Skip to main content

The collaborative innovation bloc: A new mission for Austrian economics

The Review of Austrian Economics volume 32, pages 295–320 (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

We argue that scholars in the Austrian tradition of economics should incorporate the notion of a collaborative innovation bloc into their study of spontaneous market orders. We demonstrate how successful entrepreneurship depends on an innovation bloc of this kind, a system of innovation that evolves and within which activity takes place through time. The innovation bloc consists of five pools of economic skills from which people are drawn or recruited to form part of a collaborative team, which is necessary if innovation-based venturing is to flourish. The five skills are entrepreneurs, early- and later-stage-financiers, key personnel, and customers. Through real-world examples, we show how the application of the collaborative innovation bloc perspective could help make Austrian economics more concrete, relevant and persuasive, especially in regard to policy prescriptions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. The EOE perspective shares many features with the more recent literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems (Stam 2015; Autio 2016) and the national system of entrepreneurship approach (Acs et al. 2014), but we can trace its roots back to the works of Swedish economists Johan Åkerman and Erik Dahmén; see Erixon (2011) and Dahmén (1970). While the other perspectives offer valuable insights, they seldom make a clear distinction between actors and institutions, and “the institutional variables that are used, such as technology absorption, gender equality, R&D spending, and depth of capital markets, are not institutional variables; they are outcomes resulting from the evolution of the economic system in a given institutional setup” (Braunerhjelm and Henrekson 2016, p. 101).

  2. Even the holders of knowledge in the skill structure may be unaware that they possess it or be unable to articulate it – even when they are able to use it in the right circumstances (cf. Pongracic 2009, pp. 55–56).

  3. This version is substantially updated and modified compared to Eliasson’s original contributions; it is trimmed in some respects but extended in other respects. See Elert et al. (2017) for an application involving seven competencies and Eliasson and Eliasson (1996) for a seminal application.

  4. Intertemporal coordination – producing the right consumer goods at the right time – is facilitated by the market’s price system, which communicates the time-preferences of consumers to entrepreneurs, helping to inform their decision of how to allocate resources intertemporally.

  5. Discussing these issues in detail is beyond the scope of this paper. We refer the reader to two books in which we have done just that (Elert et al. 2017, 2019) with respect to the collaborative innovation bloc in the U.S. and the European Union.

  6. For an overview of studies providing corroborating evidence on these points, see Wennekers and Thurik (1999) and Carlsson (1999).

  7. See https://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Relations/Across-Europe/Collective-Bargaining2 (accessed 21 April 2018).

References

  • Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Thurik, A. R. (2000). Capitalism and democracy in the 21st century: From the managed to the entrepreneurial economy. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10(1), 17–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Carree, M. A., van Stel, A. J., & Thurik, A. R. (2002). Impeded industrial restructuring: The growth penalty. Kyklos, 55(1), 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Keilbach, M. C., & Lehmann, E. E. (2006). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E. (2016). Entrepreneurship support in Europe: Trends and challenges. Technical report. London: Imperial College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, G. (2013). Money for nothing: How firms have financed R&D-projects since the industrial revolution. Research Policy, 42(10), 1793–1814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 893–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begley, T. M., Tan, W.-L., & Schoch, H. (2005). Politico-economic factors associated with interest in starting a business: A multi-country study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(1), 35–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhidé, A. (2008). The venturesome economy: How innovation sustains prosperity in a more connected world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bhidé, A. (2017). Constraining knowledge: Traditions and rules that limit medical innovation. Critical Review, 29(1), 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, N., Sadun, R., & van Reenen, J. (2009). Do private equity-owned firms have better management practices? In A. Gurung & J. Lerner (Eds.), The globalization of alternative investments working papers volume 2: The global economic impact of private equity report 2009 (pp. 25–43). Geneva: World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boettke, P. J. (2008). Austrian school of economics. Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. URL: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/AustrianSchoolofEconomics.html. Accessed 9 April 2019.

  • Boettke, P. J., & Coyne, C. J. (2009). Context matters: Institutions and entrepreneurship. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 5(3), 135–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhm-Bawerk, E. (2010 [1891]). The positive theory of capital. Charleston: Nabu Press.

