Not Enough R&D? Or Maybe Too Much? Intensity of Knowledge Spillovers and Optimal R&D Policy in Schumpeterian Growth Theory

Elie Gray

TBS Business School, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.

DOI: 10.4236/tel.[phone]                

Abstract

This paper presents an endogenous growth model à la Aghion & Howitt (1992) in which we explicitly formalize knowledge spillovers in the innovation process. We revisit the issue of the Pareto non-optimality of the Schumpeterian equilibrium by revealing the part played by the intensity of knowledge spillovers. Basically, we highlight that the market incompleteness characterizing this type of decentralized economy (knowledge is not priced) is all the more likely to lead to an under-optimal (resp. over-optimal) R&D effort as the intensity of knowledge spillovers is high (resp. low). The reason behind this is that the effects of the distortion of R&D incentives resulting from market incompleteness are amplified all the more as this intensity is strong. Complementarily, we derive the optimal tool dedicated to correct the market failure caused by market incompleteness, and we demonstrate that it clearly depends on the intensity of knowledge spillovers: the higher (resp. lower) the intensity of knowledge spillovers is, the more likely this policy tool should consist in a subsidy (resp. tax). Moreover, if this optimal tool happens to be a subsidy, then this subsidy will be all the larger as the intensity is high.

Keywords

Schumpeterian growth theory; Pareto sub-optimality; Market incompleteness; Knowledge spillovers; R&D incentives; Optimal policy tools

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

[1]	Acemoglu D (2009) Modern economic growth. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ
[2]	Aghion P, Howitt P (1992) A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 60(2):323-351
[3]	Aghion P, Howitt P (1998) Endogenous growth theory. MIT Press, Cambridge MA
[4]	Aghion P, Howitt P (2009) The economics of growth. MIT Press, Cambridge MA
[5]	Akcigit U, Hanley D, Serrano-Velarde N (2016) Back to Basics: Basic Research Spillovers, Innovation Policy and Growth. CEPR Discussion Paper No 11707
[6]	Alvarez-Pelaez MJ, Groth C (2005) Too little or too much R&D? European Economic Review 49(2):437-456
[7]	Barro R, Sala-i-Martin X (2003) Economic Growth, second edition. MIT Press, Cambridge MA
[8]	Benassy JP (1998) Is there always too little research in endogenous growth with expanding product variety? European Economic Review 42(1):61-69
[9]	Cozzi G, Giordani PE, Zamparelli L (2007) The refoundation of the symmetric equilibrium in Schumpeterian growth models. Journal of Economic Theory 136(1):788-797
[10]	Dinopoulos E, Sener F (2007) New directions in Schumpeterian growth theory. In: Hanusch H, Pyka A (eds) The elgar companion to neo-Schumpeterian economics, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
[11]	Dinopoulos E, Thompson P (1998) Schumpeterian growth without scale effects. Journal of Economic Growth 3(4): 313-335
[12]	Garner P (2010) A note on endogenous growth and scale effects. Economics Letters 106(2):98-100
[13]	Gray E, Grimaud A (2016) Using the Salop Circle to Study Scale Effects in Schumpeterian Growth Models: Why Inter-sectoral Knowledge Diffusion Matters. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 6021 (http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2829265)
[14]	Griliches Z (1992) The search for R&D spillovers. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 94(supplement): 29-47
[15]	Griliches Z (1995) R&D and productivity: econometric results and measurement issues. In: Stoneman P (ed) Handbook of the economics of innovation and technical change, Blackwell Handbooks in Economics
[16]	Grossman G, Helpman E (1991) Quality ladders in the theory of growth. Review of Economic Studies 58(1):43-61
[17]	Hall B (2004) Innovation and diffusion. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery DC, Nelson RR (eds) Handbook on innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford
[18]	Hall B, Mairesse J, Mohnen P (2010) Measuring the returns to R&D. In Hall B, Rosenberg N (eds) Handbook of the economics of innovation, Elsevier
[19]	Howitt P (1999) Steady endogenous growth with population and R&D inputs growing. Journal of Political Economy 107(4):715-730
[20]	Jones C (1999) Growth: with or without scale effects? American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 89(2):139-144
[21]	Jones C (2005) Growth and ideas. In: Aghion P, Durlauf S (eds) Handbook of Economic Growth, Elsevier Volume 1B, 1063-1111
[22]	Jones C, Williams J (2000) Too much of a good thing? The economics of investment in R&D. Journal of Economic Growth 5(1):65-85
[23]	Laincz C, Peretto P (2006) Scale effects in endogenous growth theory: an error of aggregation not specification. Journal of Economic Growth 11(3):263-288
[24]	Li CW (2002) Growth and scale effects: the role of knowledge spillovers. Economics Letters 74:177-185
[25]	Li CW (2003) Endogenous growth without scale effects: a comment. American Economic Review 93(3):1009-1017
[26]	Peretto P (1998) Technological change and population growth. Journal of Economic Growth 3(4):283-311
[27]	Peretto P (1999) Cost reduction, entry, and the interdependence of market structure and economic growth. Journal of Monetary Economics 43(1):173-195
[28]	Peretto P (2007) Corporate taxes, growth and welfare in a Schumpeterian economy. Journal of Economic Theory 137(1):353-382
[29]	Peretto P, Smulders S (2002) Technological distance, growth and scale Effects. Economic Journal 112(481):603-624
[30]	Romer P (1990) Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy 98(5):71-102
[31]	Salop S (1979) Monopolistic competition with outside goods. Bell Journal of Economics 10(1):141-156
[32]	Sener F (2008) R&D policies, endogenous growth and scale effects. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 32(12):3895-3916
[33]	Segerstrom P (1998) Endogenous growth without scale effects. American Economic Review 88(5):1290-1310
[34]	Segerstrom P (2000) The long-run growth effects of R&D subsidies. Journal of Economic Growth 5(3):277-305
[35]	Young A (1998) Growth without scale effects. Journal of Political Economy 106(1):41-63