Computational Economics

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 51–65 | Cite as

Competing R&D Strategies in an Evolutionary Industry Model

  • Murat Yildizoglu

Abstract

This article aims to test the relevance of learning throughgenetic algorithms, in contrast to fixed R&D rules, in a simplifiedversion of the evolutionary industry model of Nelson and Winter.These two R&D strategies arecompared from the points of view of industry performance(welfare) and firms' relative performance (competitive edge):simulations results clearly show that learning is a source oftechnological and social efficiency as well as a means formarket domination.

bounded rationality genetic algorithms industry dynamics innovation learning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ballot, G. and Taymaz, E. (1999). Technological change, learning and macroeconomic coordination: An evolutionary model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASS/2/2/3.html, 2(2)Google Scholar
  2. Brenner, T. (1998). Can evolutionary algorithms describe learning process? Journal of Evolutionary Economics (8), 271–283.Google Scholar
  3. Goldberg, D.E. (1991). Genetic Algorithms. Addison-Wesley, Reading: MA.Google Scholar
  4. Holland, J.H., Holyoak, K.J. and Thagard, P.R. (1989). Induction of Inference, Learning, and Discovery. MIT Press, Cambridge:MA.Google Scholar
  5. Jonard, N. and Yildizoglu, M. (1989). Technological diversity in an evolutionary industry model with localized learning and network externalities. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 9(1), 35–55.Google Scholar
  6. Knight, F.H. (1912). Risk, Uncertainty and Profits. Number Reprint, Chicago University Press. Chicago.Google Scholar
  7. Kwasnicki, W. and Kwasnicka, H. (1992). Market, innovation, competition. An evolutionary model of industrial dynamics. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 19, 343–368.Google Scholar
  8. Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. The Belknap Press of Harvard University, London.Google Scholar
  9. Oltra, V. and Yildizoglu, M. (1998). Expectations and adaptive behaviour: the missing trade-off in models of innovation. Mimeo, BETA. Universite Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  10. Silverberg, G., Dosi, G. and Orsenigo, L. (1988). Innovation, diversity and diffusion: a self-organization model. Economic Journal 98, 1032–1054.Google Scholar
  11. Silverberg, J. and Verspagen, B. (1996). From the artificial to the endogenous. In: M. Helmstadter and Ernst Perlman (eds.), Behavior Norms, Technological Progress, and Economic Dynamics: Studies in Schumpeterian economics. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  12. Simon, H.A. (1958). The role of expectations in adaptive or behavioristic model. In: Bowman, M.J (ed.), Expectations, Uncertainty and Business Behavior. Social Science Council, New York. pp. 49–58.Google Scholar
  13. Simon, H.A. (1976). From substantial to procedural rationality. In: Latsis, S.J. (ed.), Method and Appraisal in Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 129–148.Google Scholar
  14. Vriend, N. (1998). An illustration of the essential difference between individual and social learning, and its consequences for computational analyses. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 24(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  15. Watson, C.J., Billingsley, D.J., Croft, D.J., and Huntsberger, D.V. (1993). Statistics for Management and Economics, 5th edition, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Murat Yildizoglu
    • 1
  1. 1.IFREDE-E3iUniversité Montesquieu Bordeaux IVPESSAC

Personalised recommendations