  • Boldrin, M., & Levine, D. K. (2013). The case against patents. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braunerhjelm, P. (2011). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: Interdependencies, irregularities and regularities. In D. B. Audretsch, O. Falck, & S. Heblich (Eds.), Handbook of research on innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 161–213). Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braunerhjelm, P., & Henrekson, M. (2016). An innovation policy framework: Bridging the gap between industrial dynamics and growth. In D. B. Audretsch & A. N. Link (Eds.), Essays in public sector entrepreneurship (pp. 95–130). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J. M. (1979). What should economists do? Indianapolis: Liberty Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J. M., & Vanberg, V. J. (1991). The market as a creative process. Economics & Philosophy, 7(2), 167–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busenitz, L. W., Plummer, L. A., Klotz, A. C., Shahzad, A., & Rhoads, K. (2014). Entrepreneurship research (1985–2009) and the emergence of opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(5), 981–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, B. (1999). Small business, entrepreneurship, and industrial dynamics. In Z. J. Acs (Ed.), Are small firms important? Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. D. (1990). Scale and scope: The dynamics of industrial capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chetty, R., & Saez, E. (2005). Dividend taxes and corporate behavior: Evidence from the 2003 dividend tax cut. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(3), 791–833.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway, P., De Rosa, D., Nicoletti, G., & Steiner, F. (2006). Regulation, competition and productivity convergence. OECD Economics Department Working Paper 509. Paris: OECD.

  • Cosgel, M., & Klamer, A. (1990). Entrepreneurship as discourse. Mimeo. Storrs: University of Connecticut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, D. (2005). Agency costs, institutions, learning, and taxation in venture capital contracting. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(5), 573–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Da Rin, M., Nicodano, G., & Sembenelli, A. (2006). Public policy and the creation of active venture capital markets. Journal of Public Economics, 90(8–9), 1699–1723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahmén, E. (1970). Entrepreneurial activity and the development of Swedish industry 1919–1939. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin for the American economic association. [English translation of Dahmén’s doctoral dissertation published in Swedish in 1950.]

  • Davis, S. J., & Henrekson, M. (1997). Industrial policy, employer size and economic performance in Sweden. In R. B. Freeman, R. Topel, & B. Swedenborg (Eds.), The welfare state in transition (pp. 353–397). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S. J., & Henrekson, M. (1999). Explaining national differences in the size and industry distribution of employment. Small Business Economics, 12(1), 59–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Clercq, D., & Sapienza, H. J. (2001). The creation of relational rents in venture capitalist–entrepreneur dyads. Venture Capital, 3(2), 107–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F., & Wennberg, K. (2010). Knowledge intensive entrepreneurship: The birth, growth and demise of entrepreneurial firms. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dopfer, K., & Potts, J. (2009). On the theory of economic evolution. Evolutionary and Institutional Economic Review, 6(1), 23–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douhan, R., & Henrekson, M. (2010). Entrepreneurship and second-best institutions: Going beyond baumol’s typology. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 20(4), 629–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du Rietz, G., Johansson, D., & Stenkula, M. (2015). Swedish capital income taxation (1862–2013). In M. Henrekson & M. Stenkula (Eds.), Swedish taxation: Developments since 1862 (pp. 123–178). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elert, N., & Henrekson, M. (2016). Evasive entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 47(1), 95–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elert, N., & Henrekson, M. (2017). Entrepreneurship and institutions: A bidirectional relationship. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 13(3), 191–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elert, N., Henrekson, M., & Stenkula, M. (2017). Institutional reform for innovation and entrepreneurship: An agenda for Europe. Cham, CH and New York, NY: Springer International.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Elert, N., Henrekson, M., & Sanders, M. (2019). The entrepreneurial society: A reform agenda for the European Union. Cham, CH and New York, NY: Springer International.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eliasson, G. (1996). Firm objectives, controls and organization: The use of information and the transfer of knowledge within the firm. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eliasson, G. (2000). Industrial policy, competence blocs and the role of science in economic development. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10(1–2), 217–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eliasson, G., & Eliasson, Å. (1996). The biotechnical competence bloc. Revue d’Économie Industrielle, 78(1), 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erixon, L. (2011). Development blocks, malinvestment and structural tensions – The Åkerman-Dahmén theory of the business cycle. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(1), 105–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erixon, F., & Weigel, B. (2016). The innovation illusion: How so little is created by so many working so hard. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2015). Upgrading the single market: More opportunities for business and people. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2015/EN/1-2015-550-EN-F1-1.PDF. Accessed 6 December 2016.

  • European Union (2016). European innovation scoreboard 2016. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs.

