Patents, R&D subsidies and endogenous market structure in a Schumpeterian economy

Chu, Angus C. and Furukawa, Yuichi and Ji, Lei (2012): Patents, R&D subsidies and endogenous market structure in a Schumpeterian economy.

Abstract

In this note, we explore the different implications of patent breadth and R&D subsidies on economic growth and endogenous market structure in a Schumpeterian growth model. We find that when the number of firms is fixed in the short run, patent breadth and R&D subsidies serve to increase economic growth as in previous studies. However, when market structure adjusts endogenously in the long run, R&D subsidies increase economic growth but decrease the number of firms, whereas patent breadth expands the number of firms but reduces economic growth. Therefore, in accordance with empirical evidence, R&D subsidy is perhaps a more suitable policy instrument than patent breadth for the purpose of stimulating long-run economic growth.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: economic growth; endogenous market structure; patents; R&D subsidies
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O30 - General; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O4 - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity > O40 - General

References

Aghion, P., and Howitt, P., 1992. A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60, 323-351.

Aghion, P., and Howitt, P., 2005. Growth with quality-improving innovations: An integrated framework. In P. Aghion and S. Durlauf (eds.), Handbook of Economic Growth, Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 67-110.

Aghion, P., and Howitt, P., 2008. The Economics of Growth. The MIT Press.

Bessen, J., and Meurer, M., 2008. Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Boldrin, M., and Levine, D., 2008. Against Intellectual Monopoly. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Chu, A., 2009. Effects of blocking patents on R&D: A quantitative DGE analysis. Journal of Economic Growth, 14, 55-78.

Chu, A., 2011. The welfare cost of one-size-fits-all patent protection. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 35, 876-890.

Chu, A., Cozzi, G., and Galli, S., 2012. Does intellectual monopoly stimulate or stifle innovation? European Economic Review, 56, 727-746.

Chu, A., and Furukawa, Y., 2011. On the optimal mix of patent instruments. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 35, 1964-1975.

Chu, A., and Pan, S., 2013. The escape-infringement effect of blocking patents on innovation and economic growth. Macroeconomic Dynamics, 17, 955-969.

Etro, F., 2009. Endogenous Market Structures and the Macroeconomy. New York and Berlin: Springer.

Furukawa, Y., 2007. The protection of intellectual property rights and endogenous growth: Is stronger always better? Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 31, 3644-3670.

Furukawa, Y., 2010. Intellectual property protection and innovation: An inverted-U relationship. Economics Letters, 109, 99-101.

Futagami, K., and Iwaisako, T., 2007. Dynamic analysis of patent policy in an endogenous growth model. Journal of Economic Theory, 132, 306-334.

Gilbert, R., and Shapiro, C., 1990. Optimal patent length and breadth. RAND Journal of Economics, 21, 106-112.

Goh, A.-T., and Olivier, J., 2002. Optimal patent protection in a two-sector economy. International Economic Review, 43, 1191--1214.

Grossman, G., and Helpman, E., 1991. Quality ladders in the theory of growth. Review of Economic Studies, 58, 43-61.

Ha, J., and Howitt, P., 2007. Accounting for trends in productivity and R&D: A Schumpeterian critique of semi-endogenous growth theory. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 39, 733-774.

Hall, B., and Van Reenen, J., 2000. How effective are fiscal incentives for R&D? A review of the evidence. Research Policy, 29, 449-469.

Horii, R., and Iwaisako, T., 2007. Economic growth with imperfect protection of intellectual property rights. Journal of Economics, 90, 45-85.

Howitt, P., 1999. Steady endogenous growth with population and R&D inputs growing. Journal of Political Economy, 107, 715-730.

Iwaisako, T., and Futagami, K., 2003. Patent policy in an endogenous growth model. Journal of Economics, 78, 239-258.

Iwaisako, T., and Futagami, K., 2013. Patent protection, capital accumulation, and economic growth. Economic Theory, 52, 631-668.

Jaffe, A., and Lerner, J., 2004. Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken System is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do About It. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Laincz, C., and Peretto, P., 2006. Scale effects in endogenous growth theory: An error of aggregation not specification. Journal of Economic Growth, 11, 263-288.

Li, C.-W., 2001. On the policy implications of endogenous technological progress. Economic Journal, 111, C164-C179.

Lin, H., 2002. Shall the Northern optimal R&D subsidy rate inversely respond to Southern intellectual property protection?. Southern Economic Journal, 69, 381-397.

Lin, H., 2014. Creative destruction and optimal patent life in a variety-expansion growth model. Southern Economic Journal, forthcoming.

Madsen, J., 2008. Semi-endogenous versus Schumpeterian growth models: testing the knowledge production function using international data. Journal of Economic Growth, 13, 1-26.

O'Donoghue, T., and Zweimuller, J., 2004. Patents in a model of endogenous growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 9, 81-123.

Peretto, P., 1996. Sunk costs, market structure, and growth. International Economic Review, 37, 895-923.

Peretto, P., 1998. Technological change and population growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 3, 283-311.

Peretto, P., 1999. Cost reduction, entry, and the interdependence of market structure and economic growth. Journal of Monetary Economics, 43, 173-195.

Peretto, P., 2007. Corporate taxes, growth and welfare in a Schumpeterian economy. Journal of Economic Theory, 137, 353-382.

Peretto, P., 2011. The growth and welfare effects of deficit-financed dividend tax cuts. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 43, 835-869.

Peretto, P., 2013. From Smith to Schumpeter: A theory of take-off and convergence to sustained growth. ERID Working Paper No. 148.

Peretto, P., and Connolly, M., 2007. The Manhattan metaphor. Journal of Economic Growth, 12, 329-350.

Romer, P., 1990. Endogenous technological progress. Journal of Political Economy, 98, S71--S102.

Segerstrom, P., 1998. Endogenous growth without scale effects. American Economic Review, 88, 1290-1310.

Segerstrom, P., 2000. The long-run growth effects of R&D subsidies. Journal of Economic Growth, 5, 277-305.

Segerstrom, P., Anant, T.C.A. and Dinopoulos, E., 1990. A Schumpeterian model of the product life cycle. American Economic Review, 80, 1077-91.

Young, A., 1998. Growth without scale effects. Journal of Political Economy, 106, 41-63.

Zeng, J., and Zhang, J., 2007. Subsidies in an R&D growth model with elastic labor. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 31, 861-886.

Zeng, J., Zhang, J., and Fung, M., 2014. Patents and price regulation in an R&D growth model. Macroeconomic Dynamics, 18, 1-22.