IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwwpp/dp562.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Endogenous Acceleration of Technological Change

Author

Listed:
  • Philipp Köllinger
  • Christian Schade

Abstract

Our study shows that the technological development of a firm can be subject to an endogenous acceleration mechanism. The more advanced a firm is in using a particular set of technologies, the more likely will it adopt additional, related technologies. This acceleration mechanism implies that marginal differences in early adoption decisions lead to substantial differences in technology endowment later. This hypothesis is tested in a dataset that records the adoption times of various e-business technologies in a sample of 7,302 firms from 10 different industry sectors and 25 European countries. Estimation is carried out with a semi-parametric hazard rate model that controls for unobserved heterogeneity. The results show that the probability to adopt strictly increases with the number of previously adopted e-business technologies. Evidence for a growing digital divide among the companies in the sample is demonstrated for the period from 1994-2002. The endogenous acceleration mechanism is a possible source of early mover advantages, if technological uncertainty and technological improvements over time are not very large and if the price of the new technologies remains roughly constant.

Suggested Citation

  • Philipp Köllinger & Christian Schade, 2006. "Endogenous Acceleration of Technological Change," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 562, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwwpp:dp562
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.44112.de/dp562.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sandra E. Black & Lisa M. Lynch, 2004. "What's driving the new economy?: the benefits of workplace innovation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(493), pages 97-116, February.
    2. Hubbard, R Glenn & Kashyap, Anil K, 1992. "Internal Net Worth and the Investment Process: An Application to U.S. Agriculture," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(3), pages 506-534, June.
    3. Christensen, Clayton M. & Rosenbloom, Richard S., 1995. "Explaining the attacker's advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 233-257, March.
    4. Jennifer F. Reinganum, 1981. "On the Diffusion of New Technology: A Game Theoretic Approach," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 48(3), pages 395-405.
    5. Philippe Aghion & Nick Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(2), pages 701-728.
    6. Jennifer F. Reinganum, 1981. "Market Structure and the Diffusion of New Technology," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 12(2), pages 618-624, Autumn.
    7. Sueyoshi, Glenn T, 1995. "A Class of Binary Response Models for Grouped Duration Data," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 411-431, Oct.-Dec..
    8. E. Burton Swanson, 1994. "Information Systems Innovation Among Organizations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(9), pages 1069-1092, September.
    9. Kevin F. McCardle, 1985. "Information Acquisition and the Adoption of New Technology," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(11), pages 1372-1389, November.
    10. Daron Acemoglu, 2002. "Technical Change, Inequality, and the Labor Market," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(1), pages 7-72, March.
    11. Sree Nilakanta & Richard W. Scamell, 1990. "The Effect of Information Sources and Communication Channels on the diffusion of Innovation in a Data Base Development Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(1), pages 24-40, January.
    12. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    13. Herman C. Quirmbach, 1986. "The Diffusion of New Technology and the Market for an Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(1), pages 33-47, Spring.
    14. Timothy F. Bresnahan & Erik Brynjolfsson & Lorin M. Hitt, 2002. "Information Technology, Workplace Organization, and the Demand for Skilled Labor: Firm-Level Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(1), pages 339-376.
    15. Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, 1985. "Preemption and Rent Equalization in the Adoption of New Technology," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 52(3), pages 383-401.
    16. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, April.
    17. Jeremy Greenwood, 1999. "The Third Industrial Revolution," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, issue Q II, pages 2-12.
    18. K. J. Arrow, 1971. "The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: F. H. Hahn (ed.), Readings in the Theory of Growth, chapter 11, pages 131-149, Palgrave Macmillan.
    19. Abel, Andrew B & Blanchard, Olivier J, 1986. "The Present Value of Profits and Cyclical Movements in Investment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(2), pages 249-273, March.
    20. Georg Götz, 1999. "Monopolistic Competition and the Diffusion of New Technology," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(4), pages 679-693, Winter.
    21. Milgrom, Paul R & Qian, Yingyi & Roberts, John, 1991. "Complementarities, Momentum, and the Evolution of Modern Manufacturing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(2), pages 84-88, May.
    22. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1990. "The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy, and Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 511-528, June.
