Ir al menú de navegación principal Ir al contenido principal Ir al pie de página del sitio
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Artículos de temática libre

Núm. 1 (2020): REVISTA UCRONÍAS

Rentas no schumpeterianas y desigualdad: fundamentos teóricos de la competencia y la innovación *

DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3836670
Enviado
October 4, 2020
Publicado
2020-05-30

Resumen

Considerando al precio como mecanismo exógeno de coordinación, la economía ortodoxa ha sostenido que el mercado libre es eficiente y maximizador del bienestar. Empero, dado que la evidencia ha desvirtuado los supuestos que respaldan esta conjetura, la tesis liberal ha transitado al paradigma schumpeteriano de la selección, que sugiere una relación causal entre innovación y poder de mercado. Mediante un contraste de teorías con evidencia, este artículo discute la relación entre competencia, innovación y desigualdad. El análisis sugiere que existe una relación paradojal entre competencia y monopolio. Si bien la selección no es particularmente fuerte, esta además perdería vigor a medida que el mercado se concentra. La desregulación y el régimen de patentes habrían exacerbado esta conducta. La concentración industrial y la privatización del conocimiento afectarían, a su vez, a la desigualdad y al propio progreso tecnológico. La liberalización está, entonces, caracterizada por una predominante generación de rentas no schumpeterianas.

(*) Agradezco a Daniel Vizuete y a Laura Cordero por sus comentarios y valiosas discusiones, que ayudaron a enriquecer el contenido del presente artículo. 

Abstract

Considering price as an exogenous coordination mechanism, orthodox economics has argued that the free market is efficient and welfare maximizer. Nevertheless, since the evidence has rejected the assumptions that support this conjecture, the liberal thesis has shifted to the Schumpeterian paradigm of selection, which suggests a causal relationship between innovation and market power. By contrasting theories with empirical evidence, this article discusses the relationship between competition, innovation, and inequality. The analysis suggests that there is a paradoxical association between competition and monopoly. Although the selection is not particularly strong, it even loses vigor as the market concentrates. Deregulation and the property rights regime seem to exacerbate this behavior. Industrial concentration and knowledge privatization, in turn, affects inequality and technological progress. Liberalization is therefore characterized by a predominant generation of non-Schumpeterian rents.

