Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The Elasticity-Based Approach to Enterprise Innovation Cover

The Elasticity-Based Approach to Enterprise Innovation

International Journal of Management and Economics
Volume 49 (2016): Issue 1 (March 2016)
By:   
Open Access
|Apr 2016
References

References

  1. Acs, Z., Audretsch, D. (1988), Testing the Schumpeterian Hypothesis,, 2, pp. 129–140.
    Search in Google Scholar
  2. Acs, Z., Audretsch, D. (1990),The MIT Press, Cambridge.
    Search in Google Scholar
  3. Acs, Z., Audretsch, D. (1991), R&D firm size, and innovative activity, in: Z. Acs, D. Audretsch, (eds.),, Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  4. Amir, R., Evstigneev, I., Wooders, J. (2000), Noncooperative versus cooperative R&D with endogenous spillover rates,, 42, pp. 183–207.
    Search in Google Scholar
  5. Arrow, K. (1962), Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Inventions, in: R. Nelson, (ed.),, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  6. Baldwin, W., Scott, J. (1987),, Harwood Academic Publishers, Chur.
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. Beath, J., Katsoulacos, Y., Ulph, D. (1997), Sequential product innovation and industry evolution,, 97, pp. 32–43.
    Search in Google Scholar
  8. Becker, W., Dietz, J. (2004), R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms – evidence for the German manufacturing industry,, 33, pp. 209–223.
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. Becker, W., Peters, J. (1998), R&D-competition between vertical corporate networks: structure, efficiency and R&D spillovers,, 6, pp. 51–71.
    Search in Google Scholar
  10. Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Diederen, B., Lokshin, B., Veugelers, R. (2004a), Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies,, 22, pp. 1237–1263.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  11. Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Lokshin, B. (2004b), Cooperative R&D and Firm Performance,, 33, pp. 1477–1492.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  12. Belleflamme, P., Peitz, M. (2010),, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  13. Bound, J., Cummins, C., Griliches, Z., Hall, B., Jaffe, A. (1984), Who does R&D and who patents?, in: Z. Griliches, (ed.),&, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
    Search in Google Scholar
  14. Brander, J., Spencer, B. (1983), Strategic commitment with R&D: the symmetric case,, 14, pp. 225–235.
    Search in Google Scholar
  15. Brod, A., Shivakumar, R. (1997), Domestic versus international R&D spillovers,, 56, pp. 229–233.
    Search in Google Scholar
  16. Camagni, R. (1993), Inter-firm industrial network: The cost and benefits of cooperative behaviour,, 1, pp. 1–15.
    Search in Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, W., Klepper, S. (1996), A reprise of size and R&D,, 106, pp. 925–951.
    Search in Google Scholar
  18. Cohen, W., Levin, R. (1989), Empirical Studies of Innovation and Market Structure, in: R. Schmalensee, R. Willig, (eds.),, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., Amsterdam.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  19. Cohen, W., Levinthal, D. (1989), Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D,, 94, pp. 569–596.
    Search in Google Scholar
  20. Cohen, W., Levinthal, D. (1990), Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation,, 35, pp. 128–152.
    Search in Google Scholar
  21. Comanor, W. (1967), Market Structure, Product Differentiation and Industrial Research,, 81, pp. 639–657.
    Search in Google Scholar
  22. d’Aspremont, C., Jacquemin, A. (1988), Cooperative and Noncooperative R&D in Duopoly with Spillovers,, 78, pp. 1133–1137.
    Search in Google Scholar
