Abstract
This paper extends the standard Schumpeterian model of creative destruction by allowing the cost of innovation for followers to increase in their technological distance from the leader. This assumption is motivated by the observation that the more technologically advanced 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 have an incentive to play an “endpoint strategy": they increase their technological advantage, counting on the fact that followers will eventually stop innovating—allowing leadership to prevail. We find that several results in the standard model fail to hold. In addition to the high-growth steady state in which only followers innovate, there now exists a second saddle-path-stable steady state: a low-growth steady state that features both leaders and followers innovating. A policy that increases monopolistic rents or extends parent duration can push the economy toward the low-growth steady state, causing, in some cases, irreversible harm to long-run growth.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Acemoglu, D., Akcigit, U.: Intellectual property rights policy, competition and innovation. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 10(1), 1–42 (2012)
Aghion, P., Howitt, P.: A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 60(2), 323–351 (1992)
Aghion, P., Bergeaud, A., Boppart, T., Klenow, P. J., Li, H.: A theory of falling growth and rising rents. Rev. Econ. Stud. (forthcoming) (2022)
Aghion, P., Harris, C., Howitt, P., Vickers, J.: Competition, imitation, and growth with step-by-step innovation. Rev. Econ. Stud. 8, 467–492 (2001)
Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., Howitt, P.: Competition and innovation: an inverted-U relationship. Q. J. Econ. 120(2), 701–728 (2005)
Atkeson, A., Burstein, A.: Aggregate implications of innovation policy. J. Polit. Econ. 127(6), 2625–2683 (2019)
Barro, R. J., Sala-i-Martin, X.: Economic Growth, McGraw-Hill (1995)
Boldrin, M., Levine, D.K.: Against Intellectual Monopoly. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)
Boldrin, M., Levine, D.K.: The case against patents. J. Econ. Perspect. 27(1), 3–22 (2013)
Budd, C., Harris, C., Vickers, J.: A model of the evolution of duopoly: does the asymmetry between firms tend to increase or decrease? Rev. Econ. Stud. 60(3), 543–573 (1993)
Chu, A.C., Furukawa, Y., Mallick, S., Peretto, P., Wang, X.: Dynamic effects of patent policy on innovation and inequality in a Schumpeterian economy. Econ. Theor. 71, 1429–1465 (2021)
Covarrubias, M., Gutiérrez, G., Philippon, T.: From Good to Bad Concentration? U.S. Industries over the Past 30 Years,” NBER Macroeconomics Annual Conference (2019)
Denicolò, V.: Growth with non-drastic innovations and the persistence of leadership. Eur. Econ. Rev. 45, 1399–1413 (2001)
Dinopoulos, E., Syropoulos, C.: Rent protection as a barrier to innovation and growth. Econ. Theor. 32, 309–332 (2007)
Etro, F.: Innovation by leaders. Econ. J. 114, 281–303 (2004)
Garcia-Macia, D., Hsieh, C.-T., Klenow, P.: How destructive is innovation? Econometrica 87(5), 1507–1541 (2019)
Gersbach, H., Schmutzler, A.: Endogenous spillovers and incentives to innovate. Econ. Theor. 21, 59–79 (2003)
Gilbert, R.T., Newbery, D.M.G.: Preemptive patenting and the persistence of monopoly. Am. Econ. Rev. 72(3), 514–526 (1982)
Grossman, G.M., Helpman, E.: Quality ladders in the theory of growth. Rev. Econ. Stud. 58(1), 43–61 (1991)
Haltiwanger, J.: Top Ten Signs of Declining Business Dynamism and Entrepreneurship in the U.S., Kauffman Foundation New Entrepreneurial Growth Conference (2015)
Harris, C., Vickers, J.: Racing with uncertainty. Rev. Econ. Stud. 54(1), 1–21 (1987)
Hörner, J.: A perpetual race to stay ahead. Rev. Econ. Stud. 71, 1065–1088 (2004)
Kiedaisch, C.: Growth and welfare effects of intellectual property rights when consumers differ in income. Econ. Theor. 72, 1121–1170 (2021)
Klette, T.J., Kortum, S.: Innovating firms and aggregate innovation. J. Polit. Econ. 112(5), 986–1018 (2004)
Liu, E., Mian, A., Sufi, A.: Low interest rates, market power and productivity growth. Econometrica 90(1), 193–221 (2022)
Loecker, J.D., Eeckhout, J., Unger, G.: The rise of market power and the macroeconomic implications. Q. J. Econ. 135(2), 561–644 (2020)
Romer, P.: Endogenous technological change. J. Polit. Econ. 98, 71–102 (1990)
Segerstrom, P.S.: Intel economics. Int. Econ. Rev. 48(1), 247–280 (2007)
Segerstrom, P.S., Zolnierek, J.M.: The R &D incentives of industry leaders. Int. Econ. Rev. 40(3), 745–766 (1999)
Stein, J.C.: Waves of creative destruction: firm-specific learning-by-doing and the dynamics of innovation. Rev. Econ. Stud. 64, 265–288 (1997)
Suzuki, K.: Corporate tax cuts in a Schumpeterian growth model with an endogenous market structure. J. Public Econ. Theory 24, 324–347 (2021)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Piazza, R., Zheng, Y. Innovate to lead or innovate to prevail: When do monopolistic rents induce growth?. Econ Theory 76, 867–919 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-022-01481-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-022-01481-x