Skip to main content

Schumpeter and new technology based firms: Towards a framework for how NTBFs cause creative destruction

International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal volume 2, pages 145–156 (2006)Cite this article

Abstract

Although Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” has become something of a buzzword, the theoretical underpinnings of his theory are largely missing from the recent literature on technological change. This paper explores the link between technological change and creative destruction, with particular attention being paid to the role of new technology-based firms in bringing this about. Recurring themes in the technological change literature are examined. These show that the phenomenon of dominant firms failing due to the introduction of a new (disruptive) technology is creative destruction in action. NTBFs are the most common introducers of disruptive technologies and a leading driver of creative destruction.

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.

References

  • Abernathy, W. J., & Clark, K. B. (1985). Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abernathy, W. J., & Utterback, J. M. (1988). Patterns of industrial innovation. In M. L. Tushman and W. Moore (Eds.), Readings in the Management of Innovation (pp. 25–36). Ballinger.

  • Baumol, W. J. (1968). Entrepreneurship in economic theory. American Economic Review, 58(2), 64–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J. (2002). The free-market innovation machine: Analyzing the growth miracle of capitalism Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birch, D. L. (1979). The job generation process: Unpublished report prepared by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Program on Neighborhood and Regional Change for the Economic Development Administration. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birch, D. L. (1987). Job creation in America: How our smallest companies put the most people to work. New York, London: Free Press, Collier Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, 73(1), 43–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A., & Grove, A. S. (1996). Strategic dissonance. California Management Review, 38(2), 8–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • CHI Research Inc. (2002). Small serial innovators: The small firm contribution to technical change. Hadden Heights, NJ: SBA Office of Advocacy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. (1992a). Exploring the limits of the technology S-curve. Part II: Architectural technologies. Production and Operations Management, 1(4), 367–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. (1992b). Exploring the limits of the technology S-curve. Part I: Component technologies. Production and Operations Management, 1, 358–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M. (1993). The rigid disk drive industry: A history of commercial and technological turbulence. Business History Review, 67, 531–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (1995). Explaining the attacker’s advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network. Research Policy, 24, 233–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., & Bower, J. L. (1996). Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, R. N. (1986). Innovation: The attacker’s advantage. New York: Summit Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, R. N., & Kaplan, S. (2001). Creative destruction: Why companies that are built to last underperform the market—and how to successfully transform Them, 1st edn., New York: Currency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest and money. New York: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Killick, T. (Ed.). (1995). The flexible economy: Causes and consequences of the adaptability of national economies. London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchhoff, B. A. (1994). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capitalism: The economics of business firm formation and growth. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of economics. London-New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G. A. (1991). Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling technology products to mainstream customers. New York: HarperBusiness.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morone, J. G. (1993). Winning in high-tech markets: The role of general management: How Motorola, Corning, and General Electric Have Built Global Leadership Through Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer, D. (1996). Advanced macroeconomics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1002–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. M. (1994). The origins of endogenous growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • SBA. (1995). The State of Small Business: A Report of the President. Washington, D.C.: United States Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy.

    Google Scholar 

  • SBA. (1996). The state of small business: A report of the president. Washington, D.C.: United States Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, F. M. (1980). Industrial market structure and economic performance. Chicago: Rand McNally College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, F. M., & Ross, D. (1990). Industrial market structure and economic performance. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1909). On the Concept of Social Value. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 23, 213–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1937). Preface to Japanese translation of Theorie der Wirtschaftcilhen Entwicklung. In R.V. Clemence (Ed.), Essays: On Entrepreneurs, Innovations, Business Cycles, and the Evolution of Capitalism. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles: A theoretical, historical, and statistical analysis of the capitalist process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. 3d ed., New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solow, R. M. (1956). A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70, 65–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solow, R. M. (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economics & Statistics, 39, 312–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, A. S., Kirchhoff, B. A., & White, C. (2006). Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Wealth Distribution: The Essence of Creative Destruction, forthcoming in International Small Business Journal.

  • Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storey, D. J. (1994). Understanding the small business sector. London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swedberg, R. (2000). Entrepreneurship: The social science view. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilton, J. E. (1971). International diffusion of technology: The case of semiconductors. Washington: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tripsas, M. (1997). Unraveling the process of creative destruction: Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 119–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1147–1161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walras, L. (1874). Elements of pure economics; or, the theory of social wealth. Homewood, Ill.: American Economic Association and The Royal Economic Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, S. (2002). International Roadmap on MEMS, microsystems, micromachining and top down nanotechnology. Naples, Florida: MANCEF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wennekers, S., & Thurik, R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 13, 27–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, 07102, USA

    Aron S. Spencer & Bruce A. Kirchhoff

Authors
  1. Aron S. Spencer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bruce A. Kirchhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aron S. Spencer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Spencer, A.S., Kirchhoff, B.A. Schumpeter and new technology based firms: Towards a framework for how NTBFs cause creative destruction. Int Entrep Manag J 2, 145–156 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-006-8681-3

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-006-8681-3

Keywords

  • Schumpeter
  • New technology based firms
  • Creative destruction