Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:01:25.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ENDOGENOUS GROWTH AND STRUCTURAL CHANGE THROUGH VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL INNOVATIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2017

Anton Bondarev  and
Alfred Greiner
Anton Bondarev*
Affiliation:
Basel University
Alfred Greiner
Affiliation:
Bielefeld University
*
Address correspondence to: Anton Bondarev, Department of Business and Economics, Basel University, Peter-Merian Weg 6, 4002 Basel, Switzerland; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper combines horizontal and vertical innovations to generate an endogenous growth model allowing for structural change as an endogenous phenomenon. Older technologies are continuously replaced by newer ones due to creative destruction, and new technologies appear as a result of horizontal innovations and due to the consumers' preference for variety. We assume fixed operational costs for the manufacturing sector and an endogenously defined patent price for every new technology. Every industry is profitable only for a limited period of time, making the effective time of existence of the technology endogenous and finite. We find that in such an economy endogenous structural change is the source of ongoing economic growth. Furthermore, the range of existing sectors as well as growth rates stays constant as long as the technologies are symmetric.

Keywords

Endogenous GrowthCreative DestructionArrow Replacement EffectEndogenous Structural ChangeHorizontal InnovationEndogenous Patents
Type
Articles
Information
Macroeconomic Dynamics , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 52 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

We thank two referees for comments on an ealier version that helped to improve the paper. Financial support from the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) is gratefully acknowledged (grant 01LA1105C). This research is part of the project ‘Climate Policy and the Growth Pattern of Nations (CliPoN)’.

References

REFERENCES

Acemoglu, D. and Cao, D. (2015) Innovation by entrants and incumbents. Journal of Economic Theory 157 (C), 255–294.Google Scholar
Aghion, P. and Howitt, P. (1992) A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 60 (2), 323–351.Google Scholar
Albernathy, W. and Utterback, J. (1985) Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy 14 (1), 3–22.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. (1962) Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In Nelson, R. R. (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pp. 609–626. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Belyakov, A., Tsachev, T., and Veliov, V. (2011) Optimal control of heterogeneous systems with endogenous domain of heterogeneity. Applied Mathematics and Optimization 64 (2), 287–311.Google Scholar
Bondarev, A. (2012) The long run dynamics of heterogeneous product and process innovations for a multi product monopolist. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 21 (8), 775–799.Google Scholar
Bondarev, A. (2014) Endogenous specialization of heterogeneous innovative activities of firms under the technological spillovers. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 38, 235–249.Google Scholar
Boucekkine, R., del Rio, F., and Licandro, O. (2005) Obsolescence and modernization in the growth process. Journal of Development Economics 77 (1), 153–171.Google Scholar
Bresnahan, T. (2010) General purpose technologies. In Hall, B. H. and Rosenberg, N. (eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, vol. 2, pp. 761–791, Chap. 18. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Chu, A. C. (2011) The welfare cost of one-size-fits-all patent protection. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 35 (6), 876–890.Google Scholar
Chu, A. C., Cozzi, G., and Galli, S. (2012) Does intellectual monopoly stimulate or stifle innovation? European Economic Review 56 (4), 727–746.Google Scholar
Flanders, H. (1973) Differentiation under the integral sign. The American Mathematical Monthly 80 (6), 615–627.Google Scholar
Grimaud, A. and Rouge, L. (2004) Polluting non-renewable resources, tradeable permits and endogenous growth. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 4 (1), 38–57.Google Scholar
Grossman, G. M. and Helpman, E. (1993) Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Huntington, H. (2010) Structural change and us energy use: Recent patterns. The Energy Journal 31 (3), 25–39.Google Scholar
Laitner, J. (2000) Structural change and economic growth. Review of Economic Studies 67 (3), 545–561.Google Scholar
Lambertini, L. (2003) The monopolist optimal R&D portfolio. Oxford Economic Papers 55 (4), 561–578.Google Scholar
Meckl, J. (2002) Structural change and generalized balanced growth. Journal of Economics 77 (3), 241–266.Google Scholar
Ngai, L. R. and Pissarides, C. A. (2007) Structural change in a multisector model of growth. American Economic Review 97 (1), 429–443.Google Scholar
Nordhaus, W. D. (1967) The Optimal Life of a Patent. Cowles Foundation discussion papers 241, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.Google Scholar
Peretto, P. and Connolly, M. (2007) The manhattan metaphor. Journal of Economic Growth 12 (4), 329–350.Google Scholar
Romer, P. (1990) Endogenous technological change. The Journal of Political Economy 98 (5), S71–S102.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. (1942) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar