Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The entrepreneurial regime, learning, and industry turbulence

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The role which the technological regime and learning play in determining the extent of industry turbulence, or the amount of firm movements into, within, and out of an industry, is examined. The entrepreneurial regime, in which firms outside of the industry incumbents have the innovative advantage, is found to promote industry turbulence. By contrast, the routinized regime, in which the existing incumbents have the innovative advantage, is identified as impeding industry turbulence. The determinants of small-firm turbulence are found to differ from those for large-firm turbulence. Small-firm turbulence is particularly high in capital-intensive industries, where firms must quickly learn or else face extinction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acs, Zoltan J. and David B. Audretsch, 1990, Innovation and Small Firms, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Zoltan J. and David B. Audretsch, 1989a, ‘Small-Firm Entry in U.S. Manufacturing”, Economica 56, 255–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Zoltan J. and David B. Audretsch 1989b, ‘Births and Firm Size’, Southern Economic Journal 55, 467–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Zoltan J. and David B. Audretsch, 1988, ‘Innovation in Large and Small Firms: An Empirical Analysis’, American Economic Review 78, 678–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Zoltan J. and David B. Audretsch, 1987, ‘Innovation, Market Structure and Firm Size’, Review of Economics and Statistics 69, 567–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, Kenneth J., 1962, ‘Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention’, in R. R. Nelson (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 609–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, David B. and Zoltan J. Acs, 1990, ‘Innovation as a Means of Entry: An Overview’, in P. Geroski and J. Schwalbach (eds.), Entry and Market Contestability: An International Comparison, London: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beesley, M. E. and R. T. Hamilton, 1984, ‘Small Firms' Seedbed Role and the Concept of Turbulence’, Journal of Industrial Economics 33, 217–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, C. H., 1974, ‘Corporate Diversification and Market Structure’, The Bell Journal of Economics 5, 196–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boden, Richard and Bruce D. Phillips, 1985, ‘Uses and Limitations of USEEM/USELM Data’, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, DC, November.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolton Report, 1971, Commitee of Inquiry on Small Firms, Cmnd 4811, London: HMSO.

  • Bond, Ronald S., 1975, ‘Mergers and Mobility among the Largest Manufacturing Corporations’, The Antitrust Bulletin 20, 505–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, Stanley E., 1971, ‘Large Industrial Corporations and Asset Shares: Comment’, American Economic Review 61, 163–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, Stanley E. and Robert L. Sorenson, 1971, ‘Concentration and Mobility: Alternative Measures of Industrial Structure’, Journal of Industrial Economics 19, 118–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caves, Richard E. and Michael Porter, 1977, ‘From Entry to Mobility Barriers’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 91, 241–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Norman R. and Lee E. Preston, 1961, ‘The Size Structure of the Largest Industrial Firms’, American Economic Review 51, 986–1011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, David S., 1987a, ‘The Relationship Between Firm Growth, Size, and Age: Estimates for 100 Manufacturing Industries’, Journal of Industrial Economics 35, 567–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, David S., 1987b, ‘Tests of Alternative Theories of Firm Growth’, Journal of Political Economy 95, 657–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gort, Michael and Steven, Klepper, 1982, ‘Time Paths in the Diffusion of Product Innovations’, Economic Journal 92, 630–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossack, I. M., 1965, ‘Towards an Integration of Static and Dynamic Measures of Industry Concentration’, Review of Economics and Statistics 47, 301–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gudgin, G., 1978, Industrial Location Processes and Regional Employment Growth, Farnborough: Saxon House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmstädter, E., 1986, Dynamischer Wettbewerb, Wachstum und Beschäftigung’, in Gottfried Bombach, Bernhard Gahlen, and Alfred E. Ott (eds.), Technologischer Wandel—Analyse und Fakten, Schriftenreihe des Wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Seminars Ottobeuren, Tübingen.

  • Jovanovic, Boyan, 1982, ‘Selection and Evolution of Industry, Econometrica 50, 649–670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamerschen, David R., 1971, ‘Large Industrial Corporations and Asset Shares: Comment’ American Economic Review 61, 160–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, A. D. H., 1954, Big Enterprise in a Competitive System, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, Alfred, 1920, Principles of Economics 8th ed., London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mermelstein, David, 1971, ‘Large Industrial Corporations and Asset Shares: Reply’, American Economic Review 61, 168–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, Dennis C., 1976, ‘Information, Mobility, and Profit’, Kyklos 29, 419–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, Dennis C. and J. Tilton, 1969, ‘Research and Development Costs as a Barrier to Entry’, Canadian Journal of Economics 2, 570–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oster, Sharon, 1982, ‘Intraindustry Structure and the Ease of Strategic Change’, Review of Economics and Statistics 64, 376–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pakes, A. and Ericson, R., 1987, ‘Empirical Implications of Alternative Models of Firm Dynamics’, manuscript, Department of Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

  • Porter, Michael E., 1976, Interbrand Choice, Strategy and Bilateral Market Power, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, F. M., 1990, ‘Changing Perspectives on the Firm Size Problem’ in Z. J. Acs and D. B. Audretsch (eds.), Innovation and Technological Change: An International Comparison, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, F. M., 1980, Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, 2nd ed., Chicago, IL: Rand McNally College Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Herbert A. and Charles P. Bonini, 1958, ‘The Size Distribution of Business Firms’, American Economic Review 48, 607–617.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, George J., 1956, ‘The Statistics of Monopoly and Mergers’, Journal of Political Economy 64, 33–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1987, Technological Change, Sunk Costs, and Competition’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 883–937.

  • Tilton, J., 1971, International Diffusion of Technology: The Case of Semiconductors, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, Oliver E., 1975, Markets and Heirarchies, New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, Sidney G., 1984, ‘Schumpeterian Competition in Alternative Technological Regimes’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 5, 287–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, Reichpietschufer 50, D-1000, Berlin 30, West Germany

    David B. Audretsch

  2. Department of Economics, University of Baltimore, 21201, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

    Zoltan J. Acs

Authors
  1. David B. Audretsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zoltan J. Acs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Audretsch, D.B., Acs, Z.J. The entrepreneurial regime, learning, and industry turbulence. Small Bus Econ 2, 119–128 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00389672

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00389672

Keywords

Search

Navigation