Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:47:43.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Innovation and institutions from the bottom up: an introduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2018

DAVID A. HARPER
DAVID A. HARPER*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, New York University, New York, NY, USA
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This introduction canvasses broad themes relating to the nexus of innovation and institutions. It first examines the notion of a “new combination” – a core analytical concept in economic theories of innovation and explanations of emergent novelty through bottom-up processes. Following Schumpeter, different theorists have made different claims about the composition and structure of new combinations. Possible constituent elements include factors of production, capital goods, routines, information, ideas, technologies, and property rights. The article then looks synoptically at the institutional dimensions of innovation from alternative perspectives that focus upon different kinds of institutional rules and policy solutions to innovation problems. Neoclassical and evolutionary approaches tend to emphasize specific policy interventions in markets to channel behavior toward particular desired outcomes, whereas institutional and Austrian approaches tend to focus upon general institutional rules (e.g. property and contract) that frame markets and innovation processes. Finally, this article summarizes the papers in the special issue.

Type
Introduction
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 14 , Special Issue 6: Special Issue on Innovation and Institutions From The Bottom Up , December 2018 , pp. 975 - 1001
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2018 

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

Allen, D. W. (2015), ‘On Hodgson on Property Rights’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 11 (4): 711–717.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. (1962), ‘Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention’, in Nelson, R. (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, Princeton, NJ: NBER, Princeton University Press, pp. 609–626.Google Scholar
Arthur, W. B. (2009), The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, J. (2018), ‘The Costs of Free: Commodification, Bundling and Concentration’, Journal of Institutional Economics, published online. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137418000012 (accessed 20 May 2018).Google Scholar
Barzel, Y. (1997), Economic Analysis of Property Rights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bateson, G. (1979), Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity, New York: E. P. Dutton.Google Scholar
Baumol, W. J. (2002), The Free-Market Innovation Machine: Analyzing the Growth Miracle of Capitalism, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Blaug, M. (1986), Economic History and the History of Economics, New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Bollard, A. and Harper, D. A. with Theron, M. (1987), Research and Development in New Zealand: A Public Policy Framework, NZIER Research Monograph 39, Wellington: New Zealand Institute of Economic Research.Google Scholar
Casson, M. (1982), The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory, Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble Books.Google Scholar
Demsetz, H. (1967), ‘Toward a Theory of Property Rights’, American Economic Review, 57 (2): 347–359.Google Scholar
Demsetz, H. (1969), ‘Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint’, Journal of Law and Economics, 12 (1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Dopfer, K. (2004), ‘The Economic Agent As Rule Maker and Rule User: Homo Sapiens Oeconomicus’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14 (2): 177–195.Google Scholar
Edquist, C. (2011), ‘Design of Innovation Policy Through Diagnostic Analysis: Identification of Systemic Problems (or Failures), Industrial and Corporate Change, 20 (6): 1725–1753.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, R. (2018), ‘Shifting Institutional Roles in Biomedical Innovation in a Learning Healthcare System’, Journal of Institutional Economics, published online. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137418000115 (accessed 20 May 2018).Google Scholar
Endres, A. M. and Harper, D. A. (2013), ‘“Wresting Meaning from the Market”: A Reassessment of Ludwig Lachmann's Entrepreneur’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 9 (3): 303–328.Google Scholar
Foray, D., David, P. A. and Hall, B. H. (2009), ‘Smart Specialisation: The Concept’, in European Commission, Knowledge for Growth: Prospects for Science, Technology and Innovation, Report EUR 24047 EN, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, pp. 25–29.Google Scholar
Harper, D. A. (1996), Entrepreneurship and the Market Process: An Inquiry into the Growth of Knowledge, New York: Routledge Publishers.Google Scholar
Harper, D. A. (2008), ‘Towards a Theory of Entrepreneurial Teams’, Journal of Business Venturing, 23 (6): 613–626.Google Scholar
Harper, D. A. (2003), Foundations of Entrepreneurship and Economic Development, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harper, D. A. (2014), ‘Property as a Complex Adaptive System: How Entrepreneurship Transforms Intellectual Property Structures’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 24 (2): 335–355.Google Scholar
Harper, D. A. and Endres, A. M. (2012), ‘The Anatomy of Emergence, with a Focus upon Capital Formation’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 82 (2–3): 352–367.Google Scholar
Harper, D. A. and Endres, A. M. (2015), ‘Innovation, Recombinant Capital and Public Policy’, Supreme Court Economic Review, 23 (1): 193–219.Google Scholar
Harper, D. A., and Endres, A. M. (2017), ‘From Quaker Oats to Virgin Brides: Brand Building as a Complex Adaptive System’, Journal of Institutional Economics, published online. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137417000546 (accessed 20 May 2018).Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1949), Individualism and the Economic Order, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. ([1963]2014), ‘The Economy, Science and Politics’, in Caldwell, B. (ed.), The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Vol. 15, The Market and Other Orders, New York: Routledge, pp. 213–231.Google Scholar
Kirzner, I. M. (1992), The Meaning of Market Process: Essays in the Development of Modern Austrian Economics, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kirzner, I. M. (2000), The Driving Force of the Market: Essays in Austrian Economics, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lachmann, L. M. (1956), Capital and its Structure, London: G. Bell.Google Scholar
Lachmann, L. M. (1977), Capital, Expectations, and the Market Process: Essays on the Theory of the Market Economy, Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel.Google Scholar
