Skip to main content
Download PDF

Scientific Paradigms, Entrepreneurial Opportunities and Cycles in Economic Growth

Small Business Economics volume 28, pages 339–354 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

In this paper I present a model of economic growth that combines insights from endogenous growth theory, the field of entrepreneurship research and the philosophy and economics of science. The model is built on three relatively standard assumptions and a Kuhnian approach to scientific knowledge accumulation. I assume that innovation generates economic growth, that opportunity driven entrepreneurship is an important source of innovation, that entrepreneurial opportunities increasingly arise out of scientific knowledge creation and that science follows Kuhnian paradigm shifting dynamics. The model then generates opportunity driven cycles in entrepreneurial activity that in turn cause waves of innovation and cycles in economic growth. This result is highly relevant and fills a gap in all three literatures as ‚traditional’ endogenous growth models typically generate constant growth rates in the steady state, entrepreneurship research keeps the origin of entrepreneurial opportunity exogenous and the literatures on the philosophy and economics of science ignore the important downstream economic implications of the non-profit driven institutional framework that governs scientific knowledge accumulation. This paper contributes by identifying scientific institutions and entrepreneurial activity as prerequisites for economic growth and it offers a tentative explanation for the rise and fall in the levels of scientific, entrepreneurial and economic activity over the Kondratieff-cycle.

References

  • Acemoglu, D., 2006, ‚Equilibrium Bias of Technology’, NBER Working Papers, No. 11845, NBER, Cambridge MA.

  • Acs Z. (1996), Small Firms in Economic Growth, in: Acs Z., B. Carlsson, R. Thurik (eds.), Small Business in the Modern Economy, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp. 1–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs Z. (1999), The New American Evolution, in: Acs Z. (ed.) Are Small Firms Important? Their Role and Impact, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dortrecht, pp. 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs Z., D. Audretsch (2001), The Emergence of the Entrepreneurial Society, Swedisch Foundation for Small Business Research, Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z., D. Audretsch, P. Braunerhjelm and B. Carlsson, 2004, ‚The Missing Link: the Knowledge Filter and Entrepreneurship in Economic Growth’, CEPR-discussion papers, No. 4783 Stockholm, www.cepr.org/pubs/dps/DP4783.asp.

  • Acs, Z., D. Audretsch, P. Braunerhjelm and B. Carlsson, 2006, ‚Growth and Entrepreneurship: an Empirical Assesment’, CEPR-discussion papers, No. 5409 Stockholm, www.cepr.org/pubs/dps/DP5409.asp.

  • Aghion P., P. Howitt, 1992, A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction, Econometrica 60, 323–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aghion P., P. Howitt (1998), Endogenous Growth Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow K., 1962, The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing, Review of Economic Studies 29, 155–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. and M. Keilbach, 2005, ‚Entrepreneurship, Growth and Restructuring’, Max Planck Institute of Economics Discussion Paper Series, No. 1306, Max Planck Institute, Jena.

  • Audretsch, D. and R. Thurik, 1997, ‚Sources of Growth: The Entrepreneurial vs the Managed Economy’, in: Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers, No. 97–109/3, Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam.

  • Audretsch D., R. Thurik, 2001a, What is New about the New Economy: Sources of Growth in the Managed and Entrepreneurial Economy, Industrial and Corporate Change 10, 267–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch D., R. Thurik (2001b), Capitalism and Democracy in the 21st Century: from the Managed to the Entrepreneurial Economy, in: Mueller D, U. Cantner (Eds.), Capitalism and Democracy in the 21st Century, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. and R. Thurik, 2001c, `Linking Entrepreneurship to Growth', OECD STI Working Paper Series, 2001/2, Paris

  • Audretsch, D. and R. Thurik, 2002, ‚Linking Entrepreneurship to Growth’, OECD STI Working Papers, OECD, Paris.

  • Audretsch D. , M. Carree, A. van Stel, R. Thurik, 2002, Impeded Industrial Restructuring: The Growth Penalty, Kyklos 55, 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barro R., X. Sala-I-Martin (2004), Economic Growth, 2nd ed., MIT-Press, Cambridge MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker W. (1995) Of Bicycles, Bakelites and Bulbs; Towards a Theory of Sociotechnical Change, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandstetter, L. and Y. Ogura, 2005, ‚Is Academic research driving a Surge in Industrial Innovation? Evidence form Patent Citations’, NBER Working Papers, No. 11561, NBER, Cambridge Massachussets.

