IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bol/bodewp/609.html

Organisation of industry and innovation dynamics

Author

Listed:
  • T. Ciarli
  • R. Leoncini
  • S. Montresor
  • M. Valente

Abstract

The paper aims at investigating how the organization of a certain industry evolves once the competition among its firms, producing a complex (i.e. non-modular) product, is modeled as the intertwining of innovative search and organizational change. In order to take the full roster of participants into account, and to retain the inner complexity of their decisions, a Pseudo NK model is built up in which a population of firms is called to match a technological frontier. By evolving along different stagesof the sector s life-cycle, such a kind of technological calls for a trade off between two strategies of cost reduction through either outsourcing ortechnological search. Overall, the simulation results confirm previous literature as, for example, in the introductory stage of the industry life cycle,marked by frequent and intense jumps of the technological frontier, firms need to vertically integrate in order to have higher chances to win the competition for a new standard. On the contrary, in the decline stage,in which the technological frontier almost stabilizes, deverticalization allows firms to better compete on costs. These results change if suppliers are allowed to innovate, as they are more likely to lock the market in sub optimal configurations.

Suggested Citation

  • T. Ciarli & R. Leoncini & S. Montresor & M. Valente, 2007. "Organisation of industry and innovation dynamics," Working Papers 609, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    • Handle: RePEc:bol:bodewp:609
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://amsacta.unibo.it/4663/1/609.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(2), pages 701-728.
    2. Bart Nooteboom, 2004. "Governance and competence: how can they be combined?," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 28(4), pages 505-525, July.
    3. Daron Acemoglu & Philippe Aghion & Fabrizio Zilibotti, 2003. "Vertical Integration and Distance to Frontier," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(2-3), pages 630-638, 04/05.
    4. Utterback, James M & Abernathy, William J, 1975. "A dynamic model of process and product innovation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 3(6), pages 639-656, December.
    5. Giovanni Dosi & Mike Hobday & Luigi Marengo, 2000. "Problem-Solving Behaviours, Organisational Forms and the Complexity of Tasks," LEM Papers Series 2000/06, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    6. Herbert A. Simon, 1996. "The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262691914, December.
    7. Erol Taymaz & Yilmaz Kilicaslan, 2005. "Determinants of subcontracting and regional development: An empirical study on Turkish textile and engineering industries," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(5), pages 633-645.
    8. Marengo, Luigi, et al, 2000. "The Structure of Problem-Solving Knowledge and the Structure of Organizations," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 9(4), pages 757-788, December.
    9. Steven Klepper, 2002. "Firm Survival and the Evolution of Oligopoly," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(1), pages 37-61, Spring.
    10. Robertson, Paul L. & Langlois, Richard N., 1995. "Innovation, networks, and vertical integration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 543-562, July.
    11. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    12. Marco Valente, 2008. "Pseudo-NK: an Enhanced Model of Complexity," LEM Papers Series 2008/26, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    13. Richardson, G B, 1972. "The Organisation of Industry," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 82(327), pages 883-896, September.
    14. Kauffman, Stuart & Lobo, Jose & Macready, William G., 2000. "Optimal search on a technology landscape," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 141-166, October.
    15. Brusoni, Stefano & Prencipe, Andrea, 2001. "Unpacking the Black Box of Modularity: Technologies, Products and Organizations," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(1), pages 179-205, March.
    16. Dieter Ernst, 2005. "Limits to Modularity: Reflections on Recent Developments in Chip Design," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(3), pages 303-335.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tommaso Ciarli & Marco Valente & Riccardo Leoncini & Sandro Montresor, 2009. "Technological change and the vertical organization of industries," Springer Books, in: Uwe Cantner & Jean-Luc Gaffard & Lionel Nesta (ed.), Schumpeterian Perspectives on Innovation, Competition and Growth, pages 115-135, Springer.

    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. Tommaso Ciarli & Marco Valente & Riccardo Leoncini & Sandro Montresor, 2009. "Technological change and the vertical organization of industries," Springer Books, in: Uwe Cantner & Jean-Luc Gaffard & Lionel Nesta (ed.), Schumpeterian Perspectives on Innovation, Competition and Growth, pages 115-135, Springer.
    2. Leonardo Bargigli, 2005. "The limits of modularity in innovation and production," KITeS Working Papers 176, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised Sep 2005.
    3. Leonardo Bargigli, 2005. "An evolutionary model for the dynamics of vertical integration and network-based production," Industrial Organization 0509002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Stefano Brusoni & Luigi Marengo & Andrea Prencipe & Marco Valente, 2004. "The Value and Costs of Modularity: A Cognitive Perspective," SPRU Working Paper Series 123, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    5. Khraisha, Tamer, 2020. "Complex economic problems and fitness landscapes: Assessment and methodological perspectives," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 390-407.
    6. Koen Frenken & Alessandro Nuvolari, 2004. "Entropy statistics as a framework to analyse technological evolution," Chapters, in: John Foster & Werner Hölzl (ed.), Applied Evolutionary Economics and Complex Systems, chapter 5, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Giovanni Dosi & Mike Hobday & Luigi Marengo & Andrea Prencipe, 2002. "The Economics Of System Integration: Toward An Evolutionary Interpretation," LEM Papers Series 2002/16, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    8. Andreas Reinstaller, 2012. "Modularity and its Implications for the Theory of the Firm," Chapters, in: Michael Dietrich & Jackie Krafft (ed.), Handbook on the Economics and Theory of the Firm, chapter 32, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Baldwin, Carliss Y. & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Kapoor, Rahul & West, Joel, 2024. "Focusing the ecosystem lens on innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    10. Susan Helper & Mari Sako, 2010. "Management innovation in supply chain: appreciating Chandler in the twenty-first century," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(2), pages 399-429, April.
    11. Loris Gaio, 2005. "A diversity-based approach to requirements tracing in new product development," ROCK Working Papers 031, Department of Computer and Management Sciences, University of Trento, Italy, revised 13 Jun 2008.
    12. Cincera, Michele & Ince, Ela & Santos, Anabela, 2024. "Revisiting the innovation-competition nexus: Evidence from worldwide manufacturing and service industries," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 586-603.
    13. Karén Hovhannissian & Marco Valente, 2004. "Modeling Directed Local Search Strategies on Technology Landscapes: Depth and Breadth," ROCK Working Papers 028, Department of Computer and Management Sciences, University of Trento, Italy, revised 17 Jun 2008.
    14. Philip Auerswald, 2010. "Entry and Schumpeterian profits," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 553-582, August.
    15. Nicoletta Corrocher & Marco Guerzoni, 2015. "Post-Entry Product Introduction: Who Explores New Niches?," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 18-36, January.
    16. Gorodnichenko, Yuriy & Svejnar, Jan & Terrell, Katherine, 2014. "When does FDI have positive spillovers? Evidence from 17 transition market economies," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 954-969.
    17. Frenken, Koen, 2006. "A fitness landscape approach to technological complexity, modularity, and vertical disintegration," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 288-305, September.
    18. Amable, Bruno & Ledezma, Ivan & Robin, Stéphane, 2016. "Product market regulation, innovation, and productivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 2087-2104.
    19. Hervas-Oliver, Jose-Luis & Sempere-Ripoll, Francisca & Boronat-Moll, Carles, 2012. "Process innovation objectives and management complementarities: patterns, drivers, co-adoption and performance effects," MERIT Working Papers 2012-051, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    20. Wolfgang Kerber & Simonetta Vezzoso, 2004. "EU Competition Policy, Vertical Restraints, and Innovation: An Analysis from an Evolutionary Perspective," Marburg Working Papers on Economics 200414, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Lists

    This item is featured on the following reading lists, Wikipedia, or ReplicationWiki pages:
    1. Socio-Economics of Innovation

    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:bol:bodewp:609. 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: Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sebolit.html .

    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.