  23. Erickson, G., Bayus, B. (2001), R&D Productivity in the Personal Computer Industry,.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  24. Fisher, F., Temin, P. (1973), Returns to Scale in Research and Development: What Does the Schumpeterian Hypothesis Imply?,, 81, pp. 56–70.
    Search in Google Scholar
  25. Fishman, A., Rob, R. (2000), Product innovation by a durable – good monopoly,, 31, pp. 237–252.
    Search in Google Scholar
  26. Galbraith, J. (1952),, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
    Search in Google Scholar
  27. Garbicz, M. (2005),, in: W. Pacho, (ed.),, SGH, Warszawa.
    Search in Google Scholar
  28. Griliches, Z. (1998),&, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  29. Hausman, J., Hall, B., Griliches, Z. (1984), Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship,, 52, pp. 909–938.
    Search in Google Scholar
  30. Inkmann, J. (2000), Horizontal and vertical R&D cooperation, Center of Finance and Econometrics at the University of Konstanz,.
    Search in Google Scholar
  31. Janasz, W., Janasz, K., Prozorowicz, M., Świadek, A., Wiśniewska, J. (2002),, Rozprawy i Studia, No. 406, Uniwersytet Szczeciński, Szczecin.
    Search in Google Scholar
  32. Janasz, W., Kozioł, K. (2007),, PWE, Warszawa.
    Search in Google Scholar
  33. Kaiser, U., Licht, G. (1998), R&D cooperation and R&D intensity: theory and micro-econometric evidence for German manufacturing industries,.
    Search in Google Scholar
  34. Kamien, M., Schwartz, N. (1982),, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
    Search in Google Scholar
  35. Kamien, M., Muller, E., Zang, I. (1992), Research Joint Ventures and R&D Cartels,, 82, pp. 1293–1306.
    Search in Google Scholar
  36. Kamien, M., Zang, I. (2000), Meet me halfway: research joint ventures and absorptive capacity,, 18, pp. 995–1012.
    Search in Google Scholar
  37. Katz, M. (1986), An Analysis of Cooperative Research and Development,, 17, pp. 527–543.
    Search in Google Scholar
  38. Kesteloot, K., De Bondt, R. (1993), Demand-creating R&D in an symmetric oligopoly,, 2, pp. 171–183.
    Search in Google Scholar
  39. Klepper, S. (1996), Entry, Exit, Growth, and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle,, 86, pp. 562–583.
    Search in Google Scholar
  40. Knudsen, M. (2005), Patterns of technological competence accumulation: a proposition for empirical measurement,, 14, pp. 1075–1108.
    Search in Google Scholar
  41. Lee, C., Sung, T. (2005), Schumpeter’s legacy: A new perspective on the relationship between firm size and R&D,, 34, pp. 914–931.
    Search in Google Scholar
  42. Levin, R., Klevorick, A., Nelson, R., Winter, S. (1987), Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development,, 3, pp. 783–820.
    Search in Google Scholar
  43. Levin, R. (1988), Appropriability, R&D spending, and technological performance,, 78, pp. 424–428.
    Search in Google Scholar
  44. Levin, R., Reiss, P. (1988), Cost-reducing and demand-creating R&D with spillovers,, 19, pp. 538–556.
    Search in Google Scholar
  45. Mansfield, E. (1964), Industrial Research and Development Expenditures: Determinants, Prospects, and Relation of Size of Firm and Inventive Output,, 72, pp. 319–340.
    Search in Google Scholar
  46. Morck, R., Yeung, B. (2000), The Economic Determinants of Innovation, Industry Canada Research Publications, Occasional paper.
    Search in Google Scholar
  47. Motta, M. (1992), Cooperative R&D and vertical product differentiation,, 10, pp. 643–661.
    Search in Google Scholar
  48. Mukhopadhyay, A. (1985), Returns to Scale in R&D and the Schumpeterian Hypothesis: A Comment,, 33, pp. 359–361.
    Search in Google Scholar
  49. Nelson, R., Winter, S. (1982), The Schumpeterian Tradeoff Revisited,, 72, pp. 114–132.
    Search in Google Scholar
  50. Pavitt, K., Robson, M., Townsend, J. (1987), The size distribution of innovating firms in the UK: 1945–1983,, 35, pp. 291–316.
    Search in Google Scholar
  51. Peneder, M. (2008), The problem of private under-investment in innovation: a policy mind map, WIFO Working Paper.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  52. Prokop, J., Karbowski, A. (2013), Współpraca badawczo-rozwojowa przedsiębiorstw a kartelizacja gałęzi,, XXVIII (LVII), pp. 259–272.
    Search in Google Scholar
  53. Qiu, L. (1997), On the dynamic efficiency of Bertrand and Cournot equilibria,, 75, pp. 213–229.
    Search in Google Scholar
  54. Robertson, P., Langlois, R. (1995), Innovation, networks, and vertical integration,, 24, pp. 543–562.
    Search in Google Scholar
  55. Romer, P. (1986), Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth,, 94, pp. 1002–1037.
    Search in Google Scholar
  56. Saha, S. (2007), Consumer preferences and product and process R&D,, 38, pp. 250–268.
    Search in Google Scholar
  57. Salant, S., Shaffer, G. (1998), Optimal asymmetric strategies in research joint ventures,, 16, pp. 195–208.
    Search in Google Scholar
  58. Salant, S., Shaffer, G. (1999), Unequal treatment of identical agents in Cournot equilibrium,, 89, pp. 585–604.
    Search in Google Scholar
  59. Scherer, F. (1965), Firm Size, Market Structure, Opportunity, and the Output of Patented Inventions,, 55, pp. 1097–1125.
    Search in Google Scholar
  60. Scherer, F. (1980),, Rand McNally College Publishing Company, Chicago.
    Search in Google Scholar
  61. Schmookler, J. (1959), Bigness, Fewness, and Research,, 67, pp. 628–635.
    Search in Google Scholar
  62. Schumpeter, J. (1934),Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
    Search in Google Scholar
  63. Schumpeter, J. (1942),Harper and Row, New York.
    Search in Google Scholar
  64. Spence, M. (1984), Cost Reduction, Competition, and Industry Performance,, 52, pp. 101–121.
    Search in Google Scholar
  65. Sutton, J. (1996), Technology and Market Structure,, 40, pp. 511–530.
    Search in Google Scholar
  66. Sutton, J. (1998),MIT Press, Cambridge.
    Search in Google Scholar
  67. Symeonidis, G. (1996), Innovation, Firm Size and Market Structure: Schumpeterian Hypotheses and Some New Themes,161, OECD.
    Search in Google Scholar
  68. Tirole, J. (1988),, MIT Press, Cambridge.
    Search in Google Scholar
  69. Tsai, K., Wang, J. (2005), Does R&D Performance Decline with Firm Size? A Reexamination in Terms of Elasticity,, 34, pp. 966–976.
    Search in Google Scholar
  70. Tsai, K. (2009), Collaborative networks and product innovation performance: Toward a contingency perspective,, 38, pp. 765–778.
    Search in Google Scholar
  71. Villard, H. (1958), Competition, Oligopoly and Research,, 66, pp. 483–497.
    Search in Google Scholar
  72. Wölfl, A. (1998), Spillover Effects – an Incentive to Cooperate in R&D?, Halle Institute for Economic Research,.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  73. Worley, J. (1961), Industrial Research and the New Competition,, 69, pp. 183–186.
    Search in Google Scholar
  74. Ziss, S. (1994), Strategic R&D with spillovers, collusion and welfare,, 17, pp. 375–393.
    Search in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijme-2016-0004 | Journal eISSN: 2543-5361 (formerly 2299-9701) | Journal ISSN: 2299-9701
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 58 - 78
Published on: Apr 18, 2016
Published by: SGH Warsaw School of Economics
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
research and development,
firm innovation,
inter-firm cooperation
JEL:
L1,
L2,
O32
Related subjects:
Business and economics,
Business management,
Management accounting, financial controlling, cost calculation, investment

© 2016 Adam Karbowski, published by SGH Warsaw School of Economics
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 49 (2016): Issue 1 (March 2016)
Previous article
Next article