Innovation and Imitation at Various Stages of Development

Polterovich, Victor and Tonis, Alexander (2003): Innovation and Imitation at Various Stages of Development.

Abstract

A simple model of imitation and innovation is developed to explain a complicated picture of relative productivity growth in different countries. The model makes difference between global and local innovations and does not assume that a country always imitates the most advanced technology. It is shown that there are three types of stationary states, where only imitation, only innovation or a mixed policy prevails. We demonstrate how one can find the stationary states and check their stability for a broad class of imitation-innovation cost functions.

Using World Bank statistical data for the period of 1980-1999, we reveal the dependence of innovation and imitation costs on GDP per capita measured in PPP and on an indicator of investment risk. An appropriate choice of two adjustment parameters of the model gives a possibility to generate trajectories of more than 80 countries and, for most of them, get qualitatively correct pictures of their movement. It turns out that three groups of countries behave differently, and there is a tendency to converge inside each group. Increase in institutional quality get countries out of underdevelopment traps, from the imitation area to a better steady state where local innovations and imitations are jointly used. All countries with high quality of institutions are moving toward the area where pure innovation policy prevails.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: innovation; imitation; institutional quality
• Subjects: 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

References

Acemoglu, D., Ph. Aghion, and F. Zilibotti (2002a). Distance to Frontier, Selection, and Economic Growth. June 25, 2002

Acemoglu, D., Ph. Aghion and F. Zilibotti (2002b). Vertical Integration and Distance to Frontier. August 2002

Henkin, G., and V.Polterovich (1999). A Difference-Differential Analogue of the Burgers Equation and Some Models of Economic Development. Discrete and Continuous Dynamic Systems, 5(4): 697–728.

Aghion, Ph., and P.Howitt (1998). Endogenous Growth Theory. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, p694.

Azariadis, C., and A. Drazen, (1990). Threshold Externalities in Economic Development. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105(2): 501–526.

Barro, R. J., and X. Sala-i-Martin (1995). Economic Growth. New York: McGraw- Hill.

Barro, R. J. (1996). Institutions and Growth: An Introductory Essay. Journal of Economic Growth, 1(1): 145–148.

Iwai, K. (1984). Schumpeterian Dynamics, Part I: An evolutionary model of innovation and imitation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, v. 5, 159–190.

Iwai, K. (1984). Schumpeterian Dynamics, Part II: Technological Progress, Form growth and “Economic Selection”. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, v. 5, 287–320.

Polterovich, V., G. Henkin (1988). An Evolutionary Model of the Interaction of the Processes of Creation and Adoption of Technologies. Economics and Mathematical Methods, v. 24, N. 6, 1071–1083 (in Russian).

Segerstrom P. S. (1991). Innovation, Imitation, and Economic Growth. Journal of Political Economy, v. 99, N. 4, 807–827.

Silverberg G. and B. Verspagen (1994). Economic Dynamics and Behavior Adaptation: An Application To An Evolutionary Endogenous Growth Model. IIASA Working Paper, WP–94–84, September

Pack, H. (2001).Technological Change and Growth in East Asia: Macro Versus Micro Perspectives. In Stiglitz J. E. and S. Yusuf (eds.): Rethinking the East Asian Miracle. Ch. 3, 95–142.

Ruttan, V. (1997). Induced Innovation, Evolutionary Theory, and Path Dependence: Sources of Technical Change. Economic Journal, V. 107, September, 1520–1529.

Bresis, E., P. Krugman, and D. Tsiddon (1993). Leapfrogging in international Competition: A Theory of Cycles in National Technological Leadership, American Economic Review, V. 83, No. 5. 1211–1219.