Advertisement

The Review of Austrian Economics

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 331–338 | Cite as

The political economy of the collaborative innovation bloc

  • David S. LucasEmail author
Original Research

Abstract

In this issue, Elert and Henrekson offer an important and promising framework through which Austrian scholars to contribute to the study of entrepreneurship and innovation. I suggest a way to build upon their framework: incorporating insights from public choice. While Elert and Henrekson downplay self-interest in their institutional analysis, public choice offers important insights about the formation of public policies that affect innovation activity. Without this, a gap exists among the identification of institutional bottlenecks that hinder collaboration in the innovation bloc and the subsequent alleviation of those bottlenecks. Infusing public choice assumptions into the Collaborative Innovation Bloc framework reveals several promising areas for future research.

Keywords

Collaborative innovation bloc Austrian economics Innovation finance Political economy Public choice 

JEL codes

B53 L26 O31 O38 

Notes

References

  1. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2004). Organizing rent generation and appropriation: Toward a theory of the entrepreneurial firm. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(5), 621–635.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argyres, N. S., & Zenger, T. R. (2012). Capabilities, transaction costs, and firm boundaries. Organization Science, 23(6), 1643–1657.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0736 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arundel, A. (2007). Innovation survey indicators: What impact on innovation policy? In Science, technology and innovation indicators in a changing world. OECD. https://eprints.utas.edu.au/12625/. Accessed 14 Dec 2018.
  4. Guerini, M., & Quas, A. (2016). Governmental venture capital in Europe: Screening and certification. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(2), 175–195.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Harper, D. A. (1995). Entrepreneurship and the market process: An enquiry into the growth of knowledge. London: Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781134791606 Google Scholar
  6. Klein, P. G., & Bylund, P. L. (2014). The place of Austrian economics in contemporary entrepreneurship research. The Review of Austrian Economics, 27(3), 259–279.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-014-0256-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Koppl, R. (2012). Chapter 10 Experts and information choice. In R. Koppl, S. Horwitz & L. Dobuzinskis (Eds.), Experts and epistemic monopolies (Advances in Austrian Economics, vol. 17, pp. 171–202). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  8. Li, Y., & Zahra, S. A. (2012). Formal institutions, culture, and venture capital activity: A cross-country analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 95–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.06.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lucas, D. S., Fuller, C. S., Piano, E. E., & Coyne, C. J. (2018). Visions of entrepreneurship policy. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 7(4), 336–356.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JEPP-D-18-00034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mazzucato, M. (2015). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths. New York: Anthem Press.Google Scholar
  11. Stigler, G. J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics, 2(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Tullock, G. (1967). The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies, and theft. Economic Inquiry, 5(3), 224–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Whitman School of ManagementSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations