IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jtecht/v46y2021i3d10.1007_s10961-020-09796-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Knowledge appropriability and directed technological change: the Schumpeterian creative response in global markets

Author

Listed:
  • Cristiano Antonelli

    (Università di Torino
    BRICK (Bureau of Research in Innovation Complexity and Knowledge))

  • Christophe Feder

    (BRICK (Bureau of Research in Innovation Complexity and Knowledge)
    Università della Valle d’Aosta)

Abstract

When competition takes place in homogenous product markets between firms based in heterogeneous factor markets, the strategic introduction of biased technological change, directed towards the intensive use of factors that are locally and exclusively cheaper, can increase knowledge appropriability. The appreciation of the strategic direction of technological change widens the role of the Schumpeterian creative response in international trade and enables to grasp the central role of process innovations. The econometric analysis at the industry level of 13 OECD countries from 1995 to 2015 supports the hypotheses that openness to trade stirs the creative response and that process innovations, together with product innovations, account for the trade surplus.

Suggested Citation

  • Cristiano Antonelli & Christophe Feder, 2021. "Knowledge appropriability and directed technological change: the Schumpeterian creative response in global markets," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 686-700, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:46:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s10961-020-09796-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10961-020-09796-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10961-020-09796-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10961-020-09796-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Davide Del Prete & Giorgia Giovannetti & Enrico Marvasi, 2017. "Global value chains participation and productivity gains for North African firms," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 153(4), pages 675-701, November.
    2. Nicholas Bloom & Mirko Draca & John Van Reenen, 2016. "Trade Induced Technical Change? The Impact of Chinese Imports on Innovation, IT and Productivity," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 83(1), pages 87-117.
    3. Jacques Mairesse & Stéphane Robin, 2017. "Assessing measurement errors in the CDM research–innovation–productivity relationships," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 93-107, February.
    4. 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).
    5. Richard Baldwin & Javier Lopez-Gonzalez, 2015. "Supply-chain Trade: A Portrait of Global Patterns and Several Testable Hypotheses," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(11), pages 1682-1721, November.
    6. David Autor & David Dorn & Gordon H. Hanson & Gary Pisano & Pian Shu, 2020. "Foreign Competition and Domestic Innovation: Evidence from US Patents," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 2(3), pages 357-374, September.
    7. Castellani, Davide & Fassio, Claudio, 2019. "From new imported inputs to new exported products. Firm-level evidence from Sweden," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 322-338.
    8. Daron Acemoglu & Fabrizio Zilibotti, 2001. "Productivity Differences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(2), pages 563-606.
    9. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2010. "Measuring the Returns to R&D: The Depreciation Problem," NBER Chapters, in: Contributions in Memory of Zvi Griliches, pages 341-381, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. 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.
    11. Francisco L. Rivera-Batiz & Luis A. Rivera-Batiz, 2018. "International Trade with Endogenous Technological Change," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Francisco L Rivera-Batiz & Luis A Rivera-Batiz (ed.), International Trade, Capital Flows and Economic Development, chapter 2, pages 33-70, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Abramovitz, Moses, 1986. "Catching Up, Forging Ahead, and Falling Behind," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(2), pages 385-406, June.
    13. repec:adr:anecst:y:2005:i:79-80:p:14 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Cristiano Antonelli, 2017. "Endogenous innovation: the creative response," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(8), pages 689-718, November.
    15. Bruno Crepon & Emmanuel Duguet & Jacques Mairesse, 1998. "Research, Innovation And Productivity: An Econometric Analysis At The Firm Level," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 115-158.
    16. Chen, Zhiyuan & Zhang, Jie & Zheng, Wenping, 2017. "Import and innovation: Evidence from Chinese firms," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 205-220.
    17. Philippe Aghion & Julian Boulanger, 2011. "Rethinking industrial policy," Bruegel Policy Brief 566, Bruegel.
    18. Cristiano Antonelli & Francesco Quatraro, 2010. "The effects of biased technological change on total factor productivity: empirical evidence from a sample of OECD countries," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 361-383, August.
    19. Scherer, F M & Huh, Keun, 1992. "R&D Reactions to High-Technology Import Competition," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 74(2), pages 202-212, May.
    20. Daron Acemoglu, 2002. "Directed Technical Change," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 69(4), pages 781-809.
    21. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 17-45, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    22. Diego Aboal & Valeria Arza & Flavia Rovira, 2017. "Technological content of exports," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(7), pages 661-682, October.
    23. Zuleta, Hernando, 2012. "Variable factor shares, measurement and growth accounting," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 114(1), pages 91-93.
    24. Philippe Aghion & Ufuk Akcigit & Peter Howitt, 2015. "Lessons from Schumpeterian Growth Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 94-99, May.
    25. Christophe Feder, 2018. "A measure of total factor productivity with biased technological change," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(3), pages 243-253, April.
    26. Ruttan, Vernon W, 1997. "Induced Innovation, Evolutionary Theory and Path Dependence:," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(444), pages 1520-1529, September.
    27. Stefan Pahl & Marcel P. Timmer, 2019. "Patterns of vertical specialisation in trade: long-run evidence for 91 countries," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 155(3), pages 459-486, August.
    28. Dario Guarascio & Mario Pianta, 2017. "The gains from technology: new products, exports and profits," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(8), pages 779-804, November.
    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. Cristiano Antonelli & Christophe Feder, 2022. "Knowledge properties and the creative response in the global economy: European evidence for the years 1990–2016," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 459-475, April.
    2. Cristiano Antonelli & Gianluca Orsatti & Guido Pialli, 2023. "The effects of the limited exhaustibility of knowledge on firm size and the direction of technological change," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1359-1385, August.

