Firm R&D Behavior and Evolving Technology in Established Industries

References

• Adams J. D., Jaffe A. B. Bounding the effects of R&D: An investigation using matched establishment-firm data. RAND J. Econom. (1996) 27:700–721Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adner R., Levinthal D. Demand heterogeneity and technology evolution: Implications for product and process innovation. Management Sci. (2001) 47(5):611–628Link, Google Scholar
• Agarwal R., Helfat C. E. Strategic renewal of organizations. Organ. Sci. (2009) 20(2):281–293Link, Google Scholar
• Agarwal R., Gort M. First-mover advantage and the speed of competitive entry, 1887–1986. J. Law Econom. (2001) 44(1):161–177Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aghion P., Harris C., Howitt P., Vickers J. Competition, imitation and growth with step-by-step innovation. Rev. Econom. Stud. (2001) 68:467–492Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benson D., Ziedonis R. H. Corporate venture capital as a window on new technologies: Implications for the performance of corporate investors when acquiring startups. Organ. Sci. (2009) 20(2):329–351Link, Google Scholar
• Blundell R., Griffith R., Van Reenan J. Dynamic count data models of technological innovation. Econom. J. (1995) 105:333–344Google Scholar
• Bound J., Cummins C., Griliches Z., Hall B., Jaffe A., Griliches Z. Who does R&D and who patents? R&D, Patents and Productivity (1984) (University of Chicago Press, Chicago) 21–34Google Scholar
• Cohen W., Levin R., Schmalensee R., Willig R. Innovation and market structure. Handbook of Industrial Organization (1989) (Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam) Google Scholar
• Cohen W. M., Walsh J. P. R&D spillovers, appropriability and R&D intensity: A survey-based approach. (2000) . A Report for the Economic Assessment Office, Advanced Technology Program, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Cohen W. M., Nelson R. R., Walsh J. P. Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). (2000) . NBER Working Paper 7552, Cambridge, MACrossref, Google Scholar
• Dasgupta P., Stiglitz J. Industrial structure and the nature of innovative activity. Econom. J. (1980) 90:266–293Google Scholar
• Eeckhout J., Jovanovic B. Knowledge spillovers and inequality. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2002) 92:1290–1307Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fuller W. A.Measurement Error Models (1987) (John Wiley and Sons, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gawande K. Generated regressors in linear and nonlinear models. Econom. Lett. (1997) 54(2):119–126Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gawande K., Bandyopadhyay U. Is protection for sale? Evidence on the Grossman-Helpman theory of endogenous protection. Rev. Econom. Statist. (2000) 82(1):139–152Crossref, Google Scholar
• Geroski P., Pomroy R. Innovation and the evolution of market structure. J. Indust. Econom. (1990) 38:299–314Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gort M., Klepper S. Time paths in the diffusion of product innovations. Econom. J. (1982) 92:630–653Google Scholar
• Griliches Z., Mairesse J., Griliches Z. Productivity and R&D at the firm level. R&D, Patents, and Productivity (1984) (University of Chicago Press, Chicago) 339–374Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grossman G., Helpman E.Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy (1992) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Hall B., Ziedonis R. The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. RAND J. Econom. (2001) 32(1):101–128Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jaffe A. Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1986) 76:984–1001Google Scholar
• Jaffe A. Demand and supply influences in R&D intensity and productivity growth. Rev. Econom. Statist. (1988) 70:431–437Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jovanovic B., Rob R. The growth and diffusion of knowledge. Rev. Econom. Stud. (1989) 56:569–582Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim H. E., Pennings J. M. Innovation and strategic renewal in mature markets: A study of the tennis racket industry. Organ. Sci. (2009) 20(2):368–383Link, Google Scholar
• Klepper S. Exit, entry, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1996) 86(3):562–583Google Scholar
• Klevorick A., Levin R., Nelson R., Winter S. On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. (1995) . Cowles Foundation Paper 896, Yale University, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
• Kmenta J.Elements of Econometrics (1997) 2nd ed.(University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knott A. M. Persistent heterogeneity and sustainable innovation. Strategic Management J. (2003) 24(8):687–705Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knott A. M., Bryce D., Posen H. On strategic accumulation of intangible assets. Organ. Sci. (2003) 14(2):192–207Link, Google Scholar
• Knott A. M., Posen H., Wu B. Spillover asymmetry and why it matters. (2007) . Working paper, Mack Center for Technological Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
• Levin R. Appropriability, R&D spending, and technological performance. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1988) 78:424–428Google Scholar
• Levin R., Reiss P., Griliches Z. Test of a Schumpeterian model of R&D and market structure. R&D, Patents and Productivity (1984) (University of Chicago Press, Chicago) 175–208Google Scholar
• Levin R., Reiss P. Cost-reducing and demand-creating R&D with spillovers. RAND J. Econom. (1988) 19(4):538–556Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levin R., Cohen W., Mowery D. R&D appropriability, opportunity and market structure: New evidence on some Schumpeterian hypotheses. Amer. Econom. Rev. Proc. (1985) 75:20–24Google Scholar
• Levin R., Klevorick A., Nelson R., Winter S. Appropriating the returns from industrial R&D. Brookings Papers Econom. Activity (1987) 783–820Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mookherjee D., Ray D. On the competitive pressure created by the diffusion of innovations. J. Econom. Theory (1991) 54:124–147Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mukoyama T. Innovation, imitation and growth with cumulative technology. J. Monetary Econom. (2003) 50:361–380Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nelson R., Winter S.An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (1982) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Nickel S. Competition and corporate performance. J. Political Econom. (1996) 104:724–746Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peretto P. Cost reduction, entry, and the interdependence of market structure and economic growth. J. Monetary Econom. (1999) 43:173–195Crossref, Google Scholar
• Puranam P., Singh H., Chaudhuri S. Integrating acquired capabilities: When structural integration is (un)necessary. Organ. Sci. (2009) 20(2):313–328Link, Google Scholar
• Romer P. Endogenous technological change. J. Political Econom. (1990) 98:S71–S102Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salvato C. Capabilities unveiled: The role of ordinary activities in the evolution of product development processes. Organ. Sci. (2009) 20(2):384–409Link, Google Scholar
• Sarkar M. B., Echambadi R., Agarwal R., Sen B. The effect of the innovative environment on exit of entrepreneurial firms. Strategic Management J. (2006) 27(6):519–539Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schmookler J.Invention and Economic Growth (1966) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scott J., Griliches Z. Firm versus industry variability in R&D intensity. R&D, Patents and Productivity (1984) (University of Chicago Press, Chicago) Google Scholar
• Shrieves R. Market structure and innovation: A new perspective. J. Indust. Econom. (1978) 26:329–347Crossref, Google Scholar
• Solow R. Technical change and the aggregate production function. Rev. Econom. Statist. (1957) 39:312–320Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spence A. M. Cost reduction, competition and industrial performance. Econometrica (1984) 52:101–121Crossref, Google Scholar
• Swamy P., Tavlas G. S. Random coefficient models: Theory and applications. J. Econom. Surveys (1995) 9(2):165–196Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zucker L., Darby M., Brewer M. Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1989) 88:290–306Google Scholar