    23. Erik Brynjolfsson & Lorin M. Hitt, 2003. "Computing Productivity: Firm-Level Evidence," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(4), pages 793-808, November.
    24. Dmitriy Stolyarov & Boyan Jovanovic, 2000. "Optimal Adoption of Complementary Technologies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 15-29, March.
    25. Robert D. Dewar & Jane E. Dutton, 1986. "The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An Empirical Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(11), pages 1422-1433, November.
    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. Chris Forman, 2005. "The Corporate Digital Divide: Determinants of Internet Adoption," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(4), pages 641-654, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Koellinger, Philipp, 2008. "The relationship between technology, innovation, and firm performance--Empirical evidence from e-business in Europe," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1317-1328, September.
    2. Koellinger, Ph.D., 2008. "The Relationship between Technology, Innovation, and Firm Performance: Empirical Evidence on E-Business in Europe," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-031-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    3. Koellinger, Ph.D. & Schade, C., 2010. "The Influence of Installed Technologies on Future Adoption Decisions: Empirical Evidence from E-Business," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2010-012-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    4. Harabi, Najib, 1994. "Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz: Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht [Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz:Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht]," MPRA Paper 6725, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Milliou, Chrysovalantou & Petrakis, Emmanuel, 2011. "Timing of technology adoption and product market competition," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 513-523, September.
    6. Kristina McElheran, 2015. "Do Market Leaders Lead in Business Process Innovation? The Case(s) of E-business Adoption," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1197-1216, June.
    7. Philipp Köllinger & Christian Schade, 2003. "Analyzing E-Learning Adoption via Recursive Partitioning," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 346, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    8. Rachel BOCQUET (IREGE, IUT-University of Savoie) & Olivier BROSSARD (LEREPS-GRES), 2006. "Information Technologies (IT) Adoption and Localized Knowledge Diffusion: an Empirical Study," Cahiers du GRES (2002-2009) 2006-17, Groupement de Recherches Economiques et Sociales.
    9. Raouf, BOUCEKKINE & Omar, LICANDRO & Antonio, MINNITI, 2004. "Adoption and diffusion of cost reducing innovations : Cournot competition in duopoly," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2004027, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    10. Stoneman, Paul & Battisti, Giuliana, 2010. "The Diffusion of New Technology," 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 733-760, Elsevier.
    11. Brant Callaway & Vivek Ghosal, 2012. "Adoption and Diffusion of Health Information Technology - The Case of Primary Care Clinics," CESifo Working Paper Series 3925, CESifo.
    12. Viete, Steffen & Erdsiek, Daniel, 2020. "Mobile Information Technologies and Firm Performance: The Role of Employee Autonomy," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    13. López, Alberto, 2012. "Productivity effects of ICTs and organizational change: A test of the complementarity hypothesis in Spain," MPRA Paper 40400, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Prasanna Tambe, 2014. "Big Data Investment, Skills, and Firm Value," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(6), pages 1452-1469, June.
    15. Lukasz Arendt & Wojciech Grabowski, 2017. "Innovations, ICT and ICT-driven labour productivity in Poland," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 25(4), pages 723-758, October.
    16. Ennen, Edgar & Richter, Ansgar, 2009. "The Whole Is More Than the Sum of Its Parts - Or Is It? A Review of the Empirical Literature on Complementarities in Organizations," MPRA Paper 15666, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. David B. Audretsch & Mark Sanders, 2007. "Globalization and the Rise of the Entrepreneurial Economy," Jena Economics Research Papers 2007-003, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    18. Bocquet, Rachel & Brossard, Olivier & Sabatier, Mareva, 2007. "Complementarities in organizational design and the diffusion of information technologies: An empirical analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 367-386, April.
    19. Stefanie Haller & Iulia Siedschlag, 2011. "Determinants of ICT adoption: evidence from firm-level data," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(26), pages 3775-3788.
    20. Alipranti, Maria & Milliou, Chrysovalantou & Petrakis, Emmanuel, 2015. "On vertical relations and the timing of technology adoption," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 117-129.

    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:diw:diwwpp:dp562. 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: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    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.