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

Competition, R&D and Innovation: Testing the Inverted-U in a Simultaneous System

  • Michael Peneder

    (WIFO)

  • Martin Wörter

To address the relationship between innovation and competition we jointly estimate the opportunity, production, and impact functions of innovation in a simultaneous system. Based on Swiss micro-data, we apply a 3-SLS system estimation. The findings confirm a robust inverted-U relationship, in which a rise in the number of competitors at low levels of initial competition increases the firm's research effort, but at a diminishing rate, and the research effort ultimately decreases at high levels of competition. When we split the sample by firm types, the inverted-U shape is steeper for creative firms than for adaptive ones. The numerical solution indicates three particular configurations of interest: 1. an uncontested monopoly with low innovation, 2. low competition with high innovation, and 3. a "no innovation trap" at very high levels of competition. The distinction between solution 1. and 2. corresponds to Arrow's positive effect of competition on innovation, whereas the difference between outcomes 2. and 3. captures Schumpeter's positive effect of market power on innovation. Simulating changes of the exogenous variables, technology potential, demand growth, firm size and exports have a positive impact on innovation, while foreign ownership has a negative effect, and higher appropriability has a positive impact on the number of competitors.

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.wifo.ac.at/wwa/pubid/46652
File Function: Abstract
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by WIFO in its series WIFO Working Papers with number 448.

as
in new window

Length: 49 pages
Date of creation: 22 Mar 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wfo:wpaper:y:2013:i:448
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Arsenal Object 20, A-1030 Wien

Phone: (+43 1) 798 26 01-0
Fax: (+43 1) 798 93 86
Web page: http://www.wifo.ac.at/

More information through EDIRC

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. Philippe Aghion & Nicholas Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2002. "Competition and Innovation: An Inverted U Relationship," NBER Working Papers 9269, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. Fulvio Castellacci & Jinghai Zheng, 2010. "Technological regimes, Schumpeterian patterns of innovation and firm-level productivity growth," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(6), pages 1829-1865, December.
  3. Aamir Hashmi, 2012. "The Relationship between Market Structure and Innovation in Industry Equilibrium: A Case Study of the Global Automobile Industry," 2012 Meeting Papers 356, Society for Economic Dynamics.
  4. Philippe Aghion & Diego Comin & Peter Howitt, 2006. "When Does Domestic Saving Matter for Economic Growth?," DEGIT Conference Papers c011_030, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.
  5. Donja Darai & Dario Sacco & Armin Schmutzler, 2010. "Competition and innovation: an experimental investigation," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 439-460, December.
  6. Armin Schmutzler, 2007. "The relation between competition and innovation � Why is it such a mess?," SOI - Working Papers 0716, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich, revised Jan 2010.
  7. Winter, Sidney G., 1984. "Schumpeterian competition in alternative technological regimes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 5(3-4), pages 287-320.
  8. Dirk Czarnitzki & Federico Etro & Kornelius Kraft, 2014. "Endogenous Market Structures and Innovation by Leaders: An Empirical Test," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 81(321), pages 117-139, 01.
  9. Kamien, Morton I & Schwartz, Nancy L, 1972. "Timing of Innovations Under Rivalry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 40(1), pages 43-60, January.
  10. Gilbert, Richard J & Newberry, David M G, 1984. "Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(1), pages 251-53, March.
  11. van der Wiel, H.P., 2010. "Competition and innovation : Together a tricky rollercoaster for productivity," Other publications TiSEM 2764dae1-3502-4775-82da-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
  12. 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.
  13. Richard Gilbert, 2006. "Looking for Mr. Schumpeter: Where Are We in the Competition-Innovation Debate?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 6, pages 159-215 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  14. P.A. Geroski, 2003. "Competition in Markets and Competition for Markets," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 151-166, September.
  15. Carlos D. Santos, 2010. "Competition, product and process innovation: an empirical analysis," Working Papers. Serie AD 2010-26, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
  16. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2010. "The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design is taking the Con out of Econometrics," CEP Discussion Papers dp0976, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
  17. Philippe Aghion & Peter Howitt, 2009. "The Economics of Growth," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 9780262012638.
  18. Schmidt, Klaus M., 1996. "Managerial Incentives and Product Market Competition," CEPR Discussion Papers 1382, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  19. Bruno Crepon & Emmanuel Duguet & Jacques Mairesse, 1998. "Research, Innovation, and Productivity: An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level," NBER Working Papers 6696, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  20. Aghion, P. & Howitt, P., 1989. "A Model Of Growth Through Creative Destruction," Working papers 527, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
  21. Fulvio Castellacci, 2011. "How does competition affect the relationship between innovation and productivity? Estimation of a CDM model for Norway," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 637-658, August.
  22. Reinganum, Jennifer F., 1983. "A Two-Stage Model of Research and Development With Endogenous Second Mover Advantages," Working Papers 479, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
  23. Peneder, Michael, 2010. "Technological regimes and the variety of innovation behaviour: Creating integrated taxonomies of firms and sectors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 323-334, April.
  24. Michael Polder & Erik Veldhuizen, 2012. "Innovation and Competition in the Netherlands: Testing the Inverted-U for Industries and Firms," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 67-91, March.
  25. Aamir Rafique Hashmi & Johannes Van Biesebroeck, 2010. "Market Structure and Innovation: A Dynamic Analysis of the Global Automobile Industry," NBER Working Papers 15959, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  26. Crepon, B. & Duguet, E. & Mairesse, J., 1998. "Research Investment, Innovation and Productivity: An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 98.15, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
  27. Schumpeter, Joseph A., 1947. "The Creative Response in Economic History," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(02), pages 149-159, November.
  28. De Bondt, Raymond R., 1977. "Innovative activity and barriers to entry," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 95-109.
  29. Schmutzler, Armin, 2010. "The relation between competition and innovation -- Why is it such a mess?," CEPR Discussion Papers 7640, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  30. John Scott, 2009. "Competition in Research and Development: A Theory for Contradictory Predictions," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 153-171, March.
  31. Nicholas Economides, 2001. "The Microsoft Antitrust Case: Rejoinder," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 71-79, March.
  32. R. Cellini & L. Lambertini, 2004. "R&D Incentives and Market Structure: A Dynamic Analysis," Working Papers 497, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
  33. Bruce Owen, 2011. "Antitrust and Vertical Integration in “New Economy” Industries with Application to Broadband Access," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 363-386, June.
  34. Nicholas Economides, 2001. "The Microsoft Antitrust Case," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-39, March.
  35. Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & John van Reenen, 1999. "Market Share, Market Value and Innovation in a Panel of British Manufacturing Firms," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 66(3), pages 529-554.
  36. Klaus M. Schmidt, 1997. "Managerial Incentives and Product Market Competition," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 64(2), pages 191-213.
  37. Artés, Joaquín, 2009. "Long-run versus short-run decisions: R&D and market structure in Spanish firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 120-132, February.
  38. Tom Lee & Louis L. Wilde, 1980. "Market Structure and Innovation: A Reformulation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 94(2), pages 429-436.
  39. Breschi, Stefano & Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 2000. "Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 388-410, April.
  40. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1997. "Technological Regimes and Sectoral Patterns of Innovative Activities," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 83-117.
  41. Edwin Mansfield, 1963. "Size of Firm, Market Structure, and Innovation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 71, pages 556.
  42. Joshua Wright, 2011. "Does Antitrust Enforcement in High Tech Markets Benefit Consumers? Stock Price Evidence from FTC v. Intel," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 387-404, June.
  43. F. Delbono & V. Denicolo, 1988. "Incentives to Innovate in a Cournot Oligopoly," Working Papers 44, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
  44. Levin, Richard C & Cohen, Wesley M & Mowery, David C, 1985. "R&D Appropriability, Opportunity, and Market Structure: New Evidence on Some Schumpeterian Hypotheses," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 20-24, May.
  45. F. M. Scherer, 1967. "Research and Development Resource Allocation Under Rivalry," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 81(3), pages 359-394.
  46. Harry Bloch & Curtis Eaton & Robert Rothschild, 2013. "Does market size matter?," Working Papers 35024217, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
  47. Gene M. Grossman & Carl Shapiro, 1985. "Dynamic R&D Competition," NBER Working Papers 1674, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  48. Simon Alder, 2010. "Competition and innovation: does the distance to the technology frontier matter?," IEW - Working Papers 493, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
  49. Kamien, Morton I & Schwartz, Nancy L, 1974. "Patent Life and R & D Rivalry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(1), pages 183-87, March.
  50. Gilbert, Richard J & Newbery, David M G, 1982. "Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 514-26, June.
  51. Morton I. Kamien & Nancy L. Schwartz, 1976. "On the Degree of Rivalry for Maximum Innovative Activity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 90(2), pages 245-260.
  52. Raymond De Bondt & Jan Vandekerckhove, 2012. "Reflections on the Relation Between Competition and Innovation," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 7-19, March.
  53. Edward E. Leamer, 2010. "Tantalus on the Road to Asymptopia," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 24(2), pages 31-46, Spring.
  54. Angus Deaton, 2010. "Instruments, randomization, and learning about development," Working Papers 1224, Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Research Program in Development Studies..
  55. Malerba, Franco, 2007. "Innovation and the dynamics and evolution of industries: Progress and challenges," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 675-699, August.
  56. R. Cellini & L. Lambertini, 2004. "R&D Incentives under Bertrand Competition: A Differential Game," Working Papers 519, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
  57. Tishler, Asher & Milstein, Irena, 2009. "R&D wars and the effects of innovation on the success and survivability of firms in oligopoly markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 519-531, July.
  58. repec:pri:rpdevs:deaton_instruments_randomization_learning_all_04april_2010 is not listed on IDEAS
  59. Juan A. Correa, 2012. "Innovation and competition: An unstable relationship," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 160-166, 01.
  60. Robert Crandall & Charles Jackson, 2011. "Antitrust in High-Tech Industries," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 319-362, June.
  61. Gottschalk, Sandra & Janz, Norbert, 2001. "Innovation dynamics and endogenous market structure: econometric results from aggregated survey data," ZEW Discussion Papers 01-39, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  62. Michael Peneder, 2009. "The Meaning of Entrepreneurship: A Modular Concept," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 77-99, June.
  63. repec:crs:wpaper:9833 is not listed on IDEAS
  64. Kraft, Kornelius, 1989. "Market Structure, Firm Characteristics and Innovative Activity," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(3), pages 329-36, March.
  65. Glenn C. Loury, 1979. "Market Structure and Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 93(3), pages 395-410.
  66. Tang, Jianmin, 2006. "Competition and innovation behaviour," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 68-82, February.
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:wfo:wpaper:y:2013:i:448. 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: (Ilse Schulz)

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.