Knowledge Spillover Entrepreneurship

  • Zoltan J. Acs
  • David B. Audretsch
Part of the International Handbook Series on Entrepreneurship book series (IHSE, volume 5)


Just as the economy has been besieged by a wave of technological change that has left virtually no sector of the economy untouched, scientific understanding of the innovative process—that is, the manner by which firms innovate, and the impact such technological change has on enterprises and markets—has also undergone a revolution, which, although somewhat quieter, has been no less fundamental. Well into the 1970s, a conventional wisdom about the nature of technological change generally pervaded. This conventional wisdom had been shaped largely by scholars such as Alfred Chandler (1977), Joseph Schumpeter (1942), and John Kenneth Galbraith (1956) who convinced a generation of scholars and policymakers that innovation and technological change lay in the domain of large corporations and that small business would fade away as the victim of its own inefficiencies.


Technological Change Firm Size Small Firm Large Firm Knowledge Spillover 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Thanks go to Al Link for his thoughtful comments and insights as well as to the suggestions made by a number of other contributors to this volume.


  1. Acemoglu, D., & Johnson, S. 2005. Unbundling institutions. Journal of Political Economy, 113(5): 949–995.Google Scholar
  2. Acs, Z. J., & Armington, C. 2004. The geographic diversity of new firm formation and human capital. Journal of Urban Economics, 56(2): 244–278.Google Scholar
  3. Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. 1987. Innovation, market structure and firm size. Review of Economics and Statistics, 69(4): 567–575.Google Scholar
  4. Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1988). Innovation in large and small firms: An empirical analysis. American Economic Review, 78(4): 678–690.Google Scholar
  5. Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. 1989. Patents as a measure of innovative activity. Kyklos, 42: 171–180.Google Scholar
  6. Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. 1990. Innovation and Small Firms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Acs, Z. J., Anselin L., & Varga, A. 2002. Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy, 31(7): 1069–1085.Google Scholar
  8. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Braunerhjelm, P., & Carlsson, B. 2009. The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1): 15–30.Google Scholar
  9. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1992). Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 82(1): 363–367.Google Scholar
  10. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. 1994. R&D spillovers and recipient firm size. Review of Economics and Statistics, 100(2): 336–367.Google Scholar
  11. Acs, Z. J., & Varga, A. 2002. Geography, endogenous growth and innovation. International Regional Science Review, 25(1): 132–148.Google Scholar
  12. Agarwal, R., Audretsch, D., & Sarkar, M. (2007). The process of creative construction: Knowledge spillovers, entrepreneurship and economic growth. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(34): 263–286.Google Scholar
  13. Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. 1997. The exploration of technological diversity and the geographic localization of innovation. Small Business Economics, 9(1): 21–31.Google Scholar
  14. Anselin, L., Varga, A., & Acs, Z. J. 1997. Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. Journal of Urban Economics, 42: 422–448.Google Scholar
  15. Anselin, L., Varga, A., & Acs, Z. J. 2000. Geographic and sectoral characteristics of academic knowledge externalities. Papers in Regional Science, 79(4): 435–443.Google Scholar
  16. 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: 609–626. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Audretsch, D. B. (1995). Innovation and Industry Evolution. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 86(3): 630–640.Google Scholar
  19. Audretsch, D. B., & Stephan, P. E. (1996). Company-scientist locational links: The case of biotechnology. American Economic Review, 86(3): 641–652.Google Scholar
  20. Audretsch, D. B. 1989. The Market and the State: Government Policy Towards Business in Europe, Japan, and the U.S. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Baldwin, W. L., & Scott, J. T. 1987. Market Structure and Technological Change. London and New York: Harwood Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Beise, M., & Licht, G. 1996. Innovationsverhalten der deutschen Wirtschaft. Zentrum fuer Europaeische Wirtschaftsforschung (ZEW), Mannheim, January, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  23. Birch, D. 1981. Who creates jobs? The Public Interest, 65: 3–14.Google Scholar
  24. Bound, J., Cummins, J., Griliches, Z., Hall, B. H., & Jaffe, A. 1984. Who does R&D and who patents?. In Z. Griliches (Ed.), R&D, Patents, and Productivity: 21–54. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Braunerhjelm, P., Acs, Z., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. 2010. The missing link: The knowledge filter and endogenous growth. Small Business Economics, 34(2): 105–125.  DOI 10.1007/s11187-009-9235-1.
  26. Carlsson, B., Acs, Z., Audretch, D., & Braunerhjelm, P. 2009. Knowledge creation, entrepreneurship and economic growth: A historical review. Industry and Corporate Change, 18: 1193–1229.Google Scholar
  27. Caves, R. E. (1998). Industrial organization and new findings on the turnover and mobility of firms. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(4): 1947–1982.Google Scholar
  28. Chakrabarti, A. K., & Halperin, M. R. 1990. Technical performance and firm size: Analysis of patents and publications of U.S. firms. Small Business Economics, 2(3): 183–190.Google Scholar
  29. Chandler, A. D. Jr. 1997. The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Chandler, A. 1990. Scale and Scope. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Cohen, W. M., & Levin, R. C. 1989. Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. In R. Schmalensee, & R. Willig (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, Vol. II: 1059–1107. Amsterdam, North Holland.Google Scholar
  32. Cohen, W. M., & Klepper, S. 1991. Firm size versus diversity in the achievement of technological advance. Z. J. Acs, & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Innovation and Technological Change: An International Comparison: 183–203. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  33. Cohen, W. M., & Klepper, S. 1992. The tradeoff between firm size and diversity in the pursuit of technological progress. Small Business Economics, 4(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
  34. Cohen, W. M., Levin, R. C., & Mowery, D. C. 1987. Firm size and R&D intensity: A reexamination. Journal of Industrial Economics, 35: 543–565.Google Scholar
  35. Comanor, W. S. 1967. Market structure, product differentiation and industrial research. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 81: 639–657.Google Scholar
  36. Connolly, R. A., & Hirschey, M. 1984. R&D, market strucutre and profits: A value based approach. Review of Economics and Statistics, 66: 682–686.Google Scholar
  37. Connolly, R. A., Hirsch, B. T., & Hirschey, M. 1986. Union rent seeking, intangible capital, and the market value of the firm. Review of Economics and Statistics, 68: 567–577.Google Scholar
  38. Dosi, G. 1988. Sources, procedures and microeconomic effect of invention. Journal of Economic Literature, 26: 1120–1171.Google Scholar
  39. Edwards, K. L., & Gordon, T. J. 1984. Characterization of innovations introduced on the U.S. market in 1982. The Futures Group, prepared for the U.S. Small Business Administration under Contract No. SBA-6050-OA-82.Google Scholar
  40. Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. 2002. The determinants of national competitive advantage. Research Policy, 31(6): 899–937.Google Scholar
  41. Fisher, F. M., & Temin, P. 1973. Returns to scale in research and development: What does the Schumpeterian hypothesis imply? Journal of Political Economy, 81: 56–70.Google Scholar
  42. FitzRoy, F. R., & Kraft, K. 1990. Innovation, rent-sharing and the organization of labour in the federal republic of Germany. Small Business Economics, 2(2): 95–104.Google Scholar
  43. FitzRoy, F. R., & Kraft, K. 1991. Firm size, growth and innovation: Some evidence from west Germany. In Z. J. Acs, & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Innovation and Technological Change: An International Comparison: 152–159. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  44. Galbraith, J. K. 1956. American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power (revised ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  45. Gellman Research Associates. 1976. Indicators of international trends in technological innovation, prepared for the National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  46. Gellman Research Associates. 1982. The relationship between industrial concentration, firm size, and technological innovation, prepared for the Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration under award no. SBA-2633-OA-79.Google Scholar
  47. Geroski, P. A. 1995. What do we know about entry. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13(4): 421–440.Google Scholar
  48. Glaeser, E., Kallal, H., Scheinkman, J., & Shleifer, A. 1992. Growth of cities. Journal of Political Economy, 100: 1126–1152.Google Scholar
  49. Grabowski, H. G. 1968. The determinants of industrial research and development: A study of the chemical, drug, and petroleum industries. Journal of Political Economy, 76(4): 292–306.Google Scholar
  50. Greif, S., & Potkowik, G. 1990. Patente and Wirtschaftszweige: Zusammenfiihrung der Internationalen Patentklassifikation and der Systematik der Wirtschaftszweige. Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag.Google Scholar
  51. Greif, S. 1989. Zur Erfassung von Forschungs- and Entwicklungstatigkeit durch Patente. Naturwissenschaften, 76(4): 156–159.Google Scholar
  52. Griliches, Z. 1979. Issues in assessing the contribution of R&D to productivity growth. Bell Journal of Economics, 10(Spring): 92–116.Google Scholar
  53. Griliches, Z. 1990. Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28(4): 1661–1707.Google Scholar
  54. Hall, B. H., Griliches, Z., & Hausman, J. A. 1986. Patents and R&D: Is there a lag? International Economic Review, 27: 265–302.Google Scholar