  • Fenn, G., Liang, N., & Prowse, S. (1995). The economics of the private equity market. Washington, D.C.: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

  • Foss, N. J. (1997). Austrian insights and the theory of the firm. In Advances in Austrian economics (vol. 4, pp. 175–198). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

  • Ghoshal, S., Moran, P., & Almeida-Costa, L. (1995). The essence of the megacorporation: Shared context, not structural hierarchy. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 151(4), 748–759.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilson, R. J., & Schizer, D. M. (2003). Understanding venture capital structure: A tax explanation for convertible preferred stock. Harvard Law Review, 116(3), 874–916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gompers, P. A., & Lerner, J. (2001). The money of invention: How venture capital creates new wealth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granstrand, O., & Alänge, S. (1995). The evolution of corporate entrepreneurship in Swedish industry – Was Schumpeter wrong. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 5(2), 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant Thornton. (2016). Konkurrenskraften i svensk ägarbeskattning. Stockholm: Confederation of Swedish Enterprise.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. E., & Woodward, S. E. (2010). The burden of the nondiversifiable risk of entrepreneurship. American Economic Review, 100(3), 1163–1194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (1976). Law, legislation and liberty (Vol. 2: The mirage of social justice). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (1988). The fatal conceit: The errors of socialism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Henrekson, M., & Sanandaji, T. (2016). Owner-level taxes and business activity. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 12(1), 1–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrekson, M., & Sanandaji, T. (2018). Stock option taxation and venture capital activity: A cross-country study. Venture Capital, 20(1), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heyman, F., Norbäck, P. J., Persson, L., & Andersson, F. (2019). Has the Swedish business sector become more entrepreneurial than the U.S. business sector? Research Policy, forthcoming.

  • Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., & Schuler, D. (2004). Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 30(6), 837–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, Y.-P., & Wong, P.-K. (2007). Financing, regulatory costs and entrepreneurial propensity. Small Business Economics, 28(2–3), 187–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmén, M., & Högfeldt, P. (2005). A law and finance analysis of initial public offerings. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 13(3), 324–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huizinga, H., Laeven, L., & Nicodeme, G. (2008). Capital structure and international debt shifting. Journal of Financial Economics, 88(1), 80–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, D. (2009). The theory of the experimentally organized economy and competence blocs: An introduction. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 20(2), 185–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgenson, D. W., & Landau, R. (Eds.). (1993). Tax reform and the cost of capital. An international comparison. Washington, D.C.: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasper, W., Streit, M. E., & Boettke, P. J. (2014). Institutional economics: Property, competition, and policies (2nd edition). Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

  • Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An Austrian approachz. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 60–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, P. G. (2008). Opportunity discovery, entrepreneurial action, and economic organization. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(3), 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, D. B. (2012). Knowledge and coordination: A liberal interpretation. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleiner, M. M. (2006). Licensing occupations: Ensuring quality or restricting competition? Kalamazoo: W.E. Upjohn Institute.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Klepper, S. (2016). Experimental capitalism: The nanoeconomics of American high-tech industries. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, F. H. (1951). The economic organization. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamoreaux, N. R., & Sokoloff, K. L. (2007). Inventors, firms, and the market for technology in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In N. R. Lamoreaux, D. M. G. Raff, & P. Temin (Eds.), Learning by doing in markets, firms, and countries. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landström, H., & Mason, C. (Eds.) (2016). Handbook of research on business angels. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

  • Lawton, T. A., McGuire, S., & Rajwani, T. (2013). Corporate political activity: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 86–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazear, E. P. (2004). Balanced skills and entrepreneurship. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 94(2), 208–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J., & Tåg, J. (2013). Institutions and venture capital. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(1), 153–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (2015). Public sector entrepreneurship: U.S. technology and innovation policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, D. S., & Fuller, C. S. (2017). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive — Relative to what. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 7, 45–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan, I. C., Kulow, D. M., & Khoylian, R. (1989). Venture capitalists’ involvement in their investments: Extent and performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 4(1), 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madhok, A., & Tallman, S. B. (1998). Resources, transactions and rents: Managing value through interfirm collaborative relationships. Organization Science, 9(3), 326–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malcolmson, J. M. (1997). Contracts, hold-up, and labor markets. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(4), 1916–1957.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manish, G. P., & Powell, B. (2014). Capital theory and the process of inter-temporal coordination: The Austrian contribution to the theory of economic growth. Atlantic Economic Journal, 42(2), 133–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, D., & Klamer, A. (1995). One quarter of GDP is persuasion. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 85(2), 191–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J. S. (1998). Evolutionary economics and creative destruction. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Minniti, M., & Bygrave, W. (2001). A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(3), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mises, L. (1981 [1922]). Socialism: An economic and sociological analysis. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

  • Mises, L. (1998 [1949]). Human action: A treatise on economics. New Haven: Yale University Press.

