Theory of "Creative Destruction" vs. Contemporary Development Process
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The paper presents the analysis of the role of small- and medium-sized enterprises entering the market within the process of economic growth and innovation launch. The review of literature commences with the successive theses of Schumpeter, starting with the one on creative destruction, through the modified one, considering the role of the already existing enterprises in the set branch that protect themselves against new entrants. Against this background the analysis of the recent literature is conducted. The literature focuses mainly on diversified types of the market-entering companies and their role in innovation launch as well as on the relationship between the contemporary competition entering the market and innovation. Statistical data confirm that a large number of SME is post-socialist countries is rather of "turbulence" nature (fast market entry and exit) than the innovative one. Nonetheless, there exist potential innovation factors in such companies and under the right circumstances (access to external sources of financing, entrepreneurship-friendly regulations and export-oriented innovation pressure) the level of innovation maybe enhanced. (original abstract)
Article Details
References
Aghion P., Bloom N., Blundell R., Griffith R., Howitt P., Competition and Innovation: An Inverted U Relationship, „The Quarterly Journal of Economics” 2005, No. 120(2), s. 701-728.
Akiba M., Lissowska M., The Behavior of Credit Granting and Institutionalization of Commercial Banks in Poland, „Japanese Journal of Comparative Economics” 2006, No. 43(2), s. 43-50.
Akiba M., Lissowska M., Polskie przedsiębiorstwa jako kredytobiorcy – spojrzenie na strategie banków z drugiej strony lustra, „Gospodarka Narodowa” 2006, No. 4, s. 57-68.
Alesina A., Ardagna S., Nicoletti G., Schiantarelli F., Regulation and investment, OECD Working Paper 2003, No. 352.
Andersen E.S., Dahl M.S., Lundvall B-A, Reichstein T., Schumpeter’s process of creative destruction and the Scandinavian system: a tale of two effects, paper for the DRUID Conference, 2006, (http://www.business.aau.dk/evolution/esapapers/esa06/druid06.pdf) Bartelsman E., Scarpetta S., Schivardi F., Comparative analysis of firm demographics and survival: micro-level evidence for the OECD countries, Economics Department Working Papers, OECD, Paris 2003.
Berkovitz D., Cooper D., Start-ups and Transition, William Davidson Institute Working Paper 1997, No. 84.
Brand, N., Business Dynamics, Regulation and Performance, OECD STI Working Paper Series, 2004.
Cincera M., Galgau O., Impact of Market Entry and Exit on EU Productivity and Growth Performance, European Economy, Economic Paper No. 222, European Commission, Brussels 2005.
Działalność innowacyjna przedsiębiorstw w latach 2006-2009, Informacje i Opracowania Statystyczne, GUS Warszawa 2010.
Ericson R., Pakes A., Markov perfect industry dynamics: a framework for empirical work, „Review of Economic Studies” 1995, Vol. 62, No. 1, s. 53-82.
European Innovation Scoreboard 2009, dostępne na stronie: http://www.proinno- europe.eu/page/european-innovation-scoreboard-2009 European Competitiveness Report 2008, European Commission, Brussels 2008.
Geodecki T. i in., Kurs na innowacje. Jak wyprowadzic Polskę z rozwojowego dryfu?
Fundacja GAP, Kraków 2012.
Griffith, R., Harrison, R., The link between product market reform and macroeconomic performance, European Economy, Economic Paper No. 209, European Commission, Brussels 2004.
Hanley E., Self-employment in Post-Communist Eastern Europe. A Refuge from Powerty or Road to Riches, „Communist and Post-Communist Studies” 2000, No. 33.
Innobarometer 2009, Flash Eurobarometer No. 267, European Commission, Brussels 2009.
Johnson S., Kaufman D., Schleifer A., Politics and Entrepreneurship in Transition Economies, William Davidson Institute Working Paper 1997, No. 57.
Jovanovic B., Selection and the Evolution of Industry, „Econometrica” 1982, Vol. 50, No. 3, s. 649-670.
Lissowska M., Evolution of the institutions governing the Labour Market. The Case of Poland, “Rivista Dell’Associatione Rossi-Doria” 2010, No. 4, s. 33-61.
Nicoletti G., Scarpetta S., Regulation, productivity and growth, OECD evidence, OECD Working Paper 2003, No. 347.
Phillips A., Technology and industry structure, w: J.R.Pierce, E.G.Pubini i P.E.Haggerty (red.) Technology and International Trade, Washington DC., 1971, National Academy of Engineering, s. 67-87.
Santorelli E., Vivarelli M., Entrepreneurship and the Process of Firms’ Entry, Survival and Growth, IZA DP, No. 2475, Institute for the Study of Labour, 2006.
Scarpetta S., Hemmings P., Tressel T., and Woo J., The Role of Policy and Institutions for Productivity and Firm Dynamics: Evidence from Micro and Industry Data, OECD Working Paper, No. 329, Paris 2002.
Schumpeter J., Teoria rozwoju gospodarczego, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa 1960, (data pierwszej publikacji 1912).
Schumpeter, J., Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, George Allen & Unwin Ltd. 1976, (data pierwszej publikacji 1943).
Vincensini, C., Koleva, P., Dynamism and dualism of small and medium-sized enterprises in transition economies: An institutionalist approach to performance?
EAEPE Annual Conference, Rethymno 2004.
Warunki powstania i działania oraz perspektywy rozwojowe polskich przedsiębiorstw powstalych w latach 2005-2009, Informacje i Opracowania Statystyczne, GUS.
Warszawa 2011.