    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. Cristiano Antonelli & Christophe Feder, 2021. "Schumpeterian loops in international trade: the evidence of the oecd countries," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 799-820, July.
    2. Cristiano Antonelli & Christophe Feder, 2021. "The Schumpeterian creative response: export and innovation: evidence for OECD countries 1995–2015," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 38(3), pages 803-821, October.
    3. Cristiano Antonelli & Christophe Feder, 2022. "Knowledge properties and the creative response in the global economy: European evidence for the years 1990–2016," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 459-475, April.
    4. Antonelli, Cristiano & Feder, Christophe & Quatraro, Francesco, 2018. "Directed Technological Change and Technological Congruence: A New Framework for the Smart Specialization Strategy," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201801, University of Turin.
    5. Cristiano Antonelli & Federico Barbiellini Amidei, 2011. "The Dynamics of Knowledge Externalities," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13292.
    6. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2017. "Digital knowledge generation and the appropriability trade-off," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 991-1002.
    7. Capolupo, Rosa, 2009. "The New Growth Theories and Their Empirics after Twenty Years," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 3, pages 1-72.
    8. Cristiano, Antonelli, 2019. "The creative response and international trade11The comments of the anonymous referees and the editor are gratefully acknowledged. The funding of my Department are acknowledged," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 445-452.
    9. Alex Coad & Agustí Segarra-Blasco & Mercedes Teruel, 2021. "A bit of basic, a bit of applied? R&D strategies and firm performance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1758-1783, December.
    10. Ortega-Argilés, Raquel & Piva, Mariacristina & Vivarelli, Marco, 2011. "Productivity Gains from R&D Investment: Are High-Tech Sectors Still Ahead?," IZA Discussion Papers 5975, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2013. "Globalization Localized Technological Change and the Knowledge Economy," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201325, University of Turin.
    12. Cristiano Antonelli, 2017. "The Engines of the Creative Response: Reactivity and Knowledge Governance," Economía: teoría y práctica, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, México, vol. 47(2), pages 9-30, Julio-Dic.
    13. Dirk Czarnitzki & Julie Delanote, 2017. "Incorporating innovation subsidies in the CDM framework: empirical evidence from Belgium," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 78-92, February.
    14. Ugur, Mehmet & Trushin, Eshref & Solomon, Edna & Guidi, Francesco, 2016. "R&D and productivity in OECD firms and industries: A hierarchical meta-regression analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 2069-2086.
    15. Fulvio Castellacci, 2007. "Technological regimes and sectoral differences in productivity growth ," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(6), pages 1105-1145, December.
    16. Cristiano Antonelli, 2011. "The Economic Complexity of Technological Change: Knowledge Interaction and Path Dependence," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Baumann, Julian & Kritikos, Alexander S., 2016. "The link between R&D, innovation and productivity: Are micro firms different?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 1263-1274.
    18. Raquel Ortega‐Argilés & Mariacristina Piva & Marco Vivarelli, 2014. "The transatlantic productivity gap: Is R&D the main culprit?," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(4), pages 1342-1371, November.
    19. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Jaffe, Adam B., 2018. "Econometric evidence on the depreciation of innovations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 625-642.
    20. Fagerberg, Jan & Srholec, Martin & Verspagen, Bart, 2010. "Innovation and Economic Development," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 833-872, Elsevier.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Knowledge appropriability; Creative response; Schumpeter–Heckscher–Ohlin; Technological congruence; Process innovation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • F15 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Economic Integration

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:kap:jtecht:v:46:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s10961-020-09796-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.