A Schumpeterian Growth Model with Heterogenous Firms

Minniti, A. and Parello, C. and Segerstrom, P. S. (2008): A Schumpeterian Growth Model with Heterogenous Firms.

Abstract

A common assumption in the Schumpeterian growth literature is that the innovation size is constant and identical across industries. This is in contrast with the empirical evidence which shows that: (i) the innovation size is far from being identical across industries; and (ii) the size distribution of profit returns from innovation is highly skewed toward the low value side, with a long tail on the high value side. In the present paper, we develop a Schumpeterian growth model that is consistent with this evidence. In particular, we assume that when a firm innovates, the size of its quality improvement is the result of a random draw from a Pareto distribution. This enables us to extend the class of quality-ladder growth models to encompass firm heterogeneity. We study the policy implications of this new set-up numerically and find that it is optimal to heavily subsidize R&D for plausible parameter values. Although it is optimal to tax R&D for some parameter values, this case only occurs when the steady-state rate of economic growth is very low.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Schumpeterian Growth, R&D, optimal policy
• Subjects: L - Industrial Organization > L1 - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance > L16 - Industrial Organization and Macroeconomics: Industrial Structure and Structural Change ; Industrial Price Indices; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O38 - Government Policy; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O31 - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives; E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics > E1 - General Aggregative Models > E10 - General

References

[1] Acemoglu, D. (2008). Introduction to Modern Economic Growth, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, unpublished book manuscript.

[2] Aghion P. and P. Howitt (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction, Econometrica 60, pp. 323-351.

[3] Basu S. (1996). Procyclical Productivity: Increasing Returns or Cyclical Utilization, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 111, pp. 709-751.

[4] Bental B. and D. Peled (1996). Endogenous Technical Progress and Growth: a Search Theoretic Approach, International Economic Review, Vol. 37, pp. 687-718.

[5] Bental B. and D. Peled (2002). Quantitative growth eects of subsidies in a search theoretic R&D model, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 12, issue 4, pp. 397-423.

[6] Bertran F. L. (2003). Pricing Patents through Citations, University of Rochester, mimeo.

[7] Cohen, W.M. and R. C. Levin (1989). Empirical studies of innovation and market structure, in (R. Schmalensee and R. D. Willig eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, Vol. 2, 1059-1107.

[8] Dinopoulos E. and P. Thompson (1998). Schumpeterian Growth Without Scale Eects, Journal of Economic Growth, 3, pp. 313-335.

[9] Griliches Z. (1992). The Search for R&D Spillovers. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94, pp. 29-47.

[10] Grossman G. M. and E. Helpman (1991). Innovation in the Global Economy. MIT Press.

[11] Ha J. and P. Howitt (2007). Accounting for Trends in Productivity and R&D: A Schumpeterian Critique of Semi-Endogenous Growth Theory. Journal of Money Credit and Banking, 33, pp. 733-774.

[12] Hall B. H., A. B. Jae and M. Trajtenberg (2000). Market value and patent citations: A first look. NBER Working Paper n. 7741.

[13] Hall B. H., A. B. Jae and M. Trajtenberg (2001). The NBER Patent Citation Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools. NBER Working Paper n. 8498.

[14] Harho D., F. M. Scherer and K. Vopel (1997). Exploring the Tail of Patented Invention Value Distributions, WZB Working Paper, n. 97-27.

[15] Jae A., and M. Trajtenberg (1996). Flows of Knowledge from universities and federal labs: Modelling the ow of patent citations over time and across institutional and geographic boundaries, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, n. 93, pp. 12671-12677.

[16] Jones, C.I. (2005). Growth and Ideas, in (P. Aghion and S. Durlauf eds.), Handbook of Economic Growth, Elsevier, 1063-1111.

[17] Jones, C.I., and J. Williams (2000). Too much of a good thing: The economics of investment in R&D. Journal of Economic Growth, 5, pp. 65-85.

[18] Klemperer, P. (1990). How broad should the scope patent protection be?. RAND Journal of Economics, 21, n. 1, pp. 113-131.

[19] Kortum S. (1997). Research, Patenting and Technological Change. Econometrica, 65, pp. 1389-1420.

[20] Li C. W. (2001). On the Policy Implications of Endogenous Technological Progress. Economic Journal, 111, pp. 164-179.

[21] Li C. W. (2003). Endogenous Growth without Scale Eects: Comment, The American Economic Review, 93, n. 3, pp. 1009-1017.

[22] Mehra, R., and E. C. Prescott. (1985). The Equity Premium: A Puzzle, Journal of Monetary Economics, 15, 145-161.

[23] Melitz M. J. (2003). The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity, Econometrica, Vol. 71, pp. 1695-1725.

[24] Melitz M. J. and G. I. P. Ottaviano (2003). Market Size, Trade, and Productivity, Harvard University, mimeo.

[25] Norrbin S. C. (1993). The Relationship between Price and Marginal Cost in US Industry: a Contradiction, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 101, pp. 1149-1164.

[26] O'Donoghue T. (1998). A Patentability Requirement for Sequential Innovation, RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 29(4), pp. 654-679.

[27] O'Donoghue T., S. Schotchmer and J. F. Thisse (1998). Patents Breath, Patents Life, and the Pace of Technological Progress, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, Vol. 7, pp. 1-32.

[28] O'Donoghue T. and J. Zweimuller (2004). Patents in a model of endogenous growth, Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 81(9), pp. 81-123.

[29] Popp D., (2005). Uncertain R&D and the Porter Hypothesis, The B.E. Journals in Economic Analysis & Policy (Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy), Vol. 4, issue 1, article 6.

[30] Scherer F. M. (1965). Firm Size, Market Structure, Opportunity, and the Output of Patented Inventions", American Economic Review, Vol. 55, pp. 1097-1123.

[31] Segerstrom P. (1998). Endogenous Growth without Scale Eects, American Economic Review, 88, N. 5, pp. 1290-1310.

[32] Segerstrom P. (2007). Intel Economics, International Economic Review, 48, N. 1, pp. 247-280.

[33] Silverberg G. and B. Verspagen (2004). The size distribution of innovation revised: An application of extreme vale statistics to citation an value measures of patent signicance. ECIS Working Paper n. 14.17

[34] Steger T. (2003). The Segerstrom Model: Stability, Speed of Convergence and Policy Implications, Economics Bulletin, 15, pp. 1-8.

[35] Sveikauskas L. (2007). R&D and Productivity Growth: A Review of the Literature. BLS Working Paper n. 408.

[36] Thompson P. (1999). Rationality, rules of thumb, and R&D, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 10, pp. 321-340.

[37] Thompson P. and D. Waldo (1994). Growth and Trustied Capitalism, Journal of Monetary Economics 34, pp. 445-462.

[38] World Bank (2003), World Development Indicators, Washington, DC.