IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/imf/imfwpa/2019-294.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Innovate to Lead or Innovate to Prevail: When do Monopolistic Rents Induce Growth?

Author

Listed:
  • Mr. Roberto Piazza
  • Yu Zheng

Abstract

This paper extends the Schumpeterian model of creative destruction by allowing followers’ cost of innovation to increase in their technological distance from the leader. This assumption is motivated by the observation the more technologically ad- vanced the leader is, the harder it is for a follower to leapfrog without incurring extra cost for using leader’s patented knowledge. Under this R&D cost structure, leaders innovate to increase their technological advantage so that followers will eventually stop innovating, allowing leadership to prevail. A new steady state then emerges featuring both leaders and followers innovating in few industries with low aggregate growth.

Suggested Citation

  • Mr. Roberto Piazza & Yu Zheng, 2019. "Innovate to Lead or Innovate to Prevail: When do Monopolistic Rents Induce Growth?," IMF Working Papers 2019/294, International Monetary Fund.
    • Handle: RePEc:imf:imfwpa:2019/294
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=48642
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Ernest Liu & Atif Mian & Amir Sufi, 2022. "Low Interest Rates, Market Power, and Productivity Growth," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(1), pages 193-221, January.
    3. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    4. Philippe Aghion & Antonin Bergeaud & Timo Boppart & Peter J Klenow & Huiyu Li, 2023. "A Theory of Falling Growth and Rising Rents," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(6), pages 2675-2702.
    5. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1991. "Quality Ladders in the Theory of Growth," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 58(1), pages 43-61.
    6. Boldrin,Michele & Levine,David K., 2010. "Against Intellectual Monopoly," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521127264, October.
    7. Daron Acemoglu & Ufuk Akcigit, 2012. "Intellectual Property Rights Policy, Competition And Innovation," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 1-42, February.
    8. Christopher Harris & John Vickers, 1987. "Racing with Uncertainty," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 54(1), pages 1-21.
    9. Tor Jakob Klette & Samuel Kortum, 2004. "Innovating Firms and Aggregate Innovation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(5), pages 986-1018, October.
    10. Christopher Budd & Christopher Harris & John Vickers, 1993. "A Model of the Evolution of Duopoly: Does the Asymmetry between Firms Tend to Increase or Decrease?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 60(3), pages 543-573.
    11. Jeremy C. Stein, 1997. "Waves of Creative Destruction: Firm-Specific Learning-by-Doing and the Dynamics of Innovation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 64(2), pages 265-288.
    12. Andrew Atkeson & Ariel Burstein, 2019. "Aggregate Implications of Innovation Policy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(6), pages 2625-2683.
    13. Stephen L. Parente & Edward C. Prescott, 2002. "Barriers to Riches," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262661306, April.
    14. Federico Etro, 2004. "Innovation by leaders," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 281-303, April.
    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. Bräuer, Richard, 2024. "Searching where Ideas Are Harder to Find – The Productivity Slowdown as a Result of Firms Hindering Disruptive Innovation," IWH Discussion Papers 22/2023, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH), revised 2024.

    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. Roberto Piazza & Yu Zheng, 2023. "Innovate to lead or innovate to prevail: When do monopolistic rents induce growth?," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(3), pages 867-919, October.
    2. Aghion, Philippe & Akcigit, Ufuk & Howitt, Peter, 2014. "What Do We Learn From Schumpeterian Growth Theory?," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 515-563, Elsevier.
    3. Ernest Liu & Atif Mian & Amir Sufi, 2022. "Low Interest Rates, Market Power, and Productivity Growth," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(1), pages 193-221, January.
    4. Acemoglu, Daron & Cao, Dan, 2015. "Innovation by entrants and incumbents," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 255-294.
    5. Michael Peters, 2020. "Heterogeneous Markups, Growth, and Endogenous Misallocation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(5), pages 2037-2073, September.
    6. Gabrovski, Miroslav, 2023. "Coordination frictions and economic growth," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(6), pages 1528-1548, September.
    7. Chu, Angus C. & Cozzi, Guido & Galli, Silvia, 2012. "Does intellectual monopoly stimulate or stifle innovation?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 727-746.
    8. Piercarlo Zanchettin & Vincenzo Denicolò, 2009. "Leadership Cycles," Discussion Papers in Economics 09/25, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    9. Angus C. Chu & Yuichi Furukawa & Lei Ji, 2016. "Patents, R&D subsidies, and endogenous market structure in a schumpeterian economy," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(3), pages 809-825, January.
    10. Steven Bond‐Smith, 2022. "Discretely innovating: The effect of limited market contestability on innovation and growth," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 69(3), pages 301-327, July.
    11. Karam Jo & Seula Kim, 2024. "Competition, Firm Innovation, and Growth under Imperfect Technology Spillovers," Working Papers 24-40, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    12. Chu, Angus C. & Cozzi, Guido & Galli, Silvia, 2012. "Does intellectual monopoly stimulate or stifle innovation?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 727-746.
    13. Feld, Lars P. & Schmidt, Christoph M. & Schnabel, Isabel & Truger, Achim & Wieland, Volker, 2019. "Den Strukturwandel meistern. Jahresgutachten 2019/20 [Dealing with Structural Change. Annual Report 2019/20]," Annual Economic Reports / Jahresgutachten, German Council of Economic Experts / Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, volume 127, number 201920.
    14. Ohki, Kazuyoshi, 2023. "Disruptive innovation by heterogeneous incumbents and economic growth: When do incumbents switch to new technology?," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    15. Gregory Huffman, 2019. "An Analysis of the Importance of Both Destruction and Creation to Economic Growth," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 19-00010, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    16. Maarten de Ridder, 2022. "Market power and innovation in the intangible economy," POID Working Papers 064, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    17. Magnus Henrekson & Dan Johansson & Johan Karlsson, 2024. "To Be or Not to Be: The Entrepreneur in Neo-Schumpeterian Growth Theory," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 48(1), pages 104-140, January.
    18. Angus C. Chu & Yuichi Furukawa & Sushanta Mallick & Pietro Peretto & Xilin Wang, 2021. "Dynamic effects of patent policy on innovation and inequality in a Schumpeterian economy," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(4), pages 1429-1465, June.
    19. Philippe Aghion & Peter Howitt & Susanne Prantl, 2015. "Patent rights, product market reforms, and innovation," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 223-262, September.
    20. Ronald Goettler & Brett Gordon, 2014. "Competition and product innovation in dynamic oligopoly," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-42, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    WP; equilibrium path; saddle path; equilibrium economy; equilibrium effect; equilibrium behavior; Labor supply; Skilled labor; Consumption; Wages;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • O41 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - One, Two, and Multisector Growth Models
    • L16 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Industrial Organization and Macroeconomics; Macroeconomic Industrial Structure

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:imf:imfwpa:2019/294. 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: Akshay Modi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/imfffus.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.