In this review, we argue that the Schumpeterian growth paradigm, which models growth as resulting from innovations involving creative destruction, sheds light on several aspects of the growth process that cannot be properly addressed by alternative theories. We focus on three important aspects for which Schumpeterian growth theory delivers predictions that distinguish it from other growth models, namely, () the role of competition and market structure, () firm dynamics, and () the relationship between growth and development.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Acemoglu D. 2009. Introduction to Modern Economic Growth Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  2. Acemoglu D, Aghion P, Zilibotti F. 2006. Distance to frontier, selection, and economic growth. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc 4:37–74 [Google Scholar]
  3. Acemoglu D, Akcigit U. 2012. Intellectual property rights policy, competition and innovation. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc 10:1–42 [Google Scholar]
  4. Acemoglu D, Akcigit U, Bloom N, Kerr W. 2013. Innovation, reallocation and growth. NBER Work. Pap. 18993
  5. Acemoglu D, Akcigit U, Hanley D, Kerr W. 2015. Transition to clean technology. J. Polit. Econ In press [Google Scholar]
  6. Acemoglu D, Cao D. 2011. Innovation by entrants and incumbents. Unpublished manuscript, Mass. Inst. Technol., Cambridge, MA
  7. Acemoglu D, Robinson J. 2012. Why Nations Fail New York: Crown Bus [Google Scholar]
  8. Acs Z, Audretsch D. 1988. Innovation in large and small firms: an empirical analysis. Am. Econ. Rev 78:678–90 [Google Scholar]
  9. Acs Z, Audretsch D. 1991. Innovation and size at the firm level. South. Econ. J. 57:739–44 [Google Scholar]
  10. Aghion P, Bloom N, Blundell R, Griffith R, Howitt P. 2005. Competition and innovation: an inverted-U relationship. Q. J. Econ. 120:701–28 [Google Scholar]
  11. Aghion P, Blundell R, Griffith R, Howitt P, Prantl S. 2009a. The effects of entry on incumbent innovation and productivity. Rev. Econ. Stat 91:20–32 [Google Scholar]
  12. Aghion P, Boustan L, Hoxby C, Vandenbussche J. 2009b. Exploiting states’ mistakes to identify the causal effects of higher education on growth. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA
  13. Aghion P, Griffith R. 2006. Competition and Growth: Reconciling Theory and Evidence Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  14. Aghion P, Harris C, Howitt P, Vickers J. 2001. Competition, imitation and growth with step-by-step innovation. Rev. Econ. Stud. 68:467–92 [Google Scholar]
  15. Aghion P, Harris C, Vickers J. 1997. Competition and growth with step-by-step innovation: an example. Eur Econ. Rev. 41:771–82 [Google Scholar]
  16. Aghion P, Howitt P. 1992. A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 60:323–51 [Google Scholar]
  17. Aghion P, Howitt P. 1998. Endogenous Growth Theory Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  18. Aghion P, Howitt P. 2009. The Economics of Growth Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  19. Aghion P, Howitt P, Prantl S. 2013. Patent rights, product market reforms and innovation. NBER Work. Pap. 18854
  20. Akcigit U, Alp H, Peters M. 2014. Lack of selection and limits to delegation: firm dynamics in developing countries. Work. Pap., Univ. Pa., Philadelphia
  21. Akcigit U, Hanley D, Serrano-Velarde N. 2012. Back to basics: basic research spillovers, innovation policy and growth. Unpublished manuscript, Univ. Pa., Philadelphia
  22. Akcigit U, Kerr W. 2010. Growth through heterogeneous innovations. NBER Work. Pap. 16443
  23. Axtell R. 2001. Zipf distribution of US firm sizes. Science 293:1818–20 [Google Scholar]
  24. Barro RJ, Sala-i-Martin X. 2003. Economic Growth New York: McGraw-Hill [Google Scholar]
  25. Bartelsman E, Doms M. 2000. Understanding productivity: lessons from longitudinal microdata. J. Econ. Lit. 38:569–94 [Google Scholar]
  26. Bartelsman E, Haltiwanger J, Scarpetta S. 2013. Cross-country differences in productivity: the role of allocation and selection. Am. Econ. Rev. 103:305–34 [Google Scholar]
  27. Bloom N, Eifert B, McKenzie D, Mahajan A, Roberts J. 2013. Does management matter? Evidence from India. Q. J. Econ. 128:1–51 [Google Scholar]
  28. Bloom N, Sadun R, Van Reenen J. 2012. The organization of firms across countries. Q. J. Econ. 127:1663–705 [Google Scholar]
  29. Blundell R, Griffith R, Van Reenen J. 1995. Dynamic count data models of technological innovation. Econ. J. 105:333–44 [Google Scholar]
  30. Blundell R, Griffith R, Van Reenen J. 1999. Market share, market value and innovation in a panel of British manufacturing firms. Rev. Econ. Stud. 66:529–54 [Google Scholar]
  31. Cohen W. 1995. Empirical studies of innovative activity. Handbook of the Economics of Innovations and Technological Change Stoneman P. 182–264 Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  32. Cohen W, Klepper S. 1996. Firm size and the nature of innovation within industries: the case of process and product R&D. Rev. Econ. Stat. 78:232–43 [Google Scholar]
