Decisions in Economics and Finance

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 67–84 | Cite as

On robust asymmetric equilibria in asymmetric R&D-driven growth economies

  • Paolo E. GiordaniEmail author
  • Luca Zamparelli


In R&D-driven growth models with asymmetric fundamentals, the steady-state equilibrium R&D investments are industry-specific, and they are such that R&D returns are equalized across industries. Return equalization, however, makes investors indifferent as to where to target research and, hence, the problem of allocation of R&D investments across industries is indeterminate. Agents’ indifference creates an ambiguous investment scenario. We assume that agents hold “ambiguous” beliefs on the per-industry profitability of their R&D investments. Investors’ aversion towards ambiguity eliminates the indeterminacy of the investment problem. In particular, the asymmetric return-equalizing equilibrium is robust against a however small degree of investors’ ambiguity aversion.


R&D driven growth models Ambiguity Ambiguity attitude \({\varepsilon}\) -contamination 

JEL Classification

032 041 D81 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aghion P., Howitt P.: Endogenous Growth Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1998)Google Scholar
  2. Cass D., Shell K.: Do sunspots matter?. J. Polit. Econ. 91, 193–227 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cozzi G.: Animal spirits and the composition of innovation. Eur. Econ. Rev. 49, 627–637 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cozzi G.: Self-fulfilling prophecies in the quality ladders economy. J. Dev. Econ. 84, 445–464 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cozzi G., Giordani P.E., Zamparelli L.: The refoundation of the symmetric equilibrium in Schumpeterian growth models. J. Econ. Theory 136(1), 788–797 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cozzi, G., Impullitti, G.: Government spending composition, technical change and wage inequality. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc., Forthcoming (2009)Google Scholar
  7. Dinopoulos E., Thompson P.: Schumpeterian growth without scale effects. J. Econ. Growth 3, 313–335 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Freeman C., Soete L.: The Economics of Industrial Innovation. 3rd edn. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  9. Gilboa I., Schmeidler D.: Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior. J. Math. Econ. 18, 141–153 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Giordani, P.E., Zamparelli, L.: The importance of industrial policy in quality-ladder growth models. Topics in Macroeconomics, Berkeley Electronic Press 8(1), Article 1 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. Grossman G.M., Helpman E.: Quality ladders in the theory of growth. Rev. Econ. Stud. 58, 43–61 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones C.I.: Time series tests of endogeneous growth models. Q. J. Econ. 110, 495–525 (1995a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jones C.I.: R&D-based models of economic growth. J. Polit. Econ. 103(4), 759–784 (1995b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones C.I.: Growth: with or without scale effects?. Am. Econ. Assoc. Papers Proc. 89, 139–144 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Minniti, A., Parello, C.P., Segerstrom, P.S.: A Schumpeterian Growth Model with Random Quality Improvements. Mimeograph (2010)Google Scholar
  16. Nishimura K.J., Ozaki H.: An axiomatic approach to \({\varepsilon}\) -contamination. Econ. Theory 27, 333–340 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rosenberg N.: Exploring the Black Box. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schumpeter, J.A.: (1942 [1975]) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Segerstrom P.S.: Endogenous growth without scale effect. Am. Econ. Rev. 88, 1290–1310 (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and BusinessLUISS “Guido Carli” UniversityRomaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Economic TheoryUniversity of Rome “La Sapienza”RomaItaly

Personalised recommendations