IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper

Spatial Competition in Quality, Demand-Induced Innovation, and Schumpeterian Growth

We develop a general equilibrium model of vertical innovation in which multiple firms compete monopolistically in the quality space. The model features many firms, each of which holds the monopoly to produce a unique quality level of an otherwise homogenous good, and consumers who are heterogeneous in their valuation of the good’s quality. If the marginal cost of production is convex with respect to quality, multiple firms coexist, and their equilibrium markups are determined by the degree of convexity and the density of quality-competition. To endogenize the latter, we nest this industry setup in a Schumpeterian model of endogenous growth. Each firm enters the industry as the technology leader and successively transits through the product cycle as it is superseded by further innovations. The intrinsic reason that innovation happens in our economy is not one of displacing the incumbent; rather, innovation is a means to differentiate oneself from existing firms and target new consumers. Aggregate growth arises if, on the one hand, increasingly wealthy consumers are willing to pay for higher quality and, on the other hand, private firms’ innovation generates income growth by enlarging the set of available technologies. Because the frequency of innovation determines the toughness of product market competition, in our framework, the relation between growth and competition is reversed compared to the standard Schumpeterian framework. Our setup does not feature business stealing in the sense that already marginal innovations grant non-negligible profits. Rather, innovators sell to a set of consumers that was served relatively poorly by pre-existing firms. Nevertheless, "creative destruction" prevails as new entrants make the set of available goods more differentiated, thereby exerting a pro-competitive effect on the entire industry.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.szgerzensee.ch/fileadmin/Dateien_Anwender/Dokumente/working_papers/wp-1104.pdf
File Function: Full text
Download Restriction: None

Paper provided by Swiss National Bank, Study Center Gerzensee in its series Working Papers with number 11.04.

as
in new window

Length: 48 pages
Date of creation: May 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:szg:worpap:1104
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Studienzentrum Gerzensee, Postfach 21, 3115 Gerzensee

Phone: ++41 (0)31 780 31 31
Fax: ++41 (0)31 780 31 00
Web page: http://www.szgerzensee.ch/
Email:

Order Information: Postal: Studienzentrum Gerzensee, Postfach 21, 3115 Gerzensee
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.:

as in new window
  1. Acemoglu, Daron, 1997. "Why Do New Technologies Complement Skills? Directed Technical Change and Wage Inequality," CEPR Discussion Papers 1707, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  2. Rasmus Lentz & Dale T. Mortensen, 2005. "An Empirical Model of Growth Through Product Innovation," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series WP2005-004, Boston University - Department of Economics.
  3. Juan Carlos Hallak & Peter K. Schott, 2011. "Estimating Cross-Country Differences in Product Quality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 126(1), pages 417-474.
  4. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1991. "Quality Ladders in the Theory of Growth," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 58(1), pages 43-61.
  5. Verhoogen, Eric A, 2007. "Trade, Quality Upgrading and Wage Inequality in the Mexican Manufacturing Sector," CEPR Discussion Papers 6385, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  6. Baldwin, Richard & Harrigan, James, 2007. "Zeros, Quality and Space: Trade Theory and Trade Evidence," CEPR Discussion Papers 6368, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  7. 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.
  8. Jonathan Vogel, 2009. "Spatial Price Discrimination with Heterogeneous Firms," NBER Working Papers 14978, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  9. Aghion, P. & Howitt, P., 1990. "A Model Of Growth Through Creative Destruction," DELTA Working Papers 90-12, DELTA (Ecole normale supérieure).
  10. Michele Boldrin & David K Levine, 2003. "IER Lawrence Klein Lecture: The Case Against Intellectual Monopoly," Levine's Working Paper Archive 618897000000000493, David K. Levine.
  11. Josef Zweimueller, . "Schumpeterian Entrepreneurs Meet Engel's Law: The Impact of Inequality on Innovation-Driven Growth," IEW - Working Papers 009, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
  12. Maurice Kugler & Eric Verhoogen, 2012. "Prices, Plant Size, and Product Quality," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 79(1), pages 307-339.
  13. Ana Aizcorbe & Samuel Kortum, 2004. "Moore's Law and the Semiconductor Industry: A Vintage Model," Industrial Organization 0412008, EconWPA.
  14. Alwyn Young, 1993. "Substitution and Complementarity in Endogenous Innovation," NBER Working Papers 4256, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  15. Chun, Hyunbae & Kim, Jung-Wook & Morck, Randall & Yeung, Bernard, 2008. "Creative destruction and firm-specific performance heterogeneity," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 109-135, July.
  16. Richard G. Newell & Adam B. Jaffe & Robert N. Stavins, 1999. "The Induced Innovation Hypothesis and Energy-Saving Technological Change," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 114(3), pages 941-975.
  17. Daniel Johnson & Robert Evenson, 1997. "Innovation and Invention in Canada," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 177-192.
  18. Mussa, Michael & Rosen, Sherwin, 1978. "Monopoly and product quality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 301-317, August.
  19. Alwyn Young, 1993. "Substitution and Complementarity in Endogenous Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 108(3), pages 775-807.
  20. Raphael Auer & Thomas Chaney, 2009. "Exchange rate pass-through in a competitive model of pricing-to-market," Globalization and Monetary Policy Institute Working Paper 23, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
  21. Raphael Auer & Thomas Chaney & Philip Sauré, 2012. "Quality pricing-to-market," Globalization and Monetary Policy Institute Working Paper 125, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
  22. Amit Khandelwal, 2009. "The Long and Short (of) Quality Ladders," NBER Working Papers 15178, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  23. Chad Syverson, 2001. "Market Structure and Productivity: A Concrete Example," Working Papers 01-06, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
  24. Aghion, Philippe, 2002. "Schumpeterian Growth Theory and the Dynamics of Income Inequality," Scholarly Articles 3350067, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  25. Lahmandi-Ayed, Rim, 2000. "Natural Oligopolies: A Vertical Differentiation Model," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 41(4), pages 971-87, November.
  26. Murphy, Kevin M. & Shleifer, Andrei, 1997. "Quality and trade," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-15, June.
  27. Harris, Christopher & Howitt, Peter & Vickers, John & Aghion, Philippe, 2001. "Competition, Imitation and Growth with Step-by-Step Innovation," Scholarly Articles 12375013, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  28. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1991. "Quality Ladders and Product Cycles," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(2), pages 557-586.
  29. Shaked, Avner & Sutton, John, 1983. "Natural Oligopolies," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(5), pages 1469-83, September.
  30. Philippe Aghion, 2002. "Schumpeterian Growth Theory and the Dynamics of Income Inequality," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(3), pages 855-882, May.
  31. David Popp, 2002. "Induced Innovation and Energy Prices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(1), pages 160-180, March.
  32. Vives, Xavier, 2005. "Innovation and Competitive Pressure," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt1s1059vr, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  33. Grossman, G.M. & Helpman, E., 1989. "Quality Ledders In The Theory Of Growth," Papers 148, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
  34. Aghion, Philippe & Harris, Christopher & Vickers, John, 1997. "Competition and growth with step-by-step innovation: An example," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(3-5), pages 771-782, April.
  35. Samuel Kortum & Jonathan Putnam, 1997. "Assigning Patents to Industries: Tests of the Yale Technology Concordance," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 161-176.
  36. Segerstrom, Paul S & Anant, T C A & Dinopoulos, Elias, 1990. "A Schumpeterian Model of the Product Life Cycle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1077-91, December.
  37. Daniel K.N. Johnson, 2002. "The OECD Technology Concordance (OTC): Patents by Industry of Manufacture and Sector of Use," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2002/5, OECD Publishing.
  38. Ron Adner & Daniel Levinthal, 2001. "Demand Heterogeneity and Technology Evolution: Implications for Product and Process Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 611-628, May.
  39. Eric A. Verhoogen, 2008. "Trade, Quality Upgrading, and Wage Inequality in the Mexican Manufacturing Sector," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 123(2), pages 489-530.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:szg:worpap:1104. 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: (library)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.