  33. Corriveau L. 1991. Entrepreneurs, growth, and cycles. PhD Diss., Univ. West. Ontario
  34. Djankov S, La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A. 2002. The regulation of entry. Q. J. Econ. 117:1–37 [Google Scholar]
  35. Foster L, Haltiwanger J, Krizan C. 2001. Aggregate productivity growth: lessons from microeconomic evidence. New Directions in Productivity Analysis Dean E, Harper M, Hulten C. 303–72 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  36. Foster L, Haltiwanger J, Krizan C. 2006. Market selection, reallocation, and restructuring in the U.S. retail trade sector in the 1990s. Rev. Econ. Stat. 88:748–58 [Google Scholar]
  37. Frankel J, Romer D. 1999. Does trade cause growth?. Am. Econ. Rev. 89:379–99 [Google Scholar]
  38. Freeman C. 1982. The Economics of Industrial Innovation Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  39. Galor O. 2011. Unified Growth Theory Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  40. Garcia-Macia D, Hsieh C, Klenow P. 2014. How destructive is innovation? Unpublished manuscript, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA
  41. Griliches Z. 1990. Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. J. Econ. Lit. 28:1661–707 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hall B, Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M. 2001. The NBER patent citation data file: lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER Work. Pap. 8498
  43. Haltiwanger J, Jarmin R, Miranda J. 2013. Who creates jobs? Small versus large versus young. Rev. Econ. Stat. 95:347–61 [Google Scholar]
  44. Hsieh C, Klenow P. 2009. Misallocation and manufacturing TFP in China and India. Q. J. Econ. 124:1403–48 [Google Scholar]
  45. Hsieh C, Klenow P. 2014. The life cycle of plants in India and Mexico. Q. J. Econ. 129:1035–84 [Google Scholar]
  46. Hurst E, Pugsley B. 2011. What do small businesses do?. Brookings Pap. Econ. Act. 43:273–142 [Google Scholar]
  47. Ijiri Y, Simon H. 1977. Skew Distributions and the Sizes of Business Firms Amsterdam: North-Holland [Google Scholar]
  48. Jones C, Vollrath D. 2013. Introduction to Economic Growth New York: Norton [Google Scholar]
  49. Klette T, Kortum S. 2004. Innovating firms and aggregate innovation. J. Polit. Econ. 112:986–1018 [Google Scholar]
  50. Kumar KB, Rajan RG, Zingales L. 1999. What determines firm size? NBER Work. Pap. 7208
  51. La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A, Vishny RW. 1997. Trust in large organizations. Am. Econ. Rev. 87:333–38 [Google Scholar]
  52. Laeven L, Woodruff C. 2007. The quality of the legal system, firm ownership, and firm size. Rev. Econ. Stat. 89:601–14 [Google Scholar]
  53. Lentz R, Mortensen D. 2008. An empirical model of growth through product innovation. Econometrica 76:1317–73 [Google Scholar]
  54. Lucas RE. 1978. On the size distribution of business firms. Bell J. Econ. 9:508–23 [Google Scholar]
  55. Nelson R, Phelps E. 1966. Investment in humans, technological diffusion, and economic growth. Am. Econ. Rev. 61:69–75 [Google Scholar]
  56. Nickell S. 1996. Competition and corporate performance. J. Polit. Econ. 104:724–46 [Google Scholar]
  57. Pennings JM, Buitendam A. 1987. New Technology as Organizational Innovation: The Development and Diffusion of Microelectronics Cambridge, MA: Ballinger [Google Scholar]
  58. Peretto P. 1998. Technological change, market rivalry, and the evolution of the capitalist engine of growth. J. Econ. Growth 3:53–80 [Google Scholar]
  59. Romer P. 1990. Endogenous technical change. J. Polit. Econ. 98:71–102 [Google Scholar]
  60. Rossi-Hansberg E, Wright M. 2007. Establishment size dynamics in the aggregate economy. Am. Econ. Rev. 97:1639–66 [Google Scholar]
  61. Scherer FM. 1984. Innovation and Growth: Schumpeterian Perspectives Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  62. Schmalensee R. 1989. Inter-industry studies of structure and performance. Handbook of Industrial Organization Vol. 2 Schmalensee R, Willig RD. 951–1009 Amsterdam: North-Holland [Google Scholar]
  63. Segerstrom P, Anant T, Dinopoulos E. 1990. A Schumpeterian model of the product cycle. Am. Econ. Rev. 88:1077–92 [Google Scholar]
  64. Simon H, Bonini C. 1958. The size distribution of business firms. Am. Econ. Rev. 48:607–17 [Google Scholar]
  65. Stanley M, Buldyrev S, Havlin S, Mantegna R, Salinger M, Stanley E. 1995. Zipf plots and the size distribution of firms. Econ. Lett. 49:453–57 [Google Scholar]
  66. Syverson C. 2011. What determines productivity?. J. Econ. Lit. 49:326–65 [Google Scholar]
  67. Tushman ML, Anderson P. 1986. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Adm. Sci. Q. 31:439–65 [Google Scholar]
  68. Vandenbussche J, Aghion P, Meghir C. 2006. Growth, distance to frontier, and composition of human capital. J. Econ. Growth 11:97–127 [Google Scholar]
  69. Weil D. 2012. Economic Growth Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error