IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prs/caecpo/cep_0154-8344_2000_num_37_1_1293.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Concurrence, innovation et croissance : un modèle de création non destructrice

Author

Listed:
  • David Encaoua
  • David Ulph

Abstract

[eng] The main objective of this paper is to analyze the links between product market competition, innovation . and growth. We capture the idea that firms innovate in order to try to escape -albeit temporarily - from . the pressure of competition exerted on them by their rivals. There are two ways in which competitive . pressure can be thought of as a driving force to innovate. In leveled industries where all the firms have . access to the same technological knowledge, the greater is the intensity of competition between the neck . by neck firms the lower will be their current profits. Thus, as the competitive pressure increases, these . firms will devote a higher ft&D effort to obtain a leadership and escape from the unprofitable state. In . unleveled industries, where one firm has obtained a technological lead, the greater is the intensity of . competition, the lower will be the current profit of the laggard firm. This should increase the incentive . of this firm to eliminate its disadvantage by catching-up or leapfrogging the current leader. We assume . that if a laggard firm succeeds in innovating, it will either leapfrog the leader with some probability or . catch-up its technology with the complementary probability. The dynamics of industry are thus more . complex than in pure leapfrogging models. By using a quadratic R&D cost function, we investigate . how innovation and growth are affected in the stationary state by the intensity of competition and by . the probability of leapfrogging. [fre] L'objectif de cet article est d'étudier les liens entre concurrence, innovation et croissance. L'idée essentielle qu'on cherche à capturer est que l'incitation à innover traduit le désir des entreprises d'échapper à la pression concurrentielle sur leurs marchés respectifs. On suppose qu'en innovant, une entreprise possédant un retard technologique sur son concurrent peut dépasser celui ci avec une certaine probabilité ou simplement le rattraper avec la probabilité complémentaire. L'effort de recherche par la firme retardataire est d'autant plus important que la probabilité de dépassement est élevée et que la pression concurrentielle est forte. De même, lorsque des entreprises ont accès à la même technologie, chacune d'elles cherche à gagner le leadership et fournit pour cela un effort de recherche qui croît avec la pression concurrentielle. La dynamique industrielle qui résulte alors du processus d'innovation est plus complexe que celle présente dans les modèles de croissance endogène d'inspiration Schumpeterienne. Au lieu d'une succession de monopoles innovateurs distincts, on obtient des structures de marché qui oscillent entre des états de concurrence technologique frontale et des états de dominance technologique, l'identité du meneur et du suiveur technologiques pouvant alterner au cours du temps. On caractérise à l'équilibre stationnaire du modèle la proportion d'industries qui sont en concurrence technologique frontale et le taux de croissance de l'économie. En utilisant une fonction de coût quadratique de la recherche, on parvient à montrer que les impacts de ia probabilité de dépassement et de l'intensité de la pression concurrentielle sur le taux de croissance sont tous les deux positifs.

