The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 779–791 | Cite as

Knowledge exhaustibility and Schumpeterian growth

  • Cristiano AntonelliEmail author


This paper accommodates the new understanding of the limited exhaustibility of knowledge into the Schumpeterian frame of the creative response to articulate a comprehensive model of Schumpeterian growth. The limited exhaustibility of knowledge and its transient appropriability favor the accumulation of a stock of quasi-public knowledge. The increasing stock of quasi-public knowledge together with appropriate knowledge governance conditions account for the secular decline of knowledge costs and the increase of diachronic and pecuniary knowledge externalities. Because of its limited exhaustibility and the consequent accumulability, knowledge is an endogenous endowment that accounts for growth. Unexpected out-of-equilibrium conditions in product and factor markets stir the response of firms. The availability of knowledge externalities accounts for the rate of innovation as they help making the reaction creative so as to enable the introduction of innovations. The search for technological congruence and the secular decline of the cost of technological knowledge accounts for its knowledge intensive direction as it induces the introduction of biased technological changes that augment the output elasticity of knowledge as an input. The limited exhaustibility of knowledge accounts for the secular trend towards the knowledge economy.


Knowledge limited exhaustibility and cumulability Knowledge as an endogenous endowment Diachronic knowledge externalities Knowledge costs Schumpeterian creative response Induced technological change Technological congruence 

JEL Classification




The comments of Christophe Feder and Laura Abrardi to preliminary versions are gratefully acknowledged, as well as the funding of the Collegio Carlo Alberto (F/2017).


  1. Acemoglu, D. (1998). Why do new technologies complement skills? Directed technical change and inequality. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, 1055–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acemoglu, D. (2015). Localized and biased technologies: Atkinson and Stiglitz’s new view, induced innovations, and directed technological change. Economic Journal, 125(3), 443–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antonelli, C. (2008). Localized technological change. Towards the economics of complexity. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antonelli, C. (2016). A Schumpeterian growth model: Wealth and directed technological change. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antonelli, C. (2017a). Endogenous innovation: The economics of an emergent system property. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Antonelli, C. (2017b). Knowledge as an economic good: Exhaustibility versus appropriability? Paper presented at the T2S’17.Google Scholar
  7. Antonelli, C. (2018). Knowledge exhaustibility and the appropriability trade-off: Knowledge-specific patents and the additivity contraint. In A. Marciano & G. B. Ramello (Eds.), Encyclopedia of law and economics. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Antonelli, C., & Ferraris, G. (2018). The endogenous dynamics of pecuniary knowledge externalities: An agent based simulation model. Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination. (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  9. Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors (pp. 609–625). Princeton: Princeton University Press for N.B.E.R.Google Scholar
  10. Arrow, K. J. (1969). Classificatory notes on the production and transmission of technical knowledge. American Economic Review, 59, 29–35.Google Scholar
  11. Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology. What it is and how it evolves. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2001). Technology as a complex adaptive system: Evidence from patent data. Research Policy, 30, 1019–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Griliches, Z. (1979). Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell Journal of Econometrics, 10(1), 92–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ruttan, V. W. (2001). Technology growth and development. An induced innovation perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Schumpeter, J. A. (1947). The creative response in economic history. Journal of Economic History, 7, 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Weitzman, M. L. (1996). Hybridizing growth theory. American Economic Review, 86(2), 207–212.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Economia e Statistica “Cognetti de Martiis”, Università di Torino and BRICK (Bureau of Research on Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge)Collegio Carlo AlbertoMoncalieri, TurinItaly

Personalised recommendations