Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/oxford-university-press/competition-imitation-and-growth-with-step-by-step-innovation-vjcT3bBud6
References (29)
-
P. Segerstrom, James Zolnierek (1999)
The R&D Incentives of Industry LeadersInternational Economic Review, 40
-
S. Nickell (1993)
Competition and Crporate Performance -
Ntwala Mwilima (2021)
Foreign direct investment -
P. Aghion, Mark Schankerman (1999)
Competition, entry and the social returns to infrastructure in transition economiesEconomics of Transition, 7
-
(1995)
Entry and Competitive Selection -
Dilip Mookherjee, Debraj Ray (1991)
On the competitive pressure created by the diffusion of innovationsJournal of Economic Theory, 54
-
Toshihiko Mukoyama (2003)
Innovation, imitation, and growth with cumulative technologyJournal of Monetary Economics, 50
-
P. Aghion, P. Howitt (1996)
Research and development in the growth processJournal of Economic Growth, 1
-
(1992)
A MODEL OF GROWTH THROUGH CREATIVE DESTRUCTION -
OF ECONOMIC STUDIES -
E. Helpman (1992)
Innovation, Imitation, and Intellectual Property RightsNBER Working Paper Series
-
P. Thompson, Douglas Waldo (1994)
Growth and trustified capitalismJournal of Monetary Economics, 34
-
(1999)
Measuring Product Market Competition. -
S. Nickell, Daphne Nicolitsas, Neil Dryden (1997)
What makes firms perform wellEuropean Economic Review, 41
-
A. Glass, Kamal Saggi (2002)
Intellectual property rights and foreign direct investmentJournal of International Economics, 56
-
P. Peretto (1999)
Cost reduction, entry, and the interdependence of market structure and economic growthJournal of Monetary Economics, 43
-
Fabrizio Zilibotti, P. Aghion, P. Howitt, Cecilia García-Peñalosa (1999)
Endogenous Growth TheoryCanadian Journal of Economics, 32
-
A. Glass, Kamal Saggi (1997)
Intellectual Property Rights, Foreign Direct Investment and Innovation -
S. Nickell (1996)
Competition and Corporate PerformanceJournal of Political Economy, 104
-
G. Grossman, E. Helpman (1989)
Quality Ladders and Product CyclesNBER Working Paper Series
-
P. Aghion, M. Dewatripont, P. Rey (1999)
Competition, financial discipline and growthThe Review of Economic Studies, 66
-
C. Budd, C. Harris, J. Vickers (1993)
A Model of the Evolution of Duopoly: Does the Asymmetry between Firms Tend to Increase or Decrease?The Review of Economic Studies, 60
-
C. Davidson, P. Segerstrom (1998)
R&D Subsidies and Economic GrowthThe RAND Journal of Economics, 29
-
A. Glass (2000)
Costly R&D and intellectual property rights protectionInt. J. Technol. Manag., 19
-
C. Harris, J. Vickers (1987)
Racing with UncertaintyThe Review of Economic Studies, 54
-
Jinli Zeng (2001)
Innovative vs. imitative R&D and economic growthJournal of Development Economics, 64
-
R. Blundell, R. Griffith, J. Reenen (1994)
Dynamic Count Data Models of Technological InnovationThe Economic Journal, 105
-
P. Segerstrom (1991)
Innovation, Imitation, and Economic GrowthJournal of Political Economy, 99
-
P. Aghion, C. Harris, J. Vickers (1997)
Competition and growth with step-by-step innovation: An exampleEuropean Economic Review, 41
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Copyright
- © Published by Oxford University Press.
- Subject
- Articles
- ISSN
- 0034-6527
- eISSN
- 1467-937X
- DOI
- 10.1111/1467-937X.00177
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
Is more intense product market competition and imitation good or bad for growth? This question is addressed in the context of an endogenous growth model with “step-by-step” innovations, in which technological laggards must first catch up with the leading-edge technology before battling for technological leadership in the future. In contrast to earlier Schumpeterian models in which innovations are always made by outsider firms who earn no rents if they fail to innovate and become monopolies if they do innovate, here we find: first, that the usual Schumpeterian effect of more intense product market competition (PMC) is almost always outweighed by the increased incentive for firms to innovate in order to escape competition, so that PMC has a positive effect on growth; second, that a little imitation is almost always growth-enhancing, as it promotes more frequent neck-and-neck competition, but too much imitation is unambiguously growth-reducing. The model thus points to complementary roles for competition (anti-trust) policy and patent policy.
Journal
The Review of Economic Studies – Oxford University Press
Published: Jul 1, 2001