IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v28y2019i2p289-307..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A theory of the US innovation ecosystem: evolution and the social value of diversity

Author

Listed:
  • Ashish Arora
  • Sharon Belenzon
  • Andrea Patacconi

Abstract

This article reviews evidence on the changing structure of the US innovation ecosystem and then develops a simple model of the rise and fall of the large corporate lab. We suggest that the growth of American universities allowed at first the formation of large corporate labs by training scientists to work in industrial labs. Subsequently, however, start-up invention spurred by university research provided an increasingly attractive alternative to internal research, leading to the demise of the large corporate lab. We use this model to assess whether the substitution of corporate research with start-up invention can result in insufficient variety in the innovation ecosystem. We find that, when levels of university research and start-up activity are high, large firms can have socially excessive incentives to focus on “open innovation.” Thus, despite its potential efficiency benefits, a division of innovative labor may reduce diversity in the innovation ecosystem by encouraging “me too” innovations.

Suggested Citation

  • Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Andrea Patacconi, 2019. "A theory of the US innovation ecosystem: evolution and the social value of diversity," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 28(2), pages 289-307.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:28:y:2019:i:2:p:289-307.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/icc/dty067
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Caviggioli, Federico & De Marco, Antonio & Montobbio, Fabio & Ughetto, Elisa, 2020. "The licensing and selling of inventions by US universities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    2. Giovanna Ciaffi & Matteo Deleidi & Stefano Di Bucchianico, 2022. "Stagnation despite ongoing innovation: Is R&D expenditure composition a missing link? An empirical analysis for the US (1948-2019)," Department of Economics University of Siena 877, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    3. Patrycja Klimas & Wojciech Czakon, 2022. "Gaming innovation ecosystem: actors, roles and co-innovation processes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(7), pages 2213-2259, October.
    4. Patrycja Klimas & Wojciech Czakon, 2022. "Species in the wild: a typology of innovation ecosystems," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 249-282, January.
    5. Helen Lawton Smith & Jonathan Potter, 2022. "Applying the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept to regional entrepreneurship policy analysis – a critique," Working Papers 61, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Jun 2022.
    6. Zhenghan Chen & Tianzhen Tang & Fan Zhang & Mingran Deng, 2023. "Symbiosis-Evolution Game and Scenario-Simulation Analysis of Advanced Manufacturing Enterprises from the Perspective of an Innovation Ecosystem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-18, May.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O16 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Financial Markets; Saving and Capital Investment; Corporate Finance and Governance

    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:oup:indcch:v:28:y:2019:i:2:p:289-307.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/icc .

    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.