Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:26:58.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Schumpeter was Right: Innovation, Market Power, and Creative Destruction in 1920s America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2004

TOM NICHOLAS
TOM NICHOLAS
Affiliation:
An economics consultant for the Brattle Group. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Are firms with strong market positions powerful engines of technological progress? Joseph Schumpeter thought so, but his hypothesis has proved difficult to verify empirically. This article highlights Schumpeterian market-power and creative-destruction effects in a sample of early-twentieth-century U.S. industrial firms; his contention that an efficiently functioning capital market has a positive effect on the rate of innovation is also confirmed. Despite market power abuses by incumbents, the extent of innovation stands out: 21 percent of patents assigned to the firms sampled between 1920 and 1928 are cited in patents granted between 1976 and 2002.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 63 , Issue 4 , December 2003 , pp. 1023 - 1058
Copyright
© 2003 The Economic History Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acemoglu Daron, Philipe Aghion, and Zilibotti Fabrizio 2002 “Distance to Frontier, Selection and Economic Growth.” Harvard, mimeo
Aghion Philipe, Nicholas Bloom, Richard Blundell, Rachel Griffith, and Howitt Peter 2001 “Competition and Innovation: An Inverted U.” Harvard University, mimeo
Aghion Philipe, and Howitt Peter 1992 A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction. Econometrica 60, no. 2 323–51.Google Scholar
Banerjee Ajeyo, and Eckard E. Woodrow 1998 Are Mega Mergers Anticompetitive? Evidence from the First Great Merger Wave. Rand Journal of Economics 29, no. 4 803–27.Google Scholar
Banerjee Ajeyo, and Eckard E. Woodrow 2001 Why Regulate Insider Trading? Evidence from the First Great Merger Wave, 1897–1903. American Economic Review 91, no. 5, 1329–49.Google Scholar
Barro Robert. 1990 The Stock Market and Investment. Review of Financial Studies 3, no. 1 115–31.Google Scholar
Berle Adolf, and Means Gardiner 1932 The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New York: Macmillan
Blundell Richard, Rachel Griffith, and Reenen John Van 1999 Market Share, Market Value and Innovation in a Panel of British Manufacturing Firms. Review of Economic Studies 66, no. 3 529–54.Google Scholar
Burns M. R. 1977 The Competitive Effects of Trust-Busting: A Portfolio Analysis. Journal of Political Economy 85, no. 4 717–39.Google Scholar
Caballero Ricardo, and Jaffe Adam 1993 Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: An Empirical Assessment of Knowledge Spillovers and Creative Destruction in a Model of Economic Growth. In NBER Macroeconomics Annual, edited by Blanchard Olivier, and Fischer Stanley, 15–74. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Cantillo Simon Miguel. 1998 The Rise and Fall of Bank Control in the United States: 1890–1939. American Economic Review 88, no. 5 1077–93.Google Scholar
Caves Richard E., Fortunato M., and Ghemawat Pankaj 1984 “The Decline of Dominant Firms 1905–1929. Quarterly Journal of Economics 36, no. 3, 523–46.Google Scholar
Chandler Alfred. 1990 Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Cohen Wesley, and Levin Richard 1989 Empirical Studies of Innovation and Market Structure. In Handbook of Industrial Organisation, edited by Schmalensee R. and Willig R. D. 1059–107. London: North Holland
Comer G. P. 1946 The Outlook for Effective Competition. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 36, no. 2 154–71.Google Scholar
Commercial and Financial Chronicle (1908–1928): “Share Price Listings,” New York.
Conant M. 1953 Competition in the Farm Machinery Industry. Journal of Business of the University of Chicago 26, no. 1 26–36.Google Scholar
David Paul. 1990 Computer and Dynamo: The Modern Productivity Paradox in a Not Too Distant Mirror. In Technology and Productivity: The Challenge for Economic Policy, edited by OECD, 257–22. Paris: OECD
David Paul, and Gavin Wright. 1999 “Early Twentieth Century Productivity Growth Dynamics: An Inquiry Into the Economic History of Our Ignorance.” University of Oxford Discussion Papers in Economic and Social History
Engelbourg S. 1966 Some Consequences of the Leasing of Industrial Machinery. Journal of Business 39, no. 1 52–66.Google Scholar
French Michael. 1991 The United States Tire Industry. Boston: Twayne
Gilbert Richard, and David Newbery 1982 Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly. American Economic Review 72, no. 3 514–26.Google Scholar
Gilbert Richard, and Katz Michael 2001 An Economist's Guide to U.S. v. Microsoft. Journal of Economic Perspectives 15, no. 2 25–44.Google Scholar
Gilbert Richard, and Shapiro Carl. 1990 Optimal Patent Length and Breadth. Rand Journal of Economics 15, no.1 106–12.Google Scholar
Hall Bronwyn Cummins C., Laderman E., and Mundy J. 1988 “The Research and Development Master File Documentation.” NBER Working Paper Series,
Hall Bronwyn, Adam Jaffe, and Trajtenberg Manuel 2001 “The NBER Patent Citation Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools.” NBER Working Paper Series,
