IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01738692.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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'Augsburg [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 search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joshua S. Gans & Scott Stern, 2000. "Incumbency and R&D Incentives: Licensing the Gale of Creative Destruction," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(4), pages 485-511, December.
    2. Bronwyn H. Hall, 1990. "The Impact of Corporate Restructuring on Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 21(1990 Micr), pages 85-135.
    3. Sudipto Bhattacharya & Dilip Mookherjee, 1986. "Portfolio Choice in Research and Development," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(4), pages 594-605, Winter.
    4. Cabral, Luis M. B., 2002. "Increasing Dominance with No Efficiency Effect," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 471-479, February.
    5. Sternitzke, Christian, 2013. "An exploratory analysis of patent fencing in pharmaceuticals: The case of PDE5 inhibitors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 542-551.
    6. Gans, Joshua S. & Stern, Scott, 2003. "The product market and the market for "ideas": commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 333-350, February.
    7. Gordon M. Phillips & Alexei Zhdanov, 2013. "R&D and the Incentives from Merger and Acquisition Activity," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 26(1), pages 34-78.
    8. repec:bla:jindec:v:46:y:1998:i:2:p:125-56 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Dasgupta, Partha & Maskin, Eric, 1987. "The Simple Economics of Research Portfolios," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 97(387), pages 581-595, September.
    10. Gerlach, Heiko & Rønde, Thomas & Stahl, Konrad, 2009. "Labor pooling in R&D intensive industries," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 99-111, January.
    11. Haufler, Andreas & Norbäck, Pehr-Johan & Persson, Lars, 2014. "Entrepreneurial innovations and taxation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 13-31.
    12. repec:oup:rfinst:v:26:y::i:1:p:34-78 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. C. Praag & Peter Versloot, 2007. "What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 351-382, December.
    15. Grimpe, Christoph & Hussinger, Katrin, 2008. "Pre-empting technology competition through firm acquisitions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 189-191, August.
    16. William J. Baumol, 2013. "The Microtheory of Innovative Entrepreneurship," Journal of Economic Sociology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 14(3), pages 96-108.
    17. Josh Lerner & Robert P. Merges, 1998. "The Control of Technology Alliances: An Empirical Analysis of the Biotechnology Industry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 125-156, June.
    18. Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, 1990. "Optimal Patent Length and Breadth," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 106-112, Spring.
    19. David H. Hsu, 2006. "Venture Capitalists and Cooperative Start-up Commercialization Strategy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 204-219, February.
    20. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2002. "When Does Start-Up Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 571-586, Winter.
    21. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1994. "The changing technology of technological change: general and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labour," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 523-532, September.
    22. Bruce A. Blonigen & Christopher T. Taylor, 2000. "R&D Intensity and Acquisitions in High‐Technology Industries: Evidence from the US Electronic and Electrical Equipment Industries," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 47-70, March.
    23. 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 514-526, June.
    24. Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1983. "Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 741-748, September.
    25. Luís M. B. Cabral, 2003. "R&D Competition when firms Choose Variance," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(1), pages 139-150, March.
    26. Abdul Ali & Manohar U. Kalwani & Dan Kovenock, 1993. "Selecting Product Development Projects: Pioneering versus Incremental Innovation Strategies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(3), pages 255-274, March.
    27. David Levy, 1994. "Chaos theory and strategy: Theory, application, and managerial implications," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S2), pages 167-178, June.
    28. Rasmusen, Eric, 1988. "Entry for Buyout," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 281-299, March.
    29. Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Underinvestment and Incompetence as Responses to Radical Innovation: Evidence from the Photolithographic Alignment Equipment Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(2), pages 248-270, Summer.
    30. Eero Lehto & Olavi Lehtoranta, 2006. "How Do Innovations Affect Mergers and Acquisitions—Evidence from Finland?," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 5-25, March.
