Competitive Intensity as Driver of Innovation and Productivity Growth: A Synthesis of the Literature
The objective of the report is to survey and assess the existing economic theoretical literature and empirical evidence on the linkages between open and competitive markets (competitive intensity) and innovation and productivity growth. The report is divided into three main parts. The first part examines the state of economic theory on the relationship between competitive intensity, innovation and productivity. The second section examines relevant empirical work that has been done on the role of firm dynamics in sustaining a competitive environment. The third section surveys evidence of linkages provided by the international case studies of the effects of open and competitive markets on innovation and productivity. The report concludes that the weight of the evidence indicates that competitive intensity has a strong positive effect on innovation and productivity. Accordingly, Canada should pay closer attention to the competitive implications of public policy than has been the case in the past. The international experience provides strong support for this conclusion. While there can be negative implications for certain groups from such policy changes, the evidence shows that they are often smaller than anticipated. Restrictions on competition should only be allowed when it can be demonstrated that they are needed to achieve overriding societal interests.
|Date of creation:||Jun 2008|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 151 Slater Street, Suite 710, Ottawa, ON K1P 5H3|
Web page: http://www.csls.ca/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Web: http://www.csls.ca Email: |
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.:
- Richard Carew, 1998. "The British Columbia Wine Sector and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement: Strengths and Opportunities," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 20(1), pages 248-258.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sls:resrep:0803. 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: (CSLS)
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.