • B4 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology
    • B5 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Current Heterodox Approaches

    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:eee:streco:v:27:y:2013:i:c:p:66-78. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/525148 .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.