Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2020 | 19 | nr 4 | 699--712
Tytuł artykułu

Schumpeterian Hypothesis Revisited: on Market Structure and Firms' R&D

Warianty tytułu
Języki publikacji
Motivation: This article sets out to clearly elaborate upon the relationship between market structure and firms' R&D - the problem formulated by Joseph Schumpeter and widely discussed in the history of economic thought. Aim: This paper aims to explain the main controversies which occurred in economic literature over the Schumpeterian hypothesis. Results: The sources of controversies mentioned above are identified. Those controversies boil down to the following points: (1) 'early' or 'late' Schumpeter, (2) firm size or market power, (3) demand-side or supply-side arguments, (4) structure in R&D stage or structure in product market stage, (5) type of R&D considered (process or product). The classification of standpoints on the relationship between market structure and firms' R&D is proposed. The above classification allows to understand complexity of the 'market-R&D' links, and avoid at least some controversies over the Schumpeterian hypothesis. (original abstract)
Opis fizyczny
  • SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Poland
  • Acs, Z.J., & Audretsch, D.B. (1987). Innovation, market structure, and firm size. Review of Economics and Statistics, 69(4). doi:10.2307/1935950.
  • Acs, Z.J., & Audretsch, D.B. (1988). Testing the Schumpeterian hypothesis. Eastern Economic Journal, 14(2).
  • Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2016). Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: re-examining technology S-curves. Strategic Management Journal, 37(4). doi:10.1002/smj.2363.
  • Andersen, E. (2009). Schumpeter's evolutionary economics: a theoretical, historical and statistical analysis of the engine of capitalism. London: Anthem Press. doi:10.7135/UPO9781843313359.
  • Aschhoff, B., & Schmidt, T. (2008). Empirical evidence on the success of R&D cooperation: happy together. Review of Industrial Organization, 33(1). doi:10.1007/s11151-008-9179-7.
  • Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The rate and direction of inventive activity: economic and social factors. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • d'Aspremont, C., & Jacquemin, A. (1988). Cooperative and noncooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers. American Economic Review, 78(5).
  • Baker, J. (2007). Beyond Schumpeter vs. Arrow: how antitrust fosters innovation. Antitrust Law Journal, 74.
  • Becker, W., & Dietz, J. (2004). R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms: evidence for the German manufacturing industry. Research Policy, 33(2). doi:10.1016/j.respol.2003.07.003.
  • Belderbos, R., Gilsing, V., Lokshin, B., Carree, M., & Sastre, J.F. (2018). The antecedents of new R&D collaborations with different partner types: on the dynamics of past R&D collaboration and innovative performance. Long Range Planning, 51(2). doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2017.10.002.
  • Belleflamme, P., & Peitz, M. (2015). Industrial organization: markets and strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Bouncken, R.B., & Kraus, S. (2013). Innovation in knowledge-intensive industries: the double-edged sword of coopetition. Journal of Business Research, 66(1). doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.032.
  • Braunerhjelm, P., & Svensson, R. (2010). The inventor's role: was Schumpeter right. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 20(3). doi:10.1007/s00191-009-0157-5.
  • Breschi, S., Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. (2000). Technological regimes and Schumpeterian patterns of innovation. The Economic Journal, 110(463). doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00530.
  • Choi, J., & Lee, J. (2018). Firm size and compositions of R&D expenditures: evidence from a panel of R&D performing manufacturing firms. Industry and Innovation, 25(5). doi:10.1080/13662716.2017.1297222.
  • Christensen, C. (1997). The innovator's dilemma. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  • Cohen, W. (1995). Empirical studies of innovative activity. In P. Stoneman (Ed.), Handbook of the economics of innovation and technological change. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Cohen, W.M., & Klepper, S. (1996). A reprise of size and R&D. The Economic Journal, 106(437). doi:10.2307/2235365.
  • Czarnitzki, D., Ebersberger, B., & Fier, A. (2007). The relationship between R&D collaboration, subsidies and R&D performance: empirical evidence from Finland and Germany. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(7). doi:10.1002/jae.992.
  • Czegledi, P. (2017). Productivity, institutions, and market beliefs: three entrepreneurial interpretations. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 6(2). doi:10.1108/JEPP-10-2016-0041.
  • Dhanora, M., Sharma, R., & Jose, M. (2020). Two-way relationship between innovation and market structure: evidence from Indian high and medium technology firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 29(2). doi:10.1080/10438599.2019.1596575.
  • Dolfsma, W., & van der Velde, G. (2014). Industry innovativeness, firm size, and entrepreneurship: Schumpeter Mark III. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 24(4). doi:10.1007/s00191-014-0352-x.
  • Feichtinger, G., Lambertini, L., Leitmann, G., & Wrzaczek, S. (2016). R&D for green technologies in a dynamic oligopoly: Schumpeter, Arrow and inverted-U's. European Journal of Operational Research, 249(3). doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.09.025.
  • Fisher, F.M., & Temin, P. (1973). Returns to scale in research and development: what does the Schumpeterian hypothesis imply. Journal of Political Economy, 81(1). doi:10.1086/260006.
