IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

An explanation for the inverted-U relationship between competition and innovation

The Dixit-Stiglitz model is extended by the possibility for rms to un- dertake process innovation. The model can provide a new explanation to describe the relationship that research activity of rms is positively corre- lated with product market competition at low levels of competition, and negatively at high levels that has been found in the data. The initial pos- itive relationship is caused by an increased business stealing opportunity with more competition, while the negative eect comes from the reduc- tion of the markup due to higher competition (measured as elasticity of substitution). Also the ambiguous relationship of market entry barriers with respect to research activity is discussed using a less general form of the model. This framework may also be used to explain the inverted-U relationship found between competition and advertising expenditures.

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:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University of Vienna, Department of Economics in its series Vienna Economics Papers with number 0813.

in new window

Date of creation: Dec 2008
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:vie:viennp:0813
Contact details of provider: Web page:

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. Krugman, Paul R., 1979. "Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 469-479, November.
  2. Aghion, P. & Howitt, P., 1990. "A Model Of Growth Through Creative Destruction," DELTA Working Papers 90-12, DELTA (Ecole normale supérieure).
  3. Yang, Xiaokai & Heijdra, Ben J, 1993. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(1), pages 295-301, March.
  4. Dasgupta, Partha & Stiglitz, Joseph, 1980. "Industrial Structure and the Nature of Innovative Activity," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 90(358), pages 266-93, June.
  5. Aamir Rafique Hashmi, 2013. "Competition and Innovation: The Inverted-U Relationship Revisited," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(5), pages 1653-1668, December.
  6. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction," Scholarly Articles 12490578, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  7. Boone, J. & van Ours, J.C. & van der Wiel, H.P., 2007. "How (Not) to Measure Competition," Discussion Paper 2007-014, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
  8. Philippe Aghion & Nicholas Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2002. "Competition and innovation: an inverted U relationship," IFS Working Papers W02/04, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
  9. Krugman, Paul, 1991. "Increasing Returns and Economic Geography," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(3), pages 483-99, June.
  10. Georg Götz, 1999. "Monopolistic Competition and the Diffusion of New Technology," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(4), pages 679-693, Winter.
  11. Vives, Xavier, 2006. "Innovation and competitive pressure," IESE Research Papers D/634, IESE Business School.
  12. Segerstrom, Paul S, 1998. "Endogenous Growth without Scale Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1290-1310, December.
  13. Chang-Yang Lee, 2002. "Advertising, Its Determinants, and Market Structure," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 89-101, August.
  14. Ederington, Josh & McCalman, Phillip, 2008. "Endogenous firm heterogeneity and the dynamics of trade liberalization," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 422-440, March.
  15. Michael Raith, 2003. "Competition, Risk, and Managerial Incentives," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1425-1436, September.
  16. Montagna, Catia, 1995. "Monopolistic Competition with Firm-Specific Costs," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 47(2), pages 318-28, April.
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:vie:viennp:0813. 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: (Paper Administrator)

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.