    31. Naomi R. Lamoreaux & Kenneth L. Sokoloff, 1999. "Inventive Activity and the Market for Technology in the United States, 1840-1920," NBER Working Papers 7107, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    32. Granstrand, Ove & Sjölander, Sören, 1990. "The Acquisition of Technology and Small Firms by Large Firms," Working Paper Series 213, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    33. Robin Kleer & Marcus Wagner, 2013. "Acquisition through innovation tournaments in high-tech industries: a comparative perspective," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 73-97, January.
    34. Granstrand, Ove & Sjolander, Soren, 1990. "The acquisition of technology and small firms by large firms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 367-386, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. Signori, Andrea, 2018. "Zero-revenue IPOs," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 106-121.
    7. 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.
    8. Hottenrott, Hanna & Richstein, Robert, 2020. "Start-up subsidies: Does the policy instrument matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    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, 2024. "Why generative AI can make creative destruction more creative but less destructive," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 63(1), pages 349-377, June.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rønde, Thomas & Henkel, Joachim & Wagner, Marcus, 2010. "And the Winner Is--Acquired: Entrepreneurship as a Contest with Acquisition as the Prize," CEPR Discussion Papers 8147, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Norbäck, Pehr-Johan & Persson, Lars & Svensson, Roger, 2016. "Creative destruction and productive preemptive acquisitions," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 326-343.
    3. Norbäck, Pehr-Johan & Persson, Lars, 2012. "Entrepreneurial innovations, competition and competition policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 488-506.
    4. Bruno Cassiman & Masako Ueda, 2006. "Optimal Project Rejection and New Firm Start-ups," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 262-275, February.
    5. Erik Lehmann & Thorsten Braun & Sebastian Krispin, 2012. "Entrepreneurial human capital, complementary assets, and takeover probability," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 589-608, October.
    6. Pehr-Johan Norbäck & Lars Persson, 2009. "The Organization of the Innovation Industry: Entrepreneurs, Venture Capitalists, and Oligopolists," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(6), pages 1261-1290, December.
    7. Fabrizi, Simona & Lippert, Steffen & Norback, Pehr-Johan & Persson, Lars, 2007. "Venture Capitalists, Asymmetric Information and Ownership in the Innovation Process," MPRA Paper 6265, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Andersson, Martin & Xiao, Jing, 2016. "Acquisitions of start-ups by incumbent businesses," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 272-290.
    9. Signori, Andrea & Vismara, Silvio, 2018. "M&A synergies and trends in IPOs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 141-153.
    10. Bertrand, Olivier & Zuniga, Pluvia, 2006. "R&D and M&A: Are cross-border M&A different? An investigation on OECD countries," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 401-423, March.
    11. Joshua S. Gans & Lars Persson, 2013. "Entrepreneurial commercialization choices and the interaction between IPR and competition policy," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 22(1), pages 131-151, February.
    12. Jean Gabszewicz & Ornella Tarola, 2012. "Product innovation and firms’ ownership," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 323-343, April.
    13. Joshua Gans & Scott Stern, 2003. "When does funding research by smaller firms bear fruit?: Evidence from the SBIR program," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 361-384.
    14. Wagner, Marcus, 2011. "To explore or to exploit? An empirical investigation of acquisitions by large incumbents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1217-1225.
    15. Joshua S. Gans & Scott Stern, 2000. "Incumbency and R&D Incentives: Licensing the Gale of Creative Destruction," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(4), pages 485-511, December.
    16. Spulber, Daniel F., 2012. "Tacit knowledge with innovative entrepreneurship," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 641-653.
    17. Isabelle Brocas, 2003. "Les enjeux de la réglementation de la recherche et développement," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 113(1), pages 125-148.
    18. 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.
    19. Andersson, Martin & Xiao, Jing, 2014. "Acquisitions of Start-ups by Incumbent Businesses A market selection process of “high-quality” entrants?," Papers in Innovation Studies 2014/19, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    20. Braun, Thorsten V. & Lehmann, Erik E. & Schwerdtfeger, Manuel T., 2011. "The stock market evaluation of IPO-firm takeovers," UO Working Papers 01-11, University of Augsburg, Chair of Management and Organization.

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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.