A history-friendly model of the successive changes in industrial leadership and the catch-up by latecomers
Fabio Landini,
Keun Lee () and
Franco Malerba
Research Policy, 2017, vol. 46, issue 2, 431-446
Abstract:
Successive changes in industrial leadership between both firms and countries (described here as catch-up cycles) have been common in several sectors. This article develops a history-friendly model to explore the role played by technological conditions in the emergence of such leadership changes. The model is inspired by two cases where the emergence of disruptively novel technology played an important role: mobile phones and semiconductors. In the baseline setting the model is able to generate the benchmark case of three cycles with two leadership changes. In particular, the simulation analysis reveals that: (a) the more disruptive the new technology and the lower the incumbents’ capabilities, the greater the shake-up of market shares between incumbents and latecomers; (b) leadership change is more likely to occur when it coincides with certain responses by the actors to the technological disruption, such as a high lock-in behaviour on the part of incumbents; and (c) a technology-driven change of industrial leadership is more likely to occur in the presence of increasing returns to technological investments. The counterfactual experiments show that different catch-up dynamics can emerge depending on the magnitude of technological disruption, the degree of lock-ins, the shape of technological landscape, and incumbents’ initial capabilities. In particular, four other types of catch-up cycle are generated – the aborted cycle, persistent leadership, return of the old leadership, and coexistence in leadership between latecomers and incumbents. Each of these cycles is identified with a specific historical case of catch-up.
Keywords: Catch-up cycles; Leadership change; Technology; Shocks; History-friendly; Industrial dynamics; Simulations (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: L10 O10 O30 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (35)
Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733316301391
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
HTML/Text
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:respol:v:46:y:2017:i:2:p:431-446
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.09.005
Access Statistics for this article
Research Policy is currently edited by M. Bell, B. Martin, W.E. Steinmueller, A. Arora, M. Callon, M. Kenney, S. Kuhlmann, Keun Lee and F. Murray
More articles in Research Policy from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().