Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Innovation of entrepreneurial firms

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An empirical test is provided of the effect of the degree of obsolescence on the effect of firm size and monopoly profits on a firm's ability to innovate. Recent theory suggests that innovation depends on firm size and monopoly profits only if the firm conducts product improvement as well as new product innovation. This is due to the allocation of limited entrepreneurial attention between improving current products and innovating new products. Current products are subject to obsolescence and innovation requires technological opportunities. The firm conducts product improvement as well as new product innovation only if the degree of obsolescence is sufficiently low relative to the level of technological opportunity. This theory provides an explanation for previously unexplained empirical observations. We find preliminary support for the hypothesis that product improvement reduces the positive effect of firm size on new product innovation and sufficient product improvement may reverse the negative effect of monopoly profits on new product innovations. In addition, product improvement reduces the positive effect of technological opportunity on new product innovation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AbernathyW. J. and K. B.Clark, 1985, ‘Innovation: Mapping the Winds of Creative Destruction’, Research Policy 14, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AcsZoltan J. and David B.Audretsch, 1988, ‘Innovation in Large and Small Firms: An Empirical Analysis’, American Economic Review 78, 678–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • AcsZoltan J. and David B.Audretsch, 1990a, The Economics of Small Firms: A European Challenge, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • AcsZoltan J. and David B.Audretsch, 1990b, Innovation and Small Firms, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • AcsZoltan J. and David B.Audretsch, 1991, ‘R&D, Firm Size and Innovative Activity’, in Zoltan J.Acs and David B.Audretsch (eds.), Innovation and Technological Change: An International Comparison, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 39–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • AcsZoltan J. and David B.Audretsch (1993), ‘Analyzing Innovation Output Indicator: The U.S. Experience’, in AlfredKleinknecht and DonaldBain (eds.), New Concept in Innovation Output Measurement, London: Macmillan Press, pp. 10–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • BaldwinWilliam L. and John T.Scott, 1987, Market Structure and Technological Change, Chur, Switzerland: Harwood Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • BrockWilliam A. and David S.Evans, 1989, ‘Small Business Economics’, Small Business Economics 1, 7–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • CamachoA., 1991, ‘Adaptation Costs, Coordination Costs and Optimal Firm Size’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 15, 137–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CockburnIain and ZviGriliches, 1988, ‘Industry Effects and Appropriability Measures in the Stock Market's Valuation of R&D and Patents’, American Economic Review (Proceedings) 78, 419–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • CohenWesley M., Richard C.Levin and David C.Mowery, 1987, ‘Firm Size and R&D Intensity: A Re-examination’, Journal of Industrial Economics 35, 543–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, Keith L. and Theodore J. Gordon, 1984, ‘Characteristics of Innovations Introduced on the U.S. Market in 1982’, The Futures Group, prepared for the U.S. Small Business Administration under Contract No. SBA-6050-AO-82, March 1984.

  • FreemanC., 1982, The Economics of Industrial Innovation, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • GibratR., 1931, Les Inégalités Économiques, Paris: Sirey.

    Google Scholar 

  • GiffordSharon, 1992a, ‘Innovation, Firm Size and Growth in a Centralized Organization’, Rand Journal of Economics 23, 284–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • GiffordSharon, 1992b, ‘Allocation of Entrepreneurial Attention’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 19, 265–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GiffordSharon, 1993, ‘Heterogeneous Ability, Career Choice and Firm Size’, Small Business Economics 5, 249–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gifford, Sharon, 1994a, ‘Limited Attention and the Role of Venture Capital’, Working Paper, Rutgers University.

  • Gifford, Sharon, 1994b, ‘Limited Entrepreneurial Attention and the Optimal Completeness of Contracts’, Working Paper, Rutgers University.

  • Gifford, Sharon, 1994c, ‘Limited Entrepreneurial Attention and the Internalization of Transactions’, Working Paper, Rutgers University.

  • GiffordSharon and Charles A.Wilson, 1995, ‘A Model of Project Evaluation With Limited Attention’, Economic Theory 5, 67–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • GomulkaStanislaw, 1990, The Theory of Technological Change and Economic, London: Rutledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • GrilichesZvi, 1986, ‘Productivity, R&D and Basic Research at the Firm Level in the 1970s’, American Economic Review 76, 141–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • JewkesJohn, DavidSawers and RichardStillerman, 1969, The Sources of Invention, New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • KaldorNicholas, 1934, ‘The Equilibrium of the Firm’, Economic Journal 44, 60–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • KamienMorton I. and Nancy L.Schwartz, 1982, Market Structure and Innovation, Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • KirchhoffBruce A., 1989, ‘Creative Destruction among Industrial Firms in the United States’, Small Business Economics 1, 161–173. Reprinted in Acs and Audretsch, 1990a.

    Google Scholar 

  • KleinknechtA., 1987, Innovation Patterns in Crisis and Prosperity: Schumpeter's Long Cycle Reconsidered, London: MacMillan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • KraftKornelius, 1990, ‘Are Product-and Process-Innovations Independent of Each Other?’, Applied Economics 22, 1029–1038.

    Google Scholar 

  • LevinRichard C., Wesley M.Cohen and David C.Mowery, 1985, ‘R & D Appropriability, Opportunity, and Market Structure: New Evidence on Some Schumpeterian Hypotheses’, American Economic Review 75, 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • LinkAlbert N., 1982, ‘An Analysis of the Composition of R&D Spending’, Southern Economic Review 49, 342–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • LinkAlbert N., 1985, ‘The Changing Composition of R&D’, Managerial and Decision Economics 6, 125–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • LunnJohn, 1986, ‘An Empirical Analysis of Process and Product Patenting: A Simultaneous Equation Framework’, Journal of Industrial Economics 34, 319–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • LunnJohn, 1987, ‘An Empirical Analysis of Firm Process and Product Patenting’, Applied Economics 19, 743–751.

    Google Scholar 

  • MansfieldEdwin, 1981, ‘Composition of R&D Expenditures: Relationship to Size of Firm, Concentration, and Innovative Output’, Review of Economics and Statistics 63, 610–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • PavittKeith, 1984, ‘Sectoral Patterns of Technical Change: Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory’, Research Policy 13, 343–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SchererF. M., 1965, ‘Size of Firm, Market Structure, Opportunity, and the Output of Patented Inventions’, American Economic Review 55, 1097–1125.

    Google Scholar 

  • SchererF. M., 1978, ‘Technological Maturity and Waning Economic Growth’, Arts and Sciences 1, 7–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • SchererF. M., 1982, ‘Interindustry Technology Flows in the United States’, Research Policy 11, 227–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SchererF. M., 1984, Innovation and Growth, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SchmooklerJ., 1966, Inventions and Economic Growth, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SchumpeterJoseph A., 1934, The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard College.

    Google Scholar 

  • ScottJohn T., 1984, ‘Firm versus Industry Variability in R&D Intensity’, in ZviGriliches (ed.), R&D, Patents and Productivity, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ShankermanMark and ArielPakes, 1986, ‘Estimates of the Value of Patent Rights in European Countries During the Post-1950 Period’, The Economic Journal 96, 1052–1076.

    Google Scholar 

  • SoeteLuc L. G., 1979, ‘Firm Size and Inventive Activity: The Evidence Reconsidered’, European Economic Review 12, 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Maryland, 20742-1815, College Park, MD, U.S.A.

    Zoltan J. Acs

  2. Department of Finance and Economics Graduate School of Management, Rutgers University, 180 University Ave, 07102, Newark, NJ, U.S.A.

    Sharon Gifford

Authors
  1. Zoltan J. Acs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sharon Gifford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Acs, Z.J., Gifford, S. Innovation of entrepreneurial firms. Small Bus Econ 8, 203–218 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00388648

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00388648

Keywords

Search

Navigation