IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Competition, R&D and innovation: testing the inverted-U in a simultaneous system

  • Michael Peneder

    ()

  • Martin Woerter

    ()

To address the relationship between innovation and competition we jointly estimate the opportunity, production, and impact functions of innovation in a simultaneous system. Based on Swiss micro-data, we apply a 3-SLS system estimation. The findings confirm a robust inverted-U relationship, in which a rise in the number of competitors at low levels of initial competition increases the firm’s research effort, but at a diminishing rate, and the research effort ultimately decreases at high levels of competition. When we split the sample by firm types, the inverted-U shape is steeper for creative firms than for adaptive ones. The numerical solution indicates three particular configurations of interest: (i) an uncontested monopoly with low innovation; (ii) low competition with high innovation; and (iii) a ‘no innovation trap’ at very high levels of competition. The distinction between solution (i) and (ii) corresponds to Arrow’s positive effect of competition on innovation, whereas the difference between outcomes (ii) and (iii) captures Schumpeter’s positive effect of market power on innovation. Simulating changes of the exogenous variables, technology potential, demand growth, firm size and exports have a positive impact on innovation, while foreign ownership has a negative effect, and higher appropriability has a positive impact on the number of competitors. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00191-013-0310-z
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Springer in its journal Journal of Evolutionary Economics.

Volume (Year): 24 (2014)
Issue (Month): 3 (July)
Pages: 653-687

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:spr:joevec:v:24:y:2014:i:3:p:653-687
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00191/index.htm