  55. Harhoff, D., & Licht, G. 1996. Innovationsaktivitaeten kleiner und mittlerer Unternehmen. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  56. Hellmann, T. 2007. When do employees become entrepreneurs? Management Science, 53(6): 919–933.Google Scholar
  57. Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Hvide, H. 2009. Firm size and the quality of entrepreneurs. Economic Journal, 119(539): 1010–1035.Google Scholar
  59. Jaffe, A. B. 1986. Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits and market value. American Economic Review, 76: 984–1001.Google Scholar
  60. Jaffe, A. B. 1989. Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 79(5): 957–970.Google Scholar
  61. Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. 1993. Geography, location of knowledge spillovers as evidence of patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108: 483–499.Google Scholar
  62. Jovanovic, B. 1982. Selection and evolution of industry. Econometrica, 50(2): 649–670.Google Scholar
  63. Jovanovic, B. 2001. New technology and the small firm. Small Business Economics, 16(1): 53–55.Google Scholar
  64. Kamien, M. I., & Schwartz, N. L. 1975. Market structure and innovation: A survey. The Journal of Economic Literature, 13: 1–37.Google Scholar
  65. Kleinknecht, A., & Verspagen, B. 1989. R&D and market structure: The impact of measurement and aggregation problems. Small Business Economics, 1(4): 297–302.Google Scholar
  66. Kleinknecht, A. 1987. Measuring R&D in small firms: How much are we missing? Journal of Industrial Economics, 36(2): 253–256.Google Scholar
  67. Kleinknecht, A. 1991. Firm size and innovation: Reply to Scheirer. Small Business Economics, 3(2): 157–158.Google Scholar
  68. Kohn, M., & Scott, J. T. 1982. Scale economies in research and development: The Schumpeterian hypothesis. Journal of Industrial Economics, 30: 239–249.Google Scholar
  69. Konig, H., & Zimmermann, K. F. 1986. Innovations, Market structure and market dynamics. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 142(l): 184–199.Google Scholar
  70. Krugman, P. 1991. Geography and Trade. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  71. Kuznets, S. 1962. Inventive activity: Problems of definition and measurement. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: 19–43. Princeton, NJ: National Bureau of Economic Research Conference Report.Google Scholar
  72. Lazear, E. P. 2005. Entrepreneurship. Journal of Labor Economics, 23(4): 649–680.Google Scholar
  73. Levin, R. C., & Reiss, P. C. 1984. Tests of a Schumpeterian model of R&D and market structure. In Z. Griliches (Ed.), R&D, Patents, and Productivity: 175–208. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  74. Levin, R. C., Klevorick, A. K., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. 1987. Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3: 783–820.Google Scholar
  75. Levin, R. C., Cohen, W. M., & Mowery, D. C. 1985. R&D Appropriability opportunity and market structure: New evidence on the Schumpeterian hypothesis. American Economic Review, 15: 20–24.Google Scholar
  76. Link, A. N., & Bozeman, B. 1991. Innovative behavior in small-sized firms. Small Business Economics, 3(3): 179–184.Google Scholar
  77. Link, A. N., & Rees, J. 1990. Firm size, university based research, and the returns to R&D. Small Business Economics, 2(1): 25–32.Google Scholar
  78. Mansfield, E. 1968. Industrial Research and Technological Change: 83–108. New York, NY: W.W. Norton, for the Cowles Foundation for Research Economics at Yale University.Google Scholar
  79. Mansfield, E. 1981. Composition of R&D expenditures: Relationship to size of firm, concentration, and innovative output. Review of Economics and Statistics, 63: 610–615.Google Scholar
  80. Mansfield, E. 1983. Industrial organization and technological change: Recent empirical findings. In John V. Craven (Ed.), Industrial Organization, Antitrust, and Public Policy: 129–143. The Hague: Kluwer-Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  81. Mansfield, E. 1984. Comment on using linked patent and R&D data to measure interindustry technology flows. In Z. Griliches (Ed.), R&D, Patents, and Productivity: 462–464. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  82. Mansfield, E., Romeo, A., Schwartz, M., Teece, D., Wagner, S., & Brach, P. 1982. Technology Transfer, Productivity, and Economic Policy. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  83. Moen, J. 2005. Is mobility of technical personnel a source of R&D spillovers? Journal of Labor Economics, 23(1): 81–114.Google Scholar
  84. Mueller, D. C. 1967. The firm decision process: An econometric investigation. Journal of Political Economy, 81(1): 58–87.Google Scholar
  85. National Science Board. 1975. Science Indicators 1974. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  86. Nelson, R. R. 1959. The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67(2): 297–306.Google Scholar