  • Bresnahan T., M. Trajtenberg, 1995, General Purpose technologies- Engines of Growth?, Journal of Econometrics 65, 83–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantillion, R., 1755, ‚The Circulation And Exchange Of Good And Merchandise’, in M. Casson (ed.), (1990) Entrepreneurship, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers, 5–10.

  • Carree M., R. Thurik, 1998, Small Firms and Economic Growth in Europe, Atlantic Economic Journal 26, 137–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carree, M., A. van Stel, R. Thurik and S. Wennekers, 1999, ‚Business Ownership and economic Growth: An Empirical Investigation’, EIM Research Report, No. 9809, EIM, Zoetermeer.

  • Carree M., A. van Stel R. Thurik S. Wennekers, 2002, Economic Development and Business Ownership: An Analysis using Data of 23 OECD Countries in the Period 1976–1996, Small Business Economics 19, 271–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, S. and J. R. Cole, 1967, `Scientific Output and Recognition: A Study in the Operation of the Reward System in Science', American Sociological Review, 32, 377–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J. R. and S. Cole, (1973), Social Stratification in Science, Chicago: Chicago University Press

  • Cole, S., 1978, `Scientific Reward Systems: A Comparative Analysis', Research in Sociology of Knowledge, Sciences and Art, 1, 167–190

  • Dasgupta P., P. David, 1994, Towards an New Economics of Science, Research Policy 23, 487–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond A., 1986, What is a Citation Worth?, The Journal of Human Resources 21, 200–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond A. (2006), Economics of Science, in: S. Durlauf, L. Blume (Eds.) The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Ed., Pagrave Publishers, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson A., D. Shanks (1995), Instrumental Action and Causal Representation, in: D. Sperber, D. Premack, A. Premack (eds.), Causal Cognition, Clarendon Press, Oxford. .

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi G., 1982, Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A Suggested Interpretation of the Determinants and Directions of Technical Change, Research Policy 11, 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EU, 2003, Green Paper on Entrepreneurship in Europe, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, downloadable at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/entrepreneurship/green_paper/green_paper_final_en.pdf.

  • EU, 2004, Action Plan; The European Agenda for Entrepreneurship, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, downloadable at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/entrepreneurship/promoting_entrepreneurship/doc/com_70_en.pdf.

  • Gaston, J., 1970, `The Reward System in British Science', American Sociological Review, 35, 718–730

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches Z., 1979, Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and development to Productivity Growth, Bell Journal of Economics 10, 92–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griliches Z. (1984), R&D and Innovation: Some Empirical Findings; Comments, in: Z. Griliches (ed.), R&D, Patents and Productivity, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches Z., 1992, The Search for R&D Spillovers, Scandinavian Journal of Economics 94, S29–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman G., E. Helpman (1991), Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. .

    Google Scholar 

  • Hébert R., A. Link, 1989, In Search of the Meaning of Entrepreneurship, Small Business Economics 1, 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe A., 1986‚ Technological Opportunity and Spillover of R&D: Evidence from Firms’Patents, Profits and Market Value, American Economic Review 76, 984–1001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe A. 1989, Real Effects of Academic Research, American Economic Review 79, 957–970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe A., M. Trajtenberg (2002), Patents, Citations and Innovations; A Window on the Knowledge Economy, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. .

    Google Scholar 

  • Jantsch E. (1967), Technological Forecasting in Perspective, OECD, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., 2006, Growth and Ideas, in: P. Aghion (Ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, Forthcoming Elsevier Publishers.

  • Karlsson, C., C. Friis and T. Paulsson, 2004, ‚Relating Entrepreneurship to Economic Growth’, CESIS Electronic Working Paper Series, No. 13.

  • Keilbach, M. and M. Sanders, 2006, ‚Entrepreneurship in a Model of Economic Growth’, Max Planck Institute of Economics Working Paper Series, forthcoming.

  • Kirzner I. (1973), Competition and Entrepreneurship, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight F. (1921) Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Houghton Mifflin, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krugman P., 1979, A Model of Innovation, Technology Transfer and the World Distribution of Income, Journal of Political Economy 87, 253–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn T. (1971), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd Ed. 1996, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuznets, S., 1971, Modern Economic Growth: Findings and Reflections, Lecture to the memory of Alfred Nobel, delivered December 11th 1971, Stockholm, Sweden, downloaded from http://nobelprize.org/economics/laureates/1971/kuznets-lecture.htm.

  • Lakatos I., 1971, History of Science and Its Rational reconstruction, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 8, 91–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., 1987, Science in Action, translated in Dutch by de Lange and Maters [1988], Wetenschap in Actie, Amsterdam: Bert Bakker Uitgeverij.

  • Landes D. (1969), The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanström, H., 1999, ‚Entreprenörskapets Rötter’, Studentlitteratur, Lund.

  • Lucas R., 1988, On the Mechanics of Economic Development, Journal of Monetary Economics 22, 3–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyotard, J., 1979, The Post-Modern Condition, Manchester University Press.

  • Merton R. 1957, Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science, American Sociological Review 22, 653–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton R., 1968, The Matthew Effect in Science, Science 159, 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton R., 1969, Behavior Patterns of Scientists, American Scientist 57, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson R., S. Winter, 1977, In Search of a Useful Theory of Innovation, Research Policy 6, 35–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsson O., 2000, Knowledge as a Set in Idea Space: An Epistemological View on Growth, Journal of Economic Growth 5, 253–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsson O., 2005, Technological Opportunity and Growth, Journal of Economic Growth 10, 35–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsson O., B. Frey, 2002, Entrepreneurship as Recombinant Growth, Small Business Economics 19, 69–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper K. (1968), The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson Publishers, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer P., 1990, Endogenous Technical Change, Journal of Political Economy 98, S71–S102. .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders M. (2005), Technology and the Decline of Unskilled Labour Demand: A Theoretical Analysis of the US and European Labour Markets, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J., 1934, ‚The Theory of Economic Development’, in: M. Casson (ed.) (1990) Entrepreneurship, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers, 105–134.

  • Segerstrom P., T. Anant E. Dinopoulos, 1990, A Schumpeterian Model of the Product Life Cycle, The American Economic Review, 80, 1077–1091.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane S., S. Venkataraman, 2000, The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research, Academy of Management Review 25, 217–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solow R., 1957, Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function, Review of Economics and Statistics 39, 312–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan P. 1996, The Economics of Science, Journal of Economic Literature 34, 1199–1235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J., 1982, The Growth of Knowledge: Testing a Theory of Scientific Revolutions with a Formal Model, in MIT Working Paper, No. 1326–82, available online at: https://hpds1.mit.edu/retrieve/1636/SWP-1326–09065900.pdf .

  • Sterman, J. and J. Wittenberg, 1999, ‚Path Dependence, Competition and Succession in the Dynamics of Scientific Revolution’, Organization Science 10, 322–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, G. J. and G. S. Becker, 1977, `De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum', American Economic Review, 67, 76–90

  • Thurik R. (1996), Small Firms, Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth, in: Acs Z., B. Carlsson, R. Thurik (eds.), Small Business in the Modern Economy, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 126–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheul I, S. Wennekers, D. Audretsch, R. Thurik (2003), An Eclectic Theory of Entrepreneurship, in: Audretsch D. (ed.), The Globalisation of the World Economy, Edward Elgar Publishers, Cheltenham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wennekers, S. and R. Thurik, 1999, ‚Linking Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth, Small Business Economics 13, 27–55.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Tjalling Koopmans Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands

    Mark Sanders

  2. Evolutionary Economics Group, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745, Jena, Germany

    Mark Sanders

Authors
  1. Mark Sanders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Sanders.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0 ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sanders, M. Scientific Paradigms, Entrepreneurial Opportunities and Cycles in Economic Growth. Small Bus Econ 28, 339–354 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-9038-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-9038-6

Keywords

  • endogenous growth theory
  • entrepreneurship
  • paradigms
  • scientific institutions

JEL-Classifications

  • E32
  • L26
  • M13
  • O11
  • O31
  • O41