+1 Recommend
1 collections

      If you have found this article useful and you think it is important that researchers across the world have access, please consider donating, to ensure that this valuable collection remains Open Access.

      Prometheus is published by Pluto Journals, an Open Access publisher. This means that everyone has free and unlimited access to the full-text of all articles from our international collection of social science journalsFurthermore Pluto Journals authors don’t pay article processing charges (APCs).

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Avoiding evolutionary inefficiencies in innovation networks

      Pluto Journals


            Innovation policy is in need of a rationale which allows for the design and evaluation of policy instruments. In economic policy, focus has traditionally been placed on market failures, and efficiency measures have been used to decide whether policy should intervene and which instrument should be applied. In innovation policy, this rationale cannot be meaningfully applied because of the uncertain and open character of innovation processes. Uncertainty is not a market failure and cannot be repaired. Inevitably, policy makers are subject to failure and their goals cannot pragmatically be represented by a social optimum. In eschewing the concept of ‘optimal innovation’, avoiding evolutionary inefficiencies becomes central to analysis and to innovation policy making. Superimposed on the several sources of evolutionary inefficiencies are so-called ‘network inefficiencies ‘. Because of the widespread organization of innovation into innovation networks, network structures and dynamics give useful hints for where and when innovation policy should