IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01738692.html

And the winner is-Acquired. Entrepreneurship as a contest yielding radical innovations

Author

Listed:
  • Joachim Henkel

    (TUM - Technische Universität Munchen = Technical University Munich = Université Technique de Munich, CEPR - Center for Economic Policy Research)

  • Thomas Rønde

    (CBS - Copenhagen Business School [Copenhagen], CEPR - Center for Economic Policy Research)

  • Marcus Wagner

    (BETA - Bureau d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - UNISTRA - Université de Strasbourg - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, UNIA - Universität Augsburg [Deutschland] = University of Augsburg [Germany] = Université d'Augsbourg [Allemagne])

Abstract

New entrants to a market tend to be superior to incumbents in originating radical innovations. We provide a new explanation for this phenomenon, based on markets for technology. It applies in industries where successful entrepreneurial firms, or their technologies, are acquired by incumbents that then commercialize the innovation. To this end we analyze an innovation game between one incumbent and a large number of entrants. In the first stage, firms compete to develop innovations of high quality. They do so by choosing, at equal cost, the success probability of their R&D approach, where a lower probability accompanies higher value in case of success—that is, a more radical innovation. In the second stage, successful entrants bid to be acquired by the incumbent. We assume that entrants cannot survive on their own, so being acquired amounts to a prize in a contest. We identify an equilibrium in which the incumbent performs the least radical project. Entrants pick pairwise different projects; the bigger the number of entrants, the more radical the most radical project. Generally, entrants tend to choose more radical R&D approaches and generate the highest value innovation in case of success. We illustrate our theoretical findings by a qualitative empirical study of the Electronic Design Automation industry, and derive implications for research and management.

Suggested Citation

  • Joachim Henkel & Thomas Rønde & Marcus Wagner, 2015. "And the winner is-Acquired. Entrepreneurship as a contest yielding radical innovations," Post-Print hal-01738692, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01738692
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.09.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Signori, Andrea & Vismara, Silvio, 2018. "M&A synergies and trends in IPOs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 141-153.
    2. Erik E. Lehmann & Manuel T. Schwerdtfeger, 2016. "Evaluation of IPO-firm takeovers: an event study," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 921-938, December.
    3. Colin Davis & Laixun Zhao, 2022. "Innovation to Keep or to Sell and Tax Incentives," Discussion Paper Series DP2022-28, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University, revised Nov 2022.
    4. Colombelli, Alessandra & Grilli, Luca & Minola, Tommaso & Mrkajic, Boris, 2020. "To what extent do young innovative companies take advantage of policy support to enact innovation appropriation mechanisms?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(10).
    5. Signori, Andrea, 2018. "Zero-revenue IPOs," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 106-121.
    6. Huvaj, M. Nesij & Johnson, William C., 2019. "Organizational complexity and innovation portfolio decisions: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 153-165.
    7. Hottenrott, Hanna & Richstein, Robert, 2020. "Start-up subsidies: Does the policy instrument matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    8. Lindholm-Dahlstrand, Asa & Andersson, Martin & Carlsson, Bo, 2016. "Entrepreneurial Experimentation: A key function in Entrepreneurial Systems of Innovation," Papers in Innovation Studies 2016/20, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    9. Åsa Lindholm-Dahlstrand & Martin Andersson & Bo Carlsson, 2019. "Entrepreneurial experimentation: a key function in systems of innovation," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 53(3), pages 591-610, October.
    10. Barros, Pedro Pita & Brito, Duarte & Vasconcelos, Helder, 2018. "Welfare decreasing endogenous mergers between producers of complementary goods," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 54-95.
    11. Marc Bourreau & Axel Gautier, 2024. "Innovation and Startup Acquisition," CESifo Working Paper Series 11569, CESifo.
    12. Reinhilde Veugelers & Cédric Schneider, 2018. "Which IP strategies do young highly innovative firms choose?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 113-129, January.
    13. Pehr-Johan Norbäck & Lars Persson & Joacim Tåg, 2025. "Risky business: venture capital, pivoting and scaling," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 64(3), pages 1285-1319, March.
    14. Pehr-Johan Norbäck & Lars Persson, 2024. "Why generative AI can make creative destruction more creative but less destructive," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 63(1), pages 349-377, June.
    15. Kaya, Mehmet Caglar & Persson, Lars, 2019. "A theory of gazelle growth: Competition, venture capital finance and policy," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    16. Ferreira, Paulo Jorge Silveira & Dionísio, Andreia Teixeira Marques, 2016. "What are the conditions for good innovation results? A fuzzy-set approach for European Union," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 5396-5400.
    17. Uwe Cantner & James A. Cunningham & Erik E. Lehmann & Matthias Menter, 2021. "Entrepreneurial ecosystems: a dynamic lifecycle model," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 407-423, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:hal:journl:hal-01738692. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.