Keywords: Industrial dynamics, monopolies, inequality, knowledge, Schumpeter

Recibido: 29 de mayo de 2019

Aceptado: 3 de febrero de 2020

Citas

  1. Acemoglu, D. y Akcigit, U. (2012). Intellectual Property Rights Policy, Competition and Innovation. Journal of the European Economic Association, 10(1), pp. 1–42.
  2. Aghion, P., Bechtold, S., Cassar, L. y Herz, H. (2018). The Causal Effects of Competition on Innovation: Experimental Evidence. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 34(2), pp. 162–195.
  3. Aghion, P., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., Howitt, P. y Prantl, S. (2009). The Effects of Entry on Incumbent Innovation and Productivity. Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(1), pp. 20–32.
  4. Aghion, P. y Howitt, P. (1992). A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction. Econometrica, 60(2), pp. 323–351.
  5. Aghion, P., Howitt, P. y Prantl, S. (2013). Revisiting the Relationship Between Competition, Patenting, and Innovation. En D. Acemoglu, M. Arellano y E. Dekel (eds.), Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Tenth World Congress, Volume I, Economic Theory (pp. 449–455). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Alon, T., Berger, D., Dent, R. y Pugsley, B. (2018). Older and Slower: The Startup Deficit’s Lasting Effects on Aggregate Productivity Growth. Journal of Monetary Economics, 93(2018), pp. 68–85.
  7. Arrow, K. (1962). Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources to Invention. En NBER (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors (pp. 609–626). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  8. Autor, D., Dorn, D., Katz, L., Patterson, C. y Van Reenen, J. (2017). The Fall of the Labor Share and the Rise of Superstar Firms. NBER Working Paper Series, 23396.
  9. Bottazzi, G., Dosi, G., Jacoby, N., Secchi, A. y Tamagni, F. (2010). Corporate Performances and Market Selection: Some Comparative Evidence. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(6), pp. 1953–1996.
  10. Cahuc, P., Postel-Vinay, F., y Robin, J. M. (2006). Wage Bargaining with On-the-Job Search: Theory and Evidence. Econometrica, 74(2), pp. 323–364.
  11. Carreira, C., y Teixeira, P. (2008). Internal and external restructuring over the cycle: A firm-based analysis of gross flows and productivity growth in Portugal. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 29(3), p.p. 211–220.
  12. _____ (2011). The shadow of death: Analysing the pre-exit productivity of Portuguese manufacturing firms. Small Business Economics, 36(3), p.p. 337–351.
  13. Chamberlin, E. (1933). The Theory of Monopolistic Competition. Londres: Oxford University Press.
  14. Dasgupta, P. y Stiglitz, J. E. (1980). Industrial Structure and the Nature of Innovative Activity. The Economic Journal, 90(358), pp. 266–293.
  15. De Loecker, J., Eeckhout, J., & Unger, G. (2019). The Rise of Market Power and the Macroeconomics Implications. The Quarterly Journal of Economics (Forthcoming).
  16. Decker, R. A., Haltiwanger, J., Jarmin, R. S. y Miranda, J. (2016). Where Has all the Skewness Gone? The Decline in High-growth (young) Firms in the U.S. European Economic Review, 86, pp. 4–23.
  17. _____ (2018). Changing Business Dynamism and Productivity: Shocks vs Responsiveness. NBER Working Paper Series, 24236, pp. 1–65.
  18. Dixit, A. K. y Stiglitz, J. E. (1977). Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity. The American Economic Review, 67(3), pp. 297–308.
  19. Dosi, G. (2007). Statistical Regularities in the Evolution of Industries. A Guide Through Some Evidence and Challenges for the Theory. En F. Malerba y S. Brusoni (eds.), Perspectives on Innovation (pp. 153–186). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  20. Dosi, G., Marengo, L. y Pasquali, C. (2006). How Much Should Society Fuel the Greed of Innovators? On the Relations between Appropriability, Opportunities and Rates of Innovation. Research Policy, 35(8), pp. 1110–1121.
  21. Dosi, G., Moschella, D., Pugliese, E. y Tamagni, F. (2015). Productivity, Market Selection, and Corporate Growth: Comparative Evidence across US and Europe. Small Business Economics, 45(3), pp. 643–672.
  22. Dosi, G. y Nelson, R. R. (2010). Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes. En B. Hall y N. Rosenberg (eds.), Handbook of Economics of Innovation (pp. 52–127). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  23. Foster, L., Haltiwanger, J. y Syverson, C. (2008). Reallocation, Firm Turnover, and Efficiency: Selection on Productivity or Profitability. The American Economic Review, 98(1), pp. 394–425.
  24. Grullon, G., Larkin, Y. y Michaely, R. (2019). Are US Industries Becoming More Concentrated? Review of Finance, rfz007.
  25. Heller, M. A. y Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research. Science, 280(5364), pp. 698–701.
  26. Karabarbounis, L. y Neiman, B. (2014). The Global Decline of the Labor Share. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(1), pp. 61–103.
  27. Lazonick, W. (2016). Innovative Enterprise and the Theory of the Firm. Political Quarterly, 86(S1), pp. 77–97.
  28. Lazonick, W. y Mazzucato, M. (2013). The Risk-Reward Nexus in the Innovation-Inequality Relationship: Who Takes the Risks? Who Gets the Rewards? Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(4), pp. 1093–1128.
  29. Manning, A. (2011). Imperfect Competition in the Labor Market. En D. Card y O. Ashenfelter (eds.), Handbook of Labor Economics - Volume 4B (pp. 973–1041). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  30. Marx, K. (1867). Capital: Critique of Political Economy. Hamburg.
  31. Mazzucato, M. (2013). Financing Innovation: Creative Destruction vs. Destructive Creation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(4), pp. 851–867.
  32. _____ (2016). Innovation, the State and Patient Capital. The Political Quarterly, 86(S1), pp. 98–118.
  33. Mortensen, D. T. (2010). Wage Dispersion: Why Are Similar Workers Paid Differently? Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  34. Nelson, R. R. (2004). The Market Economy, and the Scientific Commons. Research Policy, 33(3), pp. 455–471.
  35. Oi, W. Y. e Idson, T. L. (1999). Firm Size and Wage. En O. C. Ashenfelter y D. Card (eds.), Handbook of Labor Economics - Volume 3B (pp. 2165–2214). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  36. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  37. Robinson, J. (1934). What is Perfect Competition? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 49(1), pp. 104–120.
  38. _____ (1969). The Economics of Imperfect Competition (2nd ed.). Londres: MacMillan Press LTD.
  39. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), S71–S102.
  40. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.
  41. Shapiro, C. (2012). Competition and Innovation: Did Arrow Hit the Bull’s Eye? En J. Lerner y S. Stern (Eds.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity Revised (pp. 361–412). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  42. Shapiro, C. y Stiglitz, J. E. (1984). Equilibrium Unemployment as a Worker Discipline Device. The American Economic Review, 74(3), pp. 433–444.
  43. Smith, A. (1776). The Wealth of Nations. Londres: W. Strahan and T. Cadell.
  44. Stiglitz, J. E. (2004). Reflections on the State of the Theory of Monopolistic Competition. In S. Brakman y B. J. Heijdra (eds.), The Monopolistic Competition Revolution in Retrospect (pp. 134–148). Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
  45. _____ (2016). Inequality and Economic Growth. The Political Quarterly, 86(S1), pp. 134–155.
  46. _____ (2017). Monopolistic competition, the Dixit–Stiglitz model, and economic analysis. Research in Economics, 71(4), pp. 798–802.
  47. Stiglitz, J. E. y Greenwald, B. C. (2015). Creating a Learning Society: A New Approach to Growth, Development, and Social Progress. Nueva York: Columbia University Press.
  48. Syverson, C. (2011). What Determines Productivity? Journal of Economic Literature, 49(2), pp. 326–365.
  49. Tepper, J. y Hearn, D. (2018). The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
  50. Varian, H. R. (1992). Microeconomic Analysis. Nueva York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.