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

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.

    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. Philippe Aghion & Nick Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 120(2), pages 701-728.
    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Winter, Sidney G., 1984. "Schumpeterian competition in alternative technological regimes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 5(3-4), pages 287-320.
    8. Aghion, Philippe & Akcigit, Ufuk & Howitt, Peter, 2014. "What Do We Learn From Schumpeterian Growth Theory?," Handbook of Economic Growth,in: Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 515-563 Elsevier.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Franco Malerba, 2006. "Innovation and the evolution of industries," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 3-23, April.
    12. 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, vol. 11(4), pages 791-815, August.
    13. Geoffrey M. Hodgson, 2002. "Darwinism in economics: from analogy to ontology," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 259-281.
    14. Ulrich Witt, 2007. "Firms as Realizations of Entrepreneurial Visions," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(7), pages 1125-1140, November.
    15. Geoffrey M. Hodgson, 1997. "The evolutionary and non-Darwinian economics of Joseph Schumpeter," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 131-145.
    16. Foster, John, 1993. "Economics and the Self-Organisation Approach: Alfred Marshall Revisited," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(419), pages 975-991, July.
    17. 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.
    18. Klaus Wersching, 2010. "Schumpeterian Competition, Technological Regimes and Learning through Knowledge Spillover," Post-Print hal-00849408, HAL.
    19. 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.
    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. C. Mantzavinos, 2006. "The institutional-evolutionary antitrust model," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 273-291, November.
    22. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1996. "Schumpeterian patterns of innovation are technology-specific," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 451-478, May.
    23. Fulvio Castellacci, 2007. "Technological regimes and sectoral differences in productivity growth ," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(6), pages 1105-1145, December.
    24. Metcalfe, J S, 1994. "Evolutionary Economics and Technology Policy," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 104(425), pages 931-944, July.
    25. 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.
    26. John Foster, 2000. "Competitive selection, self-organisation and Joseph A. Schumpeter," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 311-328.
    27. Carl A. Futia, 1980. "Schumpeterian Competition," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 94(4), pages 675-695.
    28. Shionoya,Yuichi, 1997. "Schumpeter and the Idea of Social Science," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521430340.
    29. 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.
    30. 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.
    31. 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.
    32. Philippe Aghion & Julian Boulanger & Elie Cohen, 2011. "Rethinking industrial policy," Policy Briefs 566, Bruegel.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.