Advertisement

Overview

  • David Encaoua
  • Bronwyn H. Hall
  • François Laisney
  • Jacques Mairesse
Chapter

Abstract

During the past few decades, the interest of economists in the sources of long run economic growth has led an increasing number to focus their attention on the role of innovation in creating that growth. Although some researchers have always been interested in this topic, in the last few years many others have recognized the central role played by innovation in almost all spheres of economic activity. Taking a somewhat U.S.-centric perspective, one can probably date the origins of the mainstream development of this research agenda from Solow’s (1957) «discovery» of the importance of the «residual» in aggregate productivity growth and Nelson’s (1959) and Arrow’s (1962) influential papers on the economics of knowledge creation.

Keywords

Intellectual Property Network Externality Coalition Structure NBER Working Paper Patent Office 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aghion, P. and P. Howitt (1998): Endogenous Growth Theory, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, K. (1962):“Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention,” in Nelson, R. R. (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, 609–25. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barro, R. J. and X. Sala-i-Martin (1995): Economic Growth, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  4. Bond, S., J. A. Elston, J. Mairesse and B. Mulkay (1997): «A Comparison of Empirical Investment Equations Using Company Level Data for France, Germany, Belgium and the UK», NBER Working Paper n° 5900.Google Scholar
  5. Bond, S. and C. Meghir (1994): «Dynamic Investment Models and the Firm’s Financial Policy», Review of Economic Studies, 61, 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bresnahan, T. F. and M. Trajtenberg (1995): «General Purpose Technologies: ‘Engines of Growth»?», Journal of Econometrics 65: 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cameron, A.C. and P.K. Trivedi (1998): Regression Analysis of Count Data, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Choi, J.P. (1991): «Dynamic R&D Competition under ‘Hazard Rate’ Uncertainty», Rand Journal of Economics, 22: 596–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chou, C.F. and O. Shy (1991): «New product development and the optimal duration of patents», Southern Economic Journal, 57: 811–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coe, D. and E. Helpman (1995): «International R&D Spillovers», European Economic Review, 39(5). Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, W.M., R.R. Nelson, and J. Walsh (1996): «A First Look at the Results of the 1994 Carnegie-Mellon Survey of Industrial R&D in the United States,» unpublished manuscript, February 28.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, W.M., R.R. Nelson, and J. Walsh (1997): «Appropriability Conditions and Why Firms Patent and Why They Do Not in the American Manufacturing Sector,» unpublished manuscript, June 24.Google Scholar
  13. Crépon, B. and E. Duguet (1997a): «Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation: Pseudo Maximum Likelihood and Simulated Maximum Likelihood Methods Applied to Count Data Models with Heterogeneity,» Journal of Econometrics 79: 355–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crépon, B. and E. Duguet (1997b): «Estimating the Innovation Function from Patent Numbers: GMM on Count Panel Data,» Journal of Applied Econometrics 12: 243–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dasgupta, P. and J. Stiglitz (1980): «Industrial Structure and the Nature of Innovative Activity,» Economic Journal, 90, 266–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. D’Aspremont, C. and A. Jacquemin (1985): «Cooperative and Non-Cooperative R&D in a Duopoly with Spillovers, American Economic Review, 78: 1133–1137.Google Scholar
  17. David, P. (1990): «The Computer and the Dynamo: An Historical Perspective on the Productivity Paradox», American Economie Review, 80: 355–361.Google Scholar
  18. David, P. (1985): «CLIO and the Economies of QWERTY», American Economie Review, Papers and Proceedings, 75: 332–337.Google Scholar
  19. Davis, S.J. and J. Haltiwanger (1992): «Gross Job Creation, Gross Job Destruction and Employment Reallocation», Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107: 819–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duguet, E. and N. Greenan (1997): «Le biais technologique: une analyse économétrique sur données individuelles», Revue Economique, 48 (5): 1061–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Encaoua, D., M. Moreaux and A. Perrot (1996): «Compatibility and Competition in Airlines», Internationaljournal of Industrial Organization, 14: 701–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Farrell, J. and C. Shapiro (1992): «Standard Setting in High Definition Television», Brookings Papers: Microeconomics 1–93.Google Scholar
  23. Gilbert, R. and C. Shapiro (1990): «Optimal Patent Length and Breadth», Rand Journal of Economics, 21 (1): 106–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goux and Maurin (1997): «Le déclin de la demande de travail non qualifié. Une méthode d’analyse empirique et son application au cas de la France», Revue Economique, 48 (5): 1091–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Green, J. and S. Scotchmer (1990): «Novelty and Disclosure in Patent Law», Rand Journal of Economies, 21 (1): 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Griliches, Z. (1995): «R&D and Productivity: Econometric Results and Measurement Issues», in Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technical Change, P. Stoneman (ed.). Basil Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
  27. Griliches, Z. (1957): “Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technological Change,” Econometrica, 25, 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Griliches, Z. and J. Mairesse (1999): «Production Functions: The Search for Identification,» in S. Ström (ed.), Econometrics and Economic Theory in the 20th Century: The Ragnar Frish Centennial Symposium, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Griliches, Z., A. Pakes, and B.H. Hall (1987): «The Value of Patents as Indicators of Economic Activity,» in Dasgupta and Stoneman (eds.), Economic Policy and Technological Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Grossman, G.M. and E. Helpman (1991): Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hall, B.H. (1992): «R&D Investment at the Firm Level: Does the Source of Financing Matter?» Cambridge, Mass.: NBER Working Paper No. 4095.Google Scholar
  32. Hall, B.H., Z. Griliches, and J.A. Hausman (1986): “Patents and R&D: Is There a Lag?” International Economic Review, 27, 265–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hall, B.H. and R.M. Ham (1999): “The Determinants of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1980–1994,” Cambridge, Mass.: NBER Working Paper No. 7062.Google Scholar
  34. Hall, B.H. and F. Hayashi (1989): «Research and Development as an Investment,» Cambridge, Mass.: NBER Working Paper No. 2973.Google Scholar
  35. Hall, B.H. and F. Kramarz (eds.) (1998): Economies of Innovation and New Technology 6, Issue 2/3/4, special issue on the effects of innovation on firm performance, employment, and productivity.Google Scholar
  36. Helpman, E. and M. Trajtenberg (1994): «A Time to Sow and a Time to Reap: Growth Based on General Purpose Technologies,» NBER Working Paper No. 4854.Google Scholar
  37. Himmelberg, C. P. and B. C. Petersen (1994): «R&D and Internal Finance: A Panel Study of Small Firms in High-Tech Industries, Review of Economics and Statistics, 76: 38–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hugues, J. and E. Snyder (1995): «Litigation and Settlement under the English and American Rules: Theory and Evidence», The Journal of Law and Economics, 38: 225–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jaffe, A. (1986): «Technological Opportunity and Spillover of R&D: Evidence from Firms’ Patents, Profits, and Market Value», American Economic Review 4, 76,:984–1001.Google Scholar
  40. Kamien, M. I. and N. L. Schwartz (1980): Market Structure and Innovation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Katz, M. and C. Shapiro (1985): «Network Externalities, Competition and Compatibility», American Economic Review, 75: 424–440.Google Scholar
  42. Keller, W. (1996): «Are International R&D Spillovers Trade-Related: Analyzing Spillovers among Randomly Matched Trade Partners,» NBER Working Paper No. 6065.Google Scholar
  43. Kleinknecht, A. (1996) «New Indicators and Determinants of Innovation: An Introduction», in Determinants of Innovation, the Message from New Indicators, edited by Alfred Kleinknecht, London, MacMillan Press.Google Scholar
  44. Klemperer, P. (1990): «How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection be?», The Rand Journal of Economics,21 (1): 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Klette, T. J. and Z. Griliches (1996): «The Inconsistency of Common Scale Estimators when Output Prices are Unobserved and Endogenous», Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11: 343–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Koran, V. (1994): An Introductory Guide to EC Competition. Law and Practice, 5th edition, London: Sweet and Maxwell.Google Scholar
  47. Lach, S. and M. Schankerman (1988): «Dynamics of R&D and Investment in the Scientific Sector,» Journal of Political Economy, 97, 880–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lerner, J. (1994): «The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis», The Rand Journal of Economics, 25: 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lerner, J. (1995): «Patenting in the Shadow of Competitors», Journal of Law and Economics, 38,463–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Loury, G.C. (1979): «Market Structure and Innovation,» Quarterly Journal of Economics, 93, 395–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mairesse, J., Hall, B.H. and B. Mulkay (1998): «Firm-Level Investment in France and the United States: An Exploration of What We Have Learned in Twenty Years», Annales de l’Economie et de la Statistique,n 55/56, Sept/Dec, p. 27–67.Google Scholar
  52. Mairesse, J. and M. Sassenou (1991): «Recherche-Développement et Productivité: un panorama des études économétriques sur données d’entreprises», Revue Science Technologie — Industrie, Paris, OCDE, 8,. 9–45. [English Version: «R-D and Productivity: a Survey of Econometric Studies at the Firm Level», Science-Technology Industry Review, Paris, OECD, 8,. 9–43].Google Scholar
  53. Mansfield, E. (1961): “Technical Change and the Rate of Imitation,” Econometrica, 29, 741–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mohnen, P. (1996): «R&D Externalities and Productivity Growth», Science-Technology Industry Review, Paris, OECD, 13,. 39–66.Google Scholar
  55. Nelson, R. R. (1959): “The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research,” Journal of Political Economy, 51, 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nordhaus, W. (1969): «An Economic Theory of Technical Change,» American Economic Review 59 (2): 18–28.Google Scholar
  57. Oliner, S. and D. Sichel, (1994): «Computers and Output Growth Revisited: How Big Is the Puzzle?», Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2, 273–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pakes, A. (1982): «Patents as Options: Some Estimates of the Value of Holding European Patent Stocks,» Econometrica, 64, 755–784.Google Scholar
  59. Penrose, E.T. (1959): The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  60. Pissarides, C.A. (1990): Equilibrium Unemployment Theory, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  61. Reinganum, J.F. (1989): «The Timing of Innovation: Research, Development, and Diffusion,» in R. Schmalansee and R.D. Willig, eds., Handbook of Industrial Organization, New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  62. Reitzes, J.D. (1991): «The Impact of Quotas and Tariffs on Strategic R&D Behavion», International Economic Review, 32 (4): 985–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rosenberg, N. (1976): «Technological Change in the Machine Tool Industry, 1840–1910,» in Perspectives in Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schmookler, J. (1966): Invention and Economic Growth, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Solow, R. M. (1957): “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 39, 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Uzawa, H. (1969): «Time Preference and the Penrose Effect in a Two-Class Model of Economic Growth», Journal of Political Economy, 77, 628–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Encaoua
    • 1
  • Bronwyn H. Hall
    • 2
  • François Laisney
    • 3
  • Jacques Mairesse
    • 4
  1. 1.Eurequa, Université de Paris-I Panthéon-Sorbonne, and CNRSFrance
  2. 2.Nuffield CollegeOxford University, University of California at Berkeley, and NBERUSA
  3. 3.BETA, Université Louis Pasteur,and ZEWUniversity of MannheimStrasbourgFrance
  4. 4.CREST, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales and NBERParisFrance

Personalised recommendations