Hausman Jerry, Bronwyn Hall, and Griliches Zvi 1984 Econometric Models for Count Data with and Application to the Patents, Research and Development Relationship. Econometrica 52, no. 4 909–38.Google Scholar
Henderson Rebecca. 1993 Underinvestment and Incompetence as Responses to Radical Innovation: Evidence from the Photolithographic Industry. Rand Journal of Economics 24, no. 2 248–70.Google Scholar
Hise C. V. 1912 Concentration and Control: A Solution to the Trust Problem in the United States. New York: Macmillan
Jaffe Adam, and Trajtenberg Manuel 2002 Patents, Citations and Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Jovanovic Boyan, and Peter Rousseau 2001 “Vintage Organization Capital: 1885–1998,” NBER Working Paper Series,
Klemperer Paul. 1990 How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be? Rand Journal of Economics 21, no. 1 113–30.Google Scholar
Kovacic William, and Shapiro Carl 2000 Antitrust Policy: A Century of Economic and Legal Thinking. Journal of Economic Perspectives 14, no. 1 43–60.Google Scholar
Krugman Paul. 1991 History and Industrial Location: The Case of the Manufacturing Belt. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 81, vol. 2, 80–83.Google Scholar
Laidler H. 1931 Concentration of Control in American Industry. New York: Crowell
Lamoreaux Naomi. 1985 The Great Merger Movement in American Business, 1895–1904. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press
Lanjouw Jenny, and Mark Schankerman 1999 “The Quality of Ideas: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators.” NBER Working Paper Series,
Lerner Josh. 1994 The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis. Rand Journal of Economics 25, no. 2 319–33.Google Scholar
Lewellen W. G., and Badrinath S. G. 1997 On the Measurement of Tobin's Q. Journal of Financial Economics 44, no. 1 77–122.Google Scholar
Lindahl M., and Carter W. 1959 Corporate Concentration and Public Policy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Lindenberg E., and Ross Steven 1981 Tobin's Q Ratio and Industrial Organization. Journal of Business 54, no. 2 1–33.Google Scholar
Mahoney J. 1966 Backsliding Convert: Woodrow Wilson and the Seven Sisters. Quarterly Journal of Economics 18, no. 1 71–80.Google Scholar
Means Gardiner. 1931 The Growth in the Relative Importance of the Large Corporation. American Economic Review 21, no. 1 10–42.Google Scholar
Mokyr Joel. 1991 The Lever of Riches. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Moody's Investors Service. Moody's Manual of Industrials. New York: 1908–1928.
Mowery David. 1983 Industrial Research and Firm Size, Survival, and Growth in American Manufacturing, 1921–1946: An Assessment. This Journal 43, no. 4 953–80.Google Scholar
——— 1995 The Boundaries of the U.S. Firm in Research and Development. In Coordination and Information: Historical Perspectives on the Organization of Enterprise, edited by Lamoreaux N. and Raff D. 147–82. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Nelson Richard, and Winter Sidney 1985 An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Nickell Stephen, 1996 Competition and Corporate Performance. Journal of Political Economy 104, no. 4 724–46.Google Scholar
Nutter W. 1969 The Extent of Enterprise Monopoly in the United States, 1899–1939. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Peach W. N. 1942 The Security Affiliates of National Banks. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press
Porter Michael, 1990 The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press
Rajan Raghuram, and Zingales Luigi 2001 Financial Systems, Industrial Structure and Growth. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 17, no. 4 467–82.Google Scholar
Reich Leonard C. 1977 Research, Patents, and the Struggle to Control Radio: A Study of Big Business and the Uses of Industrial Research. Business History Review 51, no. 2 208–35.Google Scholar
Reinganum Jennifer. 1983 Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly. American Economic Review 73, no. 4 741–48.Google Scholar
Roe R. 1913 The United Shoe Machinery Company. Journal of Political Economy 21, no. 10 938–53.Google Scholar
Scherer F. M. 1965 Firm Size, Market Structure, Opportunity, and the Output of Patented Inventions. American Economic Review 55, no. 5 1097–125.Google Scholar
Scherer F. M. 1992 Schumpeter and Plausible Capitalism. Journal of Economic Literature 30, no. 3 1416–33.Google Scholar
Schumpeter Joseph. 1911 Theori der Wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Berlin: Duncker and Humbolt
———. 1942 Capitalism Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper
Sheperd W., 1975 The Treatment of Market Power: Anti-Trust, Regulation and Public Enterprise. New York: Columbia University Press
Stigler George. 1947 The Kinky Oligopoly Demand Curve and Rigid Prices. Journal of Political Economy 55, no. 5 432–49.Google Scholar
Sutton John. 1997 Gibrat's Legacy. Journal of Economic Literature 35 40–59.Google Scholar
Thompson Peter., 2002 “Surviving in Ships: Firm Capabilities and Survival in the US Iron and Steel Shipbuilding Industry, 1825–1914.” Carnegie Mellon, mimeo
Trajtenberg Manuel. A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations. Rand Journal of Economics 21, no. 1 (spring 1990): 172–87.
United States Patent and Trademark Office. Official Gazette. Washington, DC: GPO 1908–1928.
Whitney S. W. 1958 Antitrust Policies. Philadelphia: William Fell