IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joevec/v27y2017i1d10.1007_s00191-016-0484-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Schumpeter and Schumpeterians on competition: some policy implications

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Arena

    (GREDEG, University Cote d’Azur (University of Nice-Sophia Antipolis and CNRS))

Abstract

The purpose of the paper is to investigate three issues. First, the paper tries to understand the definition of competition and hence the type of competition policy that can be drawn from the modern so-called Neo-Schumpeterian literature. We will see that this literature is abundant and diversified. In spite of its variety, it has also common features regarding the theory of competition as well as competition policy. Secondly we will also emphasize the various aspects of Schumpeter’s legacy that were or are under-estimated by his contemporary followers concerning the concept of competition. We will argue that these aspects are not negligible and that they may also influence the impact of Schumpeter’s own contribution to the characterization but also the criticism of present developments that claim to build a conception of competition policy in line with Schumpeter’s original message. Finally, and more generally, we will stress how Schumpeter’s and Neo-Schumpeterian developments and preoccupations in the field of competition can help us to enlighten the present developments related to competition and industrial policies and to set up their limits.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Arena, 2017. "Schumpeter and Schumpeterians on competition: some policy implications," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 161-186, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:joevec:v:27:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s00191-016-0484-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s00191-016-0484-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00191-016-0484-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00191-016-0484-2?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
    ---><---

    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. J. Gregory Sidak & David J. Teece, 2009. "Dynamic Competition In Antitrust Law," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(4), pages 581-631.
    2. Patrick Llerena & Vanessa Oltra, 2002. "Diversité des processus d'apprentissage et efficacité dynamique des structures industrielles," Revue d'Économie Industrielle, Programme National Persée, vol. 98(1), pages 95-120.
    3. Winter, Sidney G., 1984. "Schumpeterian competition in alternative technological regimes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 5(3-4), pages 287-320.
    4. Wersching, Klaus, 2010. "Schumpeterian competition, technological regimes and learning through knowledge spillover," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 482-493, September.
    5. Ulrich Witt, 2007. "Firms as Realizations of Entrepreneurial Visions," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(7), pages 1125-1140, November.
    6. Franco Malerba, 2006. "Innovation and the evolution of industries," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 3-23, April.
    7. Philippe Aghion & Jing Cai & Mathias Dewatripont & Luosha Du & Ann Harrison & Patrick Legros, 2022. "Industrial Policy and Competition," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Globalization, Firms, and Workers, chapter 15, pages 349-380, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. C. Mantzavinos, 2006. "The institutional-evolutionary antitrust model," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 273-291, November.
    9. John Foster, 2000. "Competitive selection, self-organisation and Joseph A. Schumpeter," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 311-328.
    10. Carl A. Futia, 1980. "Schumpeterian Competition," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 94(4), pages 675-695.
    11. Giovanni Dosi, 2002. "A Very Reasonable Objective Still Beyond Our Reach: Economics as an Empirically Disciplined Social Science," LEM Papers Series 2002/03, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    12. John Foster & J. Stanley Metcalfe (ed.), 2001. "Frontiers of Evolutionary Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2234.
    13. Thorbjørn Knudsen, 2004. "General selection theory and economic evolution: The Price equation and the replicator/interactor distinction," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 147-173.
    14. Richard Arena & Nathalie Lazaric, 2003. "La théorie évolutionniste du changement économique de Nelson et Winter. Une analyse économique réprospective," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 54(2), pages 329-354.
    15. Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 2002. "Evolutionary Theorizing in Economics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 23-46, Spring.
    16. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    17. Pierre Garrouste & Stavros Ioannides (ed.), 2001. "Evolution and Path Dependence in Economic Ideas," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1790.
    18. Geoffrey M. Hodgson, 2002. "Darwinism in economics: from analogy to ontology," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 259-281.
    19. Philippe Aghion & Nick Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(2), pages 701-728.
    20. Franco Malerba & Richard Nelson & Luigi Orsenigo & Sidney G. Winter, 2001. "History-Friendly Models: an Overview of the Case of the Computer Industry," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 4(3), pages 1-6.
    21. Fulvio Castellacci, 2007. "Technological regimes and sectoral differences in productivity growth ," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(6), pages 1105-1145, December.
    22. Richard Arena, 2012. "Economic rationality and the emergence of institutions: a Schumpeterian view," Post-Print halshs-00941347, HAL.
    23. Metcalfe, J S, 1994. "Competition, Fisher's Principle and Increasing Returns in the Selection Process," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 327-346, November.
    24. Hodgson, Geoffrey M, 1993. "Theories of Economic Evolution: A Preliminary Taxonomy," The Manchester School of Economic & Social Studies, University of Manchester, vol. 61(2), pages 125-143, June.
    25. Schumpeter, Joseph A., 1947. "The Creative Response in Economic History," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 149-159, November.
    26. Geoffrey M. Hodgson, 1997. "The evolutionary and non-Darwinian economics of Joseph Schumpeter," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 131-145.
    27. Joseph A. Schumpeter & A. J. Nichol, 1934. "Robinson's Economics of Imperfect Competition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42, pages 249-249.
    28. Aghion, Philippe & Akcigit, Ufuk & Howitt, Peter, 2014. "What Do We Learn From Schumpeterian Growth Theory?," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 515-563, Elsevier.
    29. Shionoya,Yuichi, 1997. "Schumpeter and the Idea of Social Science," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521430340.
    30. Philippe Aghion & Julian Boulanger & Elie Cohen, 2011. "Rethinking industrial policy," Policy Briefs 566, Bruegel.
    31. Ulrich Witt, 2003. "The Evolving Economy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2477.
    32. Orietta Marsili & Bart Verspagen, 2002. "Technology and the dynamics of industrial structures: an empirical mapping of Dutch manufacturing," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(4), pages 791-815, August.
    33. Foster, John, 1993. "Economics and the Self-Organisation Approach: Alfred Marshall Revisited," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(419), pages 975-991, July.
    34. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1997. "Technological Regimes and Sectoral Patterns of Innovative Activities," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 6(1), pages 83-117.
    35. Klaus Wersching, 2010. "Schumpeterian Competition, Technological Regimes and Learning through Knowledge Spillover," Post-Print hal-00849408, HAL.
    36. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1996. "Schumpeterian patterns of innovation are technology-specific," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 451-478, May.
    37. Metcalfe, J S, 1994. "Evolutionary Economics and Technology Policy," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 104(425), pages 931-944, July.
    38. Foster, John, 1997. "The analytical foundations of evolutionary economics: From biological analogy to economic self-organization," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 427-451, October.
    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. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    2. Murat YILDIZOGLU, 2009. "Evolutionary approaches of economic dynamics (In French)," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2009-16, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    3. Jürgen Essletzbichler & David L. Rigby, 2010. "Generalized Darwinism and Evolutionary Economic Geography," Chapters, in: Ron Boschma & Ron Martin (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Andreas Pyka & Uwe Cantner & Alfred Greiner & Thomas Kuhn (ed.), 2009. "Recent Advances in Neo-Schumpeterian Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12982.
    5. Fulvio Castellacci & Jinghai Zheng, 2010. "Technological regimes, Schumpeterian patterns of innovation and firm-level productivity growth," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(6), pages 1829-1865, December.
    6. Christoph Heinzel, 2013. "Schumpeter and Georgescu-Roegen on the foundations of an evolutionary analysis," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(2), pages 251-271.
    7. Christian Cordes, 2014. "There are several ways to incorporate evolutionary concepts into economic thinking," Papers on Economics and Evolution 2014-02, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    8. Castellacci, Fulvio, 2008. "Innovation and the competitiveness of industries: comparing the mainstream and the evolutionary approaches," MPRA Paper 27523, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Sylvie Geisendorf, 2009. "The economic concept of evolution: self-organization or Universal Darwinism?," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 377-391.
    10. Safarzyńska, Karolina & Frenken, Koen & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2012. "Evolutionary theorizing and modeling of sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1011-1024.
    11. Castellacci, Fulvio, 2008. "Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories: Manufacturing and service industries in a new taxonomy of sectoral patterns of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6-7), pages 978-994, July.
    12. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    13. Fulvio Castellacci, 2007. "Technological regimes and sectoral differences in productivity growth ," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(6), pages 1105-1145, December.
    14. Kurt Dopfer, 2012. "The origins of meso economics," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 133-160, January.
    15. Muscio, Alessandro & Nardone, Gianluca & Stasi, Antonio, 2012. "Perceived Technological Regimes: An Empirical Analysis of the Apulian Wine Industry," 2012 International European Forum, February 13-17, 2012, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 144969, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    16. A. Madureira & F. Hartog & N. Baken, 2016. "A holonic framework to understand and apply information processes in evolutionary economics: survey and proposal," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 157-190, September.
    17. Ron Martin & Peter Sunley, 2010. "Complexity Thinking and Evolutionary Economic Geography," Chapters, in: Ron Boschma & Ron Martin (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Roberto Fontana & Alessandro Nuvolari & Hiroshi Shimizu & Andrea Vezzulli, 2013. "Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation and the Sources of Breakthrough Inventions: Evidence from a Data-set of R&D Awards," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Pyka & Esben Sloth Andersen (ed.), Long Term Economic Development, edition 127, pages 313-340, Springer.
    19. Rahmeyer Fritz, 2013. "Schumpeter, Marshall, and Neo-Schumpeterian Evolutionary Economics: A Critical Stocktaking," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 233(1), pages 39-64, February.
    20. Roediger-Schluga, Thomas & Dachs, Bernhard, 2006. "Does technology affect network structure? - A quantitative analysis of collaborative research projects in two specific EU programmes," MERIT Working Papers 2006-041, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).

    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:spr:joevec:v:27:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s00191-016-0484-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.