Patent, Inequality and Innovation-Driven Growth

Hatipoglu, Ozan (2008): Patent, Inequality and Innovation-Driven Growth.

Abstract

When people have hierarchic preferences inequality affects innovation-driven growth through the implied demand distribution over new goods. The paper examines the demand path of the firm through its life-cycle and analyzes the efficiency of dynamic resource allocation under different inequality scenarios. Unlike previous models of inequality and demand induced innovation, the innovators are protected by patents of finite length. Longer patents increase the profitability of an innovation because they reduce the effect of inequality by increasing the likelihood that the firms benefit from a future demand jump in sales to the poor. This result does not hold, however, when initial inequality is low or the purchasing power of the poor is high. Moreover, reducing inequality does not increase growth as long as the amount of redistribution is below a threshold level.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: innovation dynamics, finite patents, hierarchic preferences, wealth inequality
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development > O15 - Human Resources ; Human Development ; Income Distribution ; Migration; 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; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development > O14 - Industrialization ; Manufacturing and Service Industries ; Choice of Technology

References

Aghion, P and Bolton, P. (1997). "A trickle-down theory of growth and development with debt overhang", Review of Economic Studies, vol 64(2), pp. 151-162 . Aghion, P. and Howitt, P. (1992). "A model of growth through creative destruction", Econometrica, vol 60(2), pp. 323 - 351. Baland, J-M. and Ray, D. (1991). "Why does asset inequality affect unemployment? A Study of Demand Composition Problem", Journal of Development Economics, vol. 35(1) , pp. 69 - 92. Barro, R. (2000). "Inequality and growth in a panel of countries", Journal of Economic Growth, vol. 5(1), pp. 87--120. Benabou, R. (1996). "Inequality and growth", NBER Macro Annual, 11, pp. 11-74. Bourguignon F. (1981). "Pareto-superiority of unegalitarian equilibria in Stiglitz' model of wealth distribution with convex-savings function", Econometrica, vol. 49 (6), pp.1469 -1475. Caselli, F. and Ventura, J. (2000). "A representative consumer theory of distribution', American Economic Review, vol.90(4), pp. 909 - 926. Chou, C-F. and Talmain, G. (1996). "Redistribution and growth: pareto improvements", Journal of Economic Growth, vol.1, pp. 505 - 523. Foellmi, R. and Zweimüller, J. (2006). "Income distribution and demand-induced innovations", Review of Economic Studies, vol 73(4), pp. 941 - 960. Forbes, K. (2000). "A reassessment of the relationship between inequality and growth", American Economic Review, vol. 90(4), pp. 869 - 887. Galor, O. and Zeira, J. (1993). "Income distribution and macroeconomics", Review of Economic Studies, vol 60(1) , pp. 35 - 54. Greenwood, J.and Mukoyama, T. (2001). "The effect of income distribution on the timing of new product introductions", University of Rochester, mimeo Grossman, G. and Helpman, E. (1991). Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Horowitz, A.W., and Lai, E. L.-C.(1996). " Patent length and the rate of innovation", International Economic Review, vol. 37(4), pp. 785-801. Judd, K. L. (1985). "On the performance of patents", Econometrica, vol. 53(3), pp. 567 - 585. Kennedy,C.M. (1964). "Induced bias in innovation and the theory of distribution", Economic Journal, 74(295), 541--547. Kuznets, S. (1955). "Economic growth and income inequality", American Economic Review, vol.45(1), pp. 1-28. Kuznets, S. (1963). "Quantitative aspects of the economic growth of nations", Economic Development and Cultural Change, vol. 11(1), pp. 1-80. Laussel, D. and Nyssen, J. (1999). "Endogenous growth and multiplicity due to finite patents' lifetime," Economics Letters, vol. 63(2), pp.167-173. Li, H. and Zou H. (1998). "Income inequality is not harmful for growth: theory and evidence", Review of Development Economics, vol.2(3), pp. 318-334. Matsuyama, K. (1991). "Increasing returns, industrialization, and the indeterminacy of equilibrium',Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol.106(2), pp. 617-650. Matsuyama,K.(2000). "A ricardian model with a continuum of goods under non-homothetic preferences: demand complementarities, income distribution and north--south trade", Journal of Political Economy,108(6), 1093--1120. Matsuyama, K.(2002). "The rise of mass consumption societies", Journal of Political Economy, 110(5), 1035--1070. Murphy K. M, Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. W. (1989). "Income distribution, market size, and industrialization", Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 104(3), pp. 537 - 564. Okun, A. M. (1975). Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff. Washington: The Brookings Institution. Romer, P. M. (1986). "Increasing returns and long-run growth", Journal of Political Economy, vol. 94(5), pp. 1002-1037. Romer, P. M. (1990). "Endogeneous technological change", Journal of Political Economy, 98, 71-102. Stiglitz, J. (1969). "The distribution of income and wealth among individuals", Econometrica vol. 37(3), pp. 382-397. Young, A. (1993). "Substitution and complementarity in endogenous innovation", Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 108(3), pp. 775 - 807. Zweimüller, J. (2000). "Schumpeterian entrepreneurs meet Engel's law: the impact of inequality on innovation-driven growth", Journal of Economic Growth, vol. 5(2), pp. 185 - 206.