Order Information: Web: http://link.springer.de/orders.htm

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Crepon, B. & Duguet, E. & Mairesse, J., 1998. "Research Investment, Innovation and Productivity: An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 98.15, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
  2. Schmutzler, Armin, 2010. "The relation between competition and innovation -- Why is it such a mess?," CEPR Discussion Papers 7640, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  3. Donja Darai & Dario Sacco & Armin Schmutzler, 2010. "Competition and innovation: an experimental investigation," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 439-460, December.
  4. Philippe Aghion & Nicholas Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2002. "Competition and innovation: an inverted U relationship," IFS Working Papers W02/04, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  5. Blundell, Richard & Griffith, Rachel & van Reenen, John, 1999. "Market Share, Market Value and Innovation in a Panel of British Manufacturing Firms," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 529-54, July.
  6. Glenn C. Loury, 1976. "Market Structure and Innovation," Discussion Papers 256, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
  7. Edward E. Leamer, 2010. "Tantalus on the Road to Asymptopia," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 24(2), pages 31-46, Spring.
  8. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction," Scholarly Articles 12490578, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  9. R. Cellini & L. Lambertini, 2004. "R&D Incentives under Bertrand Competition: A Differential Game," Working Papers 519, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
  10. Kamien, Morton I & Schwartz, Nancy L, 1976. "On the Degree of Rivalry for Maximum Innovative Activity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 90(2), pages 245-60, May.
  11. Kamien, Morton I & Schwartz, Nancy L, 1972. "Timing of Innovations Under Rivalry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 40(1), pages 43-60, January.
  12. Aghion, P. & Howitt, P., 1989. "A Model Of Growth Through Creative Destruction," Working papers 527, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
  13. Economides, N., 2001. "The Microsoft Antitrust Case," New York University, Leonard N. Stern School Finance Department Working Paper Seires 01-00, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business-.
  14. John Scott, 2009. "Competition in Research and Development: A Theory for Contradictory Predictions," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 153-171, March.
  15. Kraft, Kornelius, 1989. "Market Structure, Firm Characteristics and Innovative Activity," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(3), pages 329-36, March.
  16. Gottschalk, Sandra & Janz, Norbert, 2001. "Innovation dynamics and endogenous market structure: econometric results from aggregated survey data," ZEW Discussion Papers 01-39, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  17. Juan A. Correa, 2012. "Innovation and competition: An unstable relationship," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 160-166, 01.
  18. Philippe Aghion & Peter Howitt, 2009. "The Economics of Growth," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262012634, June.
  19. Castellacci, Fulvio, 2009. "How does competition affect the relationship between innovation and productivity? Estimation of a CDM model for Norway," MPRA Paper 27591, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  20. R. Cellini & L. Lambertini, 2004. "R&D Incentives and Market Structure: A Dynamic Analysis," Working Papers 497, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
  21. Schumpeter, Joseph A., 1947. "The Creative Response in Economic History," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(02), pages 149-159, November.
  22. Reinganum, Jennifer F., 1983. "A Two-Stage Model of Research and Development With Endogenous Second Mover Advantages," Working Papers 479, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
  23. Philippe Aghion & Diego Comin & Peter Howitt, 2006. "When Does Domestic Saving Matter for Economic Growth?," NBER Working Papers 12275, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  24. Bruno Crepon & Emmanuel Duguet & Jacques Mairesse, 1998. "Research, Innovation And Productivity: An Econometric Analysis At The Firm Level," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 115-158.
  25. Flavio Delbono & Vincenzo Denicolo, 1988. "Incentives to Innovate in a Cournot Oligopoly," Working Papers 44, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
  26. Simon Alder, 2010. "Competition and innovation: does the distance to the technology frontier matter?," IEW - Working Papers 493, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
  27. Edwin Mansfield, 1963. "Size of Firm, Market Structure, and Innovation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 71, pages 556.
  28. Schmidt, Klaus M., 1997. "Managerial Incentives and Product Market Competition," Munich Reprints in Economics 19772, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
  29. P.A. Geroski, 2003. "Competition in Markets and Competition for Markets," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 151-166, September.
  30. Carlos D. Santos, 2010. "Competition, product and process innovation: an empirical analysis," Working Papers. Serie AD 2010-26, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
  31. Tang, Jianmin, 2006. "Competition and innovation behaviour," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 68-82, February.
  32. Aamir Rafique Hashmi & Johannes Van Biesebroeck, 2010. "Market Structure and Innovation: A Dynamic Analysis of the Global Automobile Industry," NBER Working Papers 15959, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  33. Richard Gilbert, 2006. "Looking for Mr. Schumpeter: Where Are We in the Competition-Innovation Debate?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 6, pages 159-215 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  34. repec:fth:inseep:9833 is not listed on IDEAS
  35. Artés, Joaquín, 2009. "Long-run versus short-run decisions: R&D and market structure in Spanish firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 120-132, February.
  36. Angrist, Joshua & Pischke, Jörn-Steffen, 2010. "The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design Is Taking the Con out of Econometrics," IZA Discussion Papers 4800, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  37. Raymond De Bondt & Jan Vandekerckhove, 2012. "Reflections on the Relation Between Competition and Innovation," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 7-19, March.
  38. Federico Etro & Dirk Czarnitzki & Kornelius Kraft, 2011. "Endogenous Market Structures and Innovation by Leaders: an Empirical Test," Working Papers 2011_04, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
  39. Michael Polder & Erik Veldhuizen, 2012. "Innovation and Competition in the Netherlands: Testing the Inverted-U for Industries and Firms," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 67-91, March.
  40. Robert Crandall & Charles Jackson, 2011. "Antitrust in High-Tech Industries," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 319-362, June.
  41. Tishler, Asher & Milstein, Irena, 2009. "R&D wars and the effects of innovation on the success and survivability of firms in oligopoly markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 519-531, July.
  42. Gilbert, Richard J & Newberry, David M G, 1984. "Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(1), pages 251-53, March.
  43. Peneder, Michael, 2010. "Technological regimes and the variety of innovation behaviour: Creating integrated taxonomies of firms and sectors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 323-334, April.
  44. Angus Deaton, 2010. "Instruments, randomization, and learning about development," Working Papers 1224, Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Research Program in Development Studies..
  45. Aamir Hashmi, 2012. "The Relationship between Market Structure and Innovation in Industry Equilibrium: A Case Study of the Global Automobile Industry," 2012 Meeting Papers 356, Society for Economic Dynamics.
  46. Grossman, Gene M & Shapiro, Carl, 1987. "Dynamic R&D Competition," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 97(386), pages 372-87, June.
  47. Michael Peneder, 2009. "The Meaning of Entrepreneurship: A Modular Concept," WIFO Working Papers 335, WIFO.
  48. Dasgupta, Partha & Stiglitz, Joseph, 1980. "Industrial Structure and the Nature of Innovative Activity," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 90(358), pages 266-93, June.
  49. Gilbert, Richard J & Newbery, David M G, 1982. "Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 514-26, June.
  50. De Bondt, Raymond R., 1977. "Innovative activity and barriers to entry," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 95-109.
  51. Nicholas Economides, 2001. "The Microsoft Antitrust Case: Rejoinder," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 71-79, March.
  52. Winter, Sidney G., 1984. "Schumpeterian competition in alternative technological regimes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 5(3-4), pages 287-320.
  53. Levin, Richard C & Cohen, Wesley M & Mowery, David C, 1985. "R&D Appropriability, Opportunity, and Market Structure: New Evidence on Some Schumpeterian Hypotheses," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 20-24, May.
  54. van der Wiel, H.P., 2010. "Competition and innovation : Together a tricky rollercoaster for productivity," Other publications TiSEM 2764dae1-3502-4775-82da-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
  55. Lee, Tom & Wilde, Louis L, 1980. "Market Structure and Innovation: A Reformulation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 94(2), pages 429-36, March.
  56. Kamien, Morton I & Schwartz, Nancy L, 1974. "Patent Life and R & D Rivalry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(1), pages 183-87, March.
  57. Joshua Wright, 2011. "Does Antitrust Enforcement in High Tech Markets Benefit Consumers? Stock Price Evidence from FTC v. Intel," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 387-404, June.
  58. Fulvio Castellacci & Jinghai Zheng, 2010. "Technological regimes, Schumpeterian patterns of innovation and firm-level productivity growth," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(6), pages 1829-1865, December.
  59. Malerba, Franco, 2007. "Innovation and the dynamics and evolution of industries: Progress and challenges," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 675-699, August.
  60. Harry Bloch & Curtis Eaton & Robert Rothschild, 2013. "Does market size matter?," Working Papers 35024217, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
  61. Bruce Owen, 2011. "Antitrust and Vertical Integration in “New Economy” Industries with Application to Broadband Access," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 363-386, June.
  62. Breschi, Stefano & Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 2000. "Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 388-410, April.
  63. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1997. "Technological Regimes and Sectoral Patterns of Innovative Activities," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 83-117.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:joevec:v:24:y:2014:i:3:p:653-687. 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: (Guenther Eichhorn)

or (Christopher F Baum)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.