  • Galbraith, J.K. (1952). American capitalism: the concept of countervailing power. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Geroski, P. (1995). Do spillovers undermine the incentive to innovate. In S. Dowrick (Ed.), Economic approaches to innovation. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
  • Guichardaz, R., & Penin, J. (2019). Why was Schumpeter not more concerned with patents. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 29(4). doi:10.1007/s00191-019-00633-y.
  • Kamien, M.I., & Schwartz, N.L. (1982). Market structure and innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kamien, M.I., Muller, E., & Zang, I. (1992). Research joint ventures and R&D cartels. American Economic Review, 82(5).
  • Kamien, M.I., & Zang, I. (2000). Meet me halfway: research joint ventures and absorptive capacity. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 18(7). doi:10.1016/S0167-7187(00)00054-0.
  • Karbowski, A. (2016). The elasticity-based approach to enterprise innovation. International Journal of Management and Economics, 49(1). doi:10.1515/ijme-2016-0004.
  • Karbowski, A., & Prokop, J. (2018). R&D activities of enterprises, product market leadership, and collusion. Proceedings of Rijeka Faculty of Economics: Journal of Economics and Business, 36(2). doi:10.18045/zbefri.2018.2.735.
  • Karbowski, A. (2019). Cooperative and non-cooperative R&D in product innovation and firm performance. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 20(6). doi:10.3846/jbem.2019.11050.
  • Kim, J., Lee, S.J., & Marschke, G. (2009). Relation of firm size to R&D productivity. International Journal of Business and Economics, 8(1).
  • Lafay, T., & Maximin, C. (2017). How R&D competition affects investment choices. Managerial and Decision Economics, 38(2). doi:10.1002/mde.2745.
  • Lambert, T.E. (2020). Monopoly capital and innovation: an exploratory assessment of R&D expenditures. International Review of Applied Economics, 34(1). doi:10.1080/02692171.2019.1620703.
  • Lee, C.Y., & Sung, T. (2005). Schumpeter's legacy: a new perspective on the relationship between firm size and R&D. Research Policy, 34(6). doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.04.006.
  • Li, S., Liu, Q., & Refalo, J. (2019). Industry classification, product market competition, and firm characteristics. Finance Research Letters. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/
  • Link, A.N. (1980). Firm size and efficient entrepreneurial activity: a reformulation of the Schumpeter hypothesis. Journal of Political Economy, 88(4). doi:10.1086/260901.
  • Link, A.N., & Scott, J.T. (2018). Propensity to patent and firm size for small R&D-intensive firms. Review of Industrial Organization, 52(4). doi:10.1007/s11151-018-9617-0.
  • Malerba, F. (2002). Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy, 31(2). doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00139-1.
  • Mansfield, E. (1964). Industrial research and development expenditures: determinants, prospects, and relation of size of firm and inventive output. Journal of Political Economy, 72(4). doi:10.1086/258914.
  • Martin, S. (2006). Competition policy, collusion, and tacit collusion. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(6). doi:10.1016/j.ijindorg.2006.04.007.
  • Mason, E.S. (1951). Schumpeter on monopoly and the large firm. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 33(2). doi:10.2307/1925876.
  • Miyagiwa, K. (2009). Collusion and research joint ventures. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 57(4). doi:10.1111/j.1467-6451.2009.00399.x.
  • Nelson, R.A. (1990). Productivity growth, scale economies and the Schumpeterian hypothesis. Southern Economic Journal, 57(2). doi:10.2307/1060628.
  • Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). The Schumpeterian tradeoff revisited. American Economic Review, 72(1).
  • Nicholas, T. (2003). Why Schumpeter was right: innovation, market power, and creative destruction in 1920s America. The Journal of Economic History, 63(4). doi:10.1017/S0022050703002523.
  • Quirmbach, H.C. (1986). The diffusion of new technology and the market for an innovation. The RAND Journal of Economics, 17(1). doi:10.2307/2555626.
  • Parayil, G. (1991). Schumpeter on invention, innovation and technological change. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 13(1). doi:10.1017/S1053837200003412.
  • Scherer, F.M. (1967). Market structure and the employment of scientists and engineers. American Economic Review, 57(3).
  • Schneider, E. (1975). Joseph A. Schumpeter: life and work of a great social scientist. Lincoln: University of Nebraska.
  • Schumpeter, J.A. (1911). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Leipzig: Verlag von Duncker & Humblot.
  • Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Schumpeter, J.A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.
  • Shapiro, C. (2012). Competition and innovation: did Arrow hit the bull's eye. In J. Lerner & S. Stern (Eds.), The rate and direction of inventive activity revisited. Chicago: Chicago University Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226473062.003.0011.
  • Shrieves, R. (1978). Market structure and innovation: a new perspective. Journal of Industrial Economics, 26(4). doi:10.2307/2098078.
  • Tirole, J. (1988). The theory of industrial organization. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Un, C.A., Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Asakawa, K. (2010). R&D collaborations and product innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(5). doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00744.x.
  • Vossen, R.W. (1999). Market power, industrial concentration and innovative activity. Review of Industrial Organization, 15. doi:10.1023/A:1007727815408.
Typ dokumentu
Identyfikator YADDA

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Musisz być zalogowany aby pisać komentarze.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.