Suggested Citation

  • David Encaoua & David Ulph, 2000. "Concurrence, innovation et croissance : un modèle de création non destructrice," Cahiers d'Économie Politique, Programme National Persée, vol. 37(1), pages 155-176.
  • Handle: RePEc:prs:caecpo:cep_0154-8344_2000_num_37_1_1293
    DOI: 10.3406/cep.2000.1293
    Note: DOI:10.3406/cep.2000.1293
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/cep.2000.1293
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/cep_0154-8344_2000_num_37_1_1293
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3406/cep.2000.1293?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. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    2. Crepon, B. & Duguet, E. & Kabla, I., 1995. "A Moderate Support to Schumpeterian Conjectures from Various Innovation Measures," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 95.06, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    3. Partha Dasgupta & Joseph Stiglitz, 1980. "Uncertainty, Industrial Structure, and the Speed of R&D," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 11(1), pages 1-28, Spring.
    4. Tom Lee & Louis L. Wilde, 1980. "Market Structure and Innovation: A Reformulation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 94(2), pages 429-436.
    5. Bruno Crepon & Emmanuel Duguet & Isabelle Kabla, 1996. "Schumpeterian Conjectures: A Moderate Support from Various Innovation Measures," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Alfred Kleinknecht (ed.), Determinants of Innovation, chapter 3, pages 63-98, Palgrave Macmillan.
    6. Christopher Budd & Christopher Harris & John Vickers, 1993. "A Model of the Evolution of Duopoly: Does the Asymmetry between Firms Tend to Increase or Decrease?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 60(3), pages 543-573.
    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. Leibowicz, Benjamin D., 2018. "Welfare improvement windows for innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 390-398.
    2. Spyros Arvanitis & Juliette von Arx, 2004. "Innovation und Wettbewerb - Eine Analyse aufgrund von schweizerischen Unternehmensdaten," KOF Working papers 04-84, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    3. Etro, Federico, 2019. "Monopolistic competition for the market with heterogeneous firms," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 9-12.
    4. Aldieri, Luigi & Aprile, Maria Carmela & Vinci, Concetto Paolo, 2015. "R&D Spillovers Effects on strategic behaviour of Large International Firms," MPRA Paper 63402, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Levin, Mark (Левин, Марк) & Matrosova, Kseniya (Матросова, Ксения), 2017. "Development and Analysis of Economic Models of Innovation Incentives [Разработка И Исследование Экономических Моделей Стимулирования Инновационных Процессов]," Working Papers 061713, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    6. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1991. "Quality Ladders in the Theory of Growth," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 58(1), pages 43-61.
    7. Robert M. Hunt, 1999. "Nonobviousness and the incentive to innovate: an economic analysis of intellectual property reform," Working Papers 99-3, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
    8. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Kraft, Kornelius, 2004. "An empirical test of the asymmetric models on innovative activity: who invests more into R&D, the incumbent or the challenger?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 153-173, June.
    9. Nguyen, Thang, 2004. "Technological Progress in Races for Product Supremacy," MPRA Paper 235, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 18 Jul 2006.
    10. repec:dgr:rugsom:98b19 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Vossen, Robert W., 1998. "Strategic and tactical decisions, sunk costs and firm size effects in R&D," Research Report 98B19, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    12. Robert M. Hunt, 2004. "Patentability, Industry Structure, and Innovation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(3), pages 401-425, September.
    13. Boone, Jan, 2001. "Intensity of competition and the incentive to innovate," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 705-726, April.
    14. Federico Etro, 2004. "Innovation by leaders," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 281-303, April.
    15. Marshall, Guillermo & Parra, Álvaro, 2019. "Innovation and competition: The role of the product market," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 221-247.
    16. Emmanuel Duguet & Stéphanie Monjon, 2004. "Is innovation persistent at the firm Level. An econometric examination comparing the propensity score and regression methods," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques v04075, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    17. Helen Weeds, 2002. "Strategic Delay in a Real Options Model of R&D Competition," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 69(3), pages 729-747.
    18. Bertrand, Olivier & Zuniga, Pluvia, 2006. "R&D and M&A: Are cross-border M&A different? An investigation on OECD countries," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 401-423, March.
    19. Dosis, Anastasios & Muthoo, Abhinay, 2019. "Experimentation in Dynamic R&D Competition," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 52, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.
    20. Nelson, Kelly P. & Parton, Lee C. & Brown, Zachary S., 2022. "Biofuels policy and innovation impacts: Evidence from biofuels and agricultural patent indicators," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    21. Wilfred Amaldoss & Richard Staelin, 2010. "Cross-Function and Same-Function Alliances: How Does Alliance Structure Affect the Behavior of Partnering Firms?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(2), pages 302-317, February.

    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:prs:caecpo:cep_0154-8344_2000_num_37_1_1293. 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: Equipe PERSEE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.persee.fr/collection/cep .

    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.