Firm R&D behavior and evolving technology in established industries

Organization Science

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 352-367

  Knott, Anne Marie ^a   Posen, Hart E ^b  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST LOUIS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Appropriability; R D; Technological opportunity

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350401860     PISSN: 10477039     EISSN: 15265455     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1070.0332     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Adams, J. D., A. B. Jaffe. 1996. Bounding the effects of R&D: An investigation using matched establishment-firm data. RAND J. Econom. 27 700-721.
2. Adner, R., D. Levinthal. 2001. Demand heterogeneity and technology evolution: Implications for product and process innovation. Management Sci. 47(5) 611-628.
3. Agarwal, R., C. E. Helfat. 2009. Strategic renewal of organizations. Organ. Sci. 20(2) 281-293.
4. Agarwal, R., M. Gort. 2001. First-mover advantage and the speed of competitive entry, 1887-1986. J. Law Econom. 44(1) 161-177.
5. Aghion, P., C. Harris, P. Howitt, J. Vickers. 2001. Competition, imitation and growth with step-by-step innovation. Rev. Econom. Stud. 68 467-492.
6. Benson, D., R. H. Ziedonis. 2009. Corporate venture capital as a window on new technologies: Implications for the performance of corporate investors when acquiring startups. Organ. Sci. 20(2) 329-351.
7. Blundell, R., R. Griffith, J. Van Reenan. 1995. Dynamic count data models of technological innovation. Econom. J. 105 333-344.
8. Bound, J., C. Cummins, Z. Griliches, B. Hall, A. Jaffe. 1984. Who does R&D and who patents? Z. Griliches, ed. R&D, Patents and Productivity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 21-34.
9. Cohen, W., R. Levin. 1989. Innovation and market structure. R. Schmalensee, R. Willig, eds. Handbook of Industrial Organization. Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam.
10. Cohen, W. M., J. P. Walsh. 2000. R&D spillovers, appropriability and R&D intensity: A survey-based approach. A Report for the Economic Assessment Office, Advanced Technology Program, Cambridge, MA.
11. Cohen, W. M., R. R. Nelson, J. P. Walsh. 2000. Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper 7552, Cambridge, MA.
12. Dasgupta, P., J. Stiglitz. 1980. Industrial structure and the nature of innovative activity. Econom. J. 90 266-293.
13. Eeckhout, J., B. Jovanovic. 2002. Knowledge spillovers and inequality. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92 1290-1307.
14. Fuller, W. A. 1987. Measurement Error Models. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
15. Gawande, K. 1997. Generated regressors in linear and nonlinear models. Econom. Lett. 54(2) 119-126.
16. Gawande, K., U. Bandyopadhyay. 2000. Is protection for sale? Evidence on the Grossman-Helpman theory of endogenous protection. Rev. Econom. Statist. 82(1) 139-152.
17. Geroski, P., R. Pomroy. 1990. Innovation and the evolution of market structure. J. Indust. Econom. 38 299-314.
18. Gort, M., S. Klepper. 1982. Time paths in the diffusion of product innovations. Econom. J. 92 630-653.
19. Griliches, Z., J. Mairesse. 1984. Productivity and R&D at the firm level. Z. Griliches, ed. R&D, Patents, and Productivity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 339-374.
20. Grossman, G., E. Helpman. 1992. Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
21. Hall, B., R. Ziedonis. 2001. The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979- 1995. RAND J. Econom. 32(1) 101-128.
22. Jaffe, A. 1986. Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D. Amer. Econom. Rev. 76 984-1001.
23. Jaffe, A. 1988. Demand and supply influences in R&D intensity and productivity growth. Rev. Econom. Statist. 70 431-437.
24. Jovanovic, B., R. Rob. 1989. The growth and diffusion of knowledge. Rev. Econom. Stud. 56 569-582.
25. Kim, H. E., J. M. Pennings. 2009. Innovation and strategic renewal in mature markets: A study of the tennis racket industry. Organ. Sci. 20(2) 368-383.
26. Klepper, S. 1996. Exit, entry, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. Amer. Econom. Rev. 86(3) 562-583.
27. Klevorick, A., R. Levin, R. Nelson, S. Winter. 1995. On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Cowles Foundation Paper 896, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
28. Kmenta, J. 1997. Elements of Econometrics, 2nd ed. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
29. Knott, A. M. 2003. Persistent heterogeneity and sustainable innovation. Strategic Management J. 24(8) 687-705.
30. Knott, A. M., D. Bryce, H. Posen. 2003. On strategic accumulation of intangible assets. Organ. Sci. 14(2) 192-207.
31. Knott, A. M., H. Posen, B. Wu. 2007. Spillover asymmetry and why it matters. Working paper, Mack Center for Technological Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
32. Levin, R. 1988. Appropriability, R&D spending, and technological performance. Amer. Econom. Rev. 78 424-428.
33. Levin, R., P. Reiss. 1984. Test of a Schumpeterian model of R&D and market structure. Z. Griliches, ed. R&D, Patents and Productivity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 175-208.
34. Levin, R., P. Reiss. 1988. Cost-reducing and demand-creating R&D with spillovers. RAND J. Econom. 19(4) 538-556.
35. Levin, R., W. Cohen, D. Mowery. 1985. R&D appropriability, opportunity and market structure: New evidence on some Schumpeterian hypotheses. Amer. Econom. Rev. Proc. 75 20-24.
36. Levin, R., A. Klevorick, R. Nelson, S. Winter. 1987. Appropriating the returns from industrial R&D. Brookings Papers Econom. Activity 783-820.
37. Mookherjee, D., D. Ray. 1991. On the competitive pressure created by the diffusion of innovations. J. Econom. Theory 54 124-147.
38. Mukoyama, T. 2003. Innovation, imitation and growth with cumulative technology. J. Monetary Econom. 50 361-380.
39. Nelson, R., S. Winter. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
40. Nickel, S. 1996. Competition and corporate performance. J. Political Econom. 104 724-746.
41. Peretto, P. 1999. Cost reduction, entry, and the interdependence of market structure and economic growth. J. Monetary Econom. 43 173-195.
42. Puranam, P., H. Singh, S. Chaudhuri. 2009. Integrating acquired capabilities: When structural integration is (un)necessary. Organ. Sci. 20(2) 313-328.
43. Romer, P. 1990. Endogenous technological change. J. Political Econom. 98 S71-S102.
44. Salvato, C. 2009. Capabilities unveiled: The role of ordinary activities in the evolution of product development processes. Organ. Sci. 20(2) 384-409.
45. Sarkar, M. B., R. Echambadi, R. Agarwal, B. Sen. 2006. The effect of the innovative environment on exit of entrepreneurial firms. Strategic Management J. 27(6) 519-539.
46. Schmookler, J. 1966. Invention and Economic Growth. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
47. Scott, J. 1984. Firm versus industry variability in R&D intensity. Z. Griliches, ed. R&D, Patents and Productivity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
48. Shrieves, R. 1978. Market structure and innovation: A new perspective. J. Indust. Econom. 26 329-347.
49. Solow, R. 1957. Technical change and the aggregate production function. Rev. Econom. Statist. 39 312-320.
50. Spence, A. M. 1984. Cost reduction, competition and industrial performance. Econometrica 52 101-121.
51. Swamy, P., G. S. Tavlas. 1995. Random coefficient models: Theory and applications. J. Econom. Surveys 9(2) 165-196.
52. Zucker, L., M. Darby, M. Brewer. 1989. Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. Amer. Econom. Rev. 88 290-306.