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. Robert Crandall & Charles Jackson, 2011. "Antitrust in High-Tech Industries," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 319-362, June.
  2. Tang, Jianmin, 2006. "Competition and innovation behaviour," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 68-82, February.
  3. Michael Peneder, 2010. "Technological Regimes and the Variety of Innovation Behaviour. Creating Integrated Taxonomies of Firms and Sectors," WIFO Working Papers 362, WIFO.
  4. Castellacci, Fulvio & Zheng, Jinghai, 2010. "Technological regimes, Schumpeterian patterns of innovation and firm level productivity growth," MPRA Paper 27588, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  5. Joshua Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2010. "The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design is Taking the Con out of Econometrics," NBER Working Papers 15794, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Philippe Aghion & Peter Howitt, 2009. "The Economics of Growth," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262012634, June.
  9. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-51, March.
  10. Angus Deaton, 2010. "Instruments, Randomization, and Learning about Development," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(2), pages 424-55, June.
  11. Donja Darai & Dario Sacco & Armin Schmutzler, 2010. "Competition and innovation: an experimental investigation," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 439-460, December.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. repec:ner:tilbur:urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-3959784 is not listed on IDEAS
  17. 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.
  18. 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).
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. R. Cellini & L. Lambertini, 2004. "R&D Incentives under Bertrand Competition: A Differential Game," Working Papers 519, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
  23. Aamir Rafique HASHMI & Johannes VAN BIESEBROECK, 2012. "The relationship between market structure and innovation in industry equilibrium: a case study of the global automobile industry," Center for Economic Studies - Discussion papers ces12.01, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën.
  24. 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.
  25. R. Cellini & L. Lambertini, 2004. "R&D Incentives and Market Structure: A Dynamic Analysis," Working Papers 497, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. Winter, Sidney G., 1984. "Schumpeterian competition in alternative technological regimes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 5(3-4), pages 287-320.
  29. Grossman, Gene M & Shapiro, Carl, 1987. "Dynamic R&D Competition," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 97(386), pages 372-87, June.
  30. Flavio Delbono & Vincenzo Denicolo, 1988. "Incentives to Innovate in a Cournot Oligopoly," Working Papers 44, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
  31. Michael Peneder, 2009. "The Meaning of Entrepreneurship: A Modular Concept," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 77-99, June.
  32. Nicholas Economides, 2001. "The Microsoft Antitrust Case: Rejoinder," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 71-79, March.
  33. 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.
  34. Philippe Aghion & Diego Comin & Peter Howitt, 2006. "When Does Domestic Saving Matter for Economic Growth?," DEGIT Conference Papers c011_030, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.
  35. Edward E. Leamer, 2010. "Tantalus on the Road to Asymptopia," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 24(2), pages 31-46, Spring.
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. Schmidt, Klaus M, 1997. "Managerial Incentives and Product Market Competition," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 191-213, April.
  39. 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.
  40. Loury, Glenn C, 1979. "Market Structure and Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 93(3), pages 395-410, August.
  41. Kamien, Morton I & Schwartz, Nancy L, 1972. "Timing of Innovations Under Rivalry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 40(1), pages 43-60, January.
  42. repec:fth:inseep:9833 is not listed on IDEAS
  43. 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.
  44. Howitt, Peter & Griffith, Rachel & Aghion, Philippe & Blundell, Richard & Bloom, Nick, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: An Inverted-U Relationship," Scholarly Articles 4481507, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  45. 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.
  46. 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.
  47. 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.
  48. 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.
  49. Harry Bloch & Curtis Eaton & Robert Rothschild, 2013. "Does market size matter?," Working Papers 35024217, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
  50. Edwin Mansfield, 1963. "Size of Firm, Market Structure, and Innovation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 71, pages 556.
  51. 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.
  52. 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.
  53. 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.
  54. Kraft, Kornelius, 1989. "Market Structure, Firm Characteristics and Innovative Activity," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(3), pages 329-36, March.
  55. De Bondt, Raymond R., 1977. "Innovative activity and barriers to entry," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 95-109.
  56. Johannes Van Biesebroeck & Aamir Hashmi, 2007. "Market Structure and Innovation: A Dynamic Analysis of the Global Automobile Industry," 2007 Meeting Papers 362, Society for Economic Dynamics.
  57. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction," Scholarly Articles 12490578, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  58. 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.
  59. 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".
  60. 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).
  61. 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.
  62. Nicholas Economides, 2001. "The Microsoft Antitrust Case," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-39, March.
  63. 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.
  64. 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.
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.