  • Misher, N. (1984). Tax consequences of exercising an incentive stock option with stock of the granting corporation. The Tax Executive, July, 36, 357–363.

  • Morck, R. K. (Ed.). (2005). A history of corporate governance around the world: Family business groups to professional managers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C. (2009). Plus ça change: Industrial R&D in the “third industrial revolution”. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(1), 1–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niehof, J. (1999). Barriers for hiring personnel. Research Report 9807/E. Zoetermeer: EIM Business and Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2003). The sources of economic growth in the OECD countries. Paris: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2010). The OECD innovation strategy: Getting a head start on tomorrow. Paris: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, E. S. (2007). Macroeconomics for a modern economy. 2006 Nobel prize lecture in economics. American Economic Review, 97(3), 543–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piore, M., & Sabel, C. (1984). The second industrial divide. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pongracic, I. (2009). Employees and entrepreneurship: Co-ordination and spontaneity in non-hierarchical business organizations. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

  • Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik, D. (2007). One economics, many recipes: Globalization, institutions, and economic growth. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rothbard, M. N. (2009 [1962]). Man, economy and state. Auburn: Mises Institute.

  • Rubin, P. H. (2014). Emporiophobia (fear of markets): Cooperation or competition? Southern Economic Journal, 80(4), 875–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sautet, F. (2000). An entrepreneurial theory of the firm. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scarpetta, S., Hemmings, P., Tressel, T., & Woo, J. (2002). The role of policy and institutions for productivity and firm dynamics: Evidence from micro and industry data. OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 329. Paris: OECD.

  • Schäfer, W., Kroneman, M., Boerma, W., van den Berg, M., Westert, G., Devillé, W., & van Ginneken, E. (2010). The Netherlands: Health system review. In Health systems in transition (vol. 12, no. 1). Copenhagen: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies.

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1989 [1949]). Economic theory and entrepreneurial history. In R. V. Clemence (Ed.), Essays on entrepreneurs, innovations, business cycles, and the evolution of capitalism (pp. 253–271). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skedinger, P. (2010). Employment protection legislation. evolution, effects, winners and losers. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

  • Smith, A. (1976 [1776]). An inquiry into the nature and the causes of the wealth of nations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Södersten, J. (1984). Sweden. In M. A. King & D. Fullerton (Eds.), The taxation of income from capital. A comparative study of the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and West Germany (pp. 87–148). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stam, E., & Lambooy, J. (2012). Entrepreneurship, knowledge, space, and place: Evolutionary economic geography meets Austrian economics. In D. E. Andersson (Ed.), The spatial market process: Advances in Austrian economics (vol. 16, pp. 81–103). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, G. J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2(1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tåg, J. (2012). In D. Cumming (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of private equity The real effects of private equity buyouts (pp. 271–299). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Stel, A., Storey, D. J., & Thurik, A. R. (2007). The effect of business regulations on nascent and young business entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 28(2–3), 171–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E., Ogawa, S., & de Jong, J. P. J. (2011). The age of the consumer-innovator. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(1), 27–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, R. E. (2014). Entangled political economy: A keynote address. In S. Horwitz & R. Koppl (Eds.), Entangled political economy. Advances in Austrian Economics, Volume 18. London: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wennekers, S., & Thurik, A. R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 13(1), 27–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, U. (1996). Innovations, externalities and the problem of economic progress. Public Choice, 89(1–2), 113–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for useful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts from Niclas Berggren, Dan Johansson, Henrik Jordahl, and Victor Ahlqvist. We acknowledge financial support from the Jan Wallander and Tom Hedelius Foundation and the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN), P.O. Box 55665, SE-102 15, Stockholm, Sweden

    Niklas Elert & Magnus Henrekson

Authors
  1. Niklas Elert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Magnus Henrekson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niklas Elert.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Elert, N., Henrekson, M. The collaborative innovation bloc: A new mission for Austrian economics. Rev Austrian Econ 32, 295–320 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-019-00455-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-019-00455-y

Keywords

  • Austrian economics
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Innovation
  • Institutions
  • Schumpeterian entrepreneurship
  • Spontaneous order

JEL classification

  • B53
  • D20
  • G32
  • L23
  • L26
  • O33