Lachmann, L. M. (1986), The Market as an Economic Process, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Langlois, R. (2017), ‘Fission, Forking, and Fine Tuning’, Journal of Institutional Economics, published online: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137417000455 (accessed 20 May 2018).Google Scholar
Laranja, M., Uyarra, E. and Flanagan, K. (2008), ‘Policies for Science, Technology and Innovation: Translating Rationales into Regional Policies in a Multi-Level Setting’, Research Policy, 37 (5): 823–835.Google Scholar
Malerba, F. (2002), ‘Sectoral Systems of Innovation and Production’, Research Policy, 31 (2), 247–264.Google Scholar
Martin, S. and Scott, J. T. (2000), ‘The Nature of Innovation Market Failure and the Design of Public Support for Private Innovation’, Research Policy, 29 (4–5): 437–447.Google Scholar
Mazzucato, M. (2016), ‘From Market Fixing to Market-Creating: A New Framework for Innovation Policy, Industry and Innovation, 23 (2): 140–156.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, J. S. (2001), ‘Institutions and Progress’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 10 (3): 561–586.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, J. S. (2007), ‘Innovation Systems, Innovation Policy and Restless Capitalism’, in Malerba, F. and Brusoni, S. (eds), Perspectives on Innovation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 441–454.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, J. S. (2010), ‘Complexity and Emergence in Economics: The Road from Smith to Hayek (via Marshall and Schumpeter)’, History of Economic Ideas, 18 (2): 45–75.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, J. S. and Georghiou, L. (1998), ‘Equilibrium and Evolutionary Foundations of Technology Policy’, OECD STI Review, No. 22, 75–100.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, J. S., and De Liso, N., Gagliardi, D., and Ramlogan, R. (2012), ‘Innovation Systems and Innovation Ecologies: Innovation Policy and Restless Capitalism’, OPENLOC Working Paper Series, Working Paper No. 3/12, Trento: OPENLOC, University of Trento.Google Scholar
Mokyr, J. (2017), ‘Bottom Up or Top-down? The Origins of the Industrial Revolution’, Journal of Institutional Economics, published online. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S174413741700042XGoogle Scholar
Moreau, F. (2004), ‘The Role of the State in Evolutionary Economics’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28 (6): 847–874.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. (ed.) (1993), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. (2002a), ‘Bringing Institutions into Evolutionary Growth Theory’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12 (1–2): 17–28.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. (2002b), ‘Technology, Institutions, and Innovation Systems’, Research Policy, 31 (2): 265–272.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. (2013), ‘Demand, Supply, and Their Interaction on Markets, As Seen From the Perspective of Evolutionary Economic Theory’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 23 (1): 17–38.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. and Sampat, B. N. (2001), ‘Making Sense of Institutions as a Factor Shaping Economic Performance’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 44 (1), 31–54.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nickles, T. (2009), ‘The Strange Story of Scientific Method’, in Meheus, J. and Nickles, T. (eds), Models of Discovery and Creativity, New York: Springer, pp. 167–207.Google Scholar
North, D. C. (2005), Understanding the Process of Economic Change, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
OECD (2010), The OECD Innovation Strategy: Getting A Head Start on Tomorrow, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
OECD (2015), The Innovation Imperative: Contributing to Productivity, Growth and Well-Being, Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Pejovich, S. (1984), ‘The Incentive to Innovate Under Alternative Property Rights’, Cato Journal, 4 (2): 427–446.Google Scholar
Phelps, E. (2013), Mass Flourishing: How Grassroots Innovation Created Jobs, Challenge, and Change, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Potts, J. (2017), ‘Governing the Innovation Commons’, Journal of Institutional Economics, published online. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137417000479Google Scholar
Rodrik, D. (2007), One Economics, Many Recipes: Globalization, Institutions and Economic Growth, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, P. (2018), ‘Market Failure vs. System Failure as a Rationale for Economic Policy? A Critique from an Evolutionary Perspective’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. (1912), Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung [ The Theory of Economic Development], Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. (1928), ‘The Instability of Capitalism’, Economic Journal, 38 (151), 361–386.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest and the Business Cycle, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. (1939), Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process, two volumes, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. (1947), ‘The Creative Response in Economic History’, Journal of Economic History, 7 (2): 149–159.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. (2002), ‘New Translations: Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung’, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 61 (2): 405–437.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. (2003), ‘Entrepreneur’, Advances in Austrian Economics, 6: 235–265.Google Scholar
Shackle, G. L. S. (1972), Epistemics and Economics: A Critique of Economic Doctrines, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shane, S. and Nicolaou, N. (2017), ‘Exploring the Changing Institutions of Early-stage Finance’, Journal of Institutional Economics, published online. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137417000467Google Scholar
Stiglitz, J. E. and Greenwald, B. C. (2014), Creating a Learning Society: A New Approach to Growth, Development, and Social Progress, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Stiglitz, J. E. and Lin, Y. J. (eds) (2013), Industrial Policy Revolution I: The Role of Government Beyond Ideology, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Vanberg, V. J. (2001), The Constitution of Markets: Essays in Political Economy, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Valéry, N. (1999), ‘Industry Gets Religion’, The Economist, no. 8107 (20 February): 5.Google Scholar
Weitzman, M. L. (1998), ‘Recombinant Growth’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113 (2): 331–360.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. E. (1985), The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. E. (2000), ‘The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead’, Journal of Economic Literature, 38 (3): 595–613.Google Scholar