  87. Nelson, J. R. 1993. National Innovation Systems. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Oppenlander, K. H. 1990. Investitionsverhalten and Marktstruktur – Empirische Ergebnisse fur die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In B. Gahlen (Ed.), Marktstruktur and gesamtwirtschaftliche Entwicklung: 253–266. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  89. Pakes, A., & Griliches, Z. 1980. Patents and R&D at the firm level: A first report. Economics Letters, 5: 377–381.Google Scholar
  90. Pakes, A., & Griliches, Z. 1984. Patents and R&D at the firm level: A first look. In Z. Griliches (Ed.), R&D, Patents, and Productivity: 55–72. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  91. Pakes, A. 1985. On patents, R&D, and the stock market rate of return. Journal of Political Economy, 93: 390–409.Google Scholar
  92. Pakes, A., & Nitzan, S. 1983. Optimal contracts for research personnel, research employment, and the establishment of “Rival Enterprises.” Journal of Labor Economics, 1(3): 345–365.Google Scholar
  93. Parker, S. 2004. The Economics of Self-employment and Entrepreneurship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Pavitt, K., Robson, M., & Townsend, J. 1987. The size distribution of innovating firms in the U.K.: 1945–1983. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 55: 291–316.Google Scholar
  95. Plummer, L. A., Acs, Z. J., & Fried, C. 2010. A spatial competition model of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. Norman, OK: Mimeo University of Oklahoma.Google Scholar
  96. Porter, Michael. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Rosen, S. 1972. Learning and experience in the labor market. Journal of Human Resources, 7(3): 326–342.Google Scholar
  98. Romer, P. 1990. Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98: S71–S102.Google Scholar
  99. Rothwell, R. 1989. Small firms, innovation and industrial change. Small Business Economics, 1(1): 51–64.Google Scholar
  100. Santarelli, E., & Sterlachinni, A. 1990. Innovation, formal vs. informal R&D, and firm size: Some evidence from Italian manufacturing firms. Small Business Economics, 2(2): 223–228.Google Scholar
  101. Scherer, F. M. 1965a. Firm size, market structure, opportunity, and the output of patented inventions. American Economic Review, 55: 1097–1125.Google Scholar
  102. Scherer, F. M. 1965b. Size of firm, oligopoly and research: A comment. Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 31: 256–266.Google Scholar
  103. Scherer, F. M. 1967. Market structure and the employment of scientists and engineers. American Economic Review, 57: 524–530.Google Scholar
  104. Scherer, F. M. 1983a. Concentration, R&D, and productivity change. Southern Economic Journal, 50: 221–225.Google Scholar
  105. Scherer, F. M. 1983b. The propensity to patent. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 1: 107–128.Google Scholar
  106. Scherer, F. M. 1982. Inter-industry technology flows in the United States. Research Policy, 11: 227–245.Google Scholar
  107. Scherer, F. M. 1984. Innovation and Growth: Schumpeterian Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  108. Scherer, F. M. 1991. Changing perspectives on the firm size problem. In Z. J. Acs, & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Innovation and Technological Change: An International Comparison: 24–38. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  109. Scherer, F. M. 1988. Testimony before the subcommittee on monopolies and commercial law. Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, February 24.Google Scholar
  110. Schulenburg, J. M. G. von der, & Wagner, J. 1991. Advertising, innovation and market structure: A comparison of the United States of America and the federal republic of Germany. In Z. J. Acs, & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Innovation and Technological Change: An International Comparison: 160–182. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  111. Schulenburg, J. M. G. von der, & Wagner, J. 1992. Unobservable industry characteristics and the innovation-concentration-advertising maze: Evidence from an econometric study using panel data for manufacturing industries in the FRG, 1979–1986. Small Business Economics, 4(4): 315–326.  DOI: 10.1007/BF00388626.
  112. Schumpeter, J. A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  113. Schwalbach, J., & Zimmermann, K. F. 1991. A poisson model of patenting and firm structure in Germany. In Z. J. Acs, & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Innovation and Technological Change: An International Comparison: 109–120. Ann Arbor, MI: University o Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  114. Scott, J. T. 1984. Firm versus industry variability in R&D intensity. In Z. Griliches (Ed.), R&D, Patents and Productivity: 233–248. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  115. Shane, S., and Venkataraman, S. 2000. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. Academy of Management Review, 25: 217–2221.Google Scholar
  116. Soete, L. L. G. 1979. Firm size and inventive activity: The evidence reconsidered. European Economic Review, 12: 319–340.Google Scholar
  117. Sutton, J. 1997. Gibrat’s legacy. Journal of Economic Literature, 35: 40–59.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public PolicyGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  2. 2.School of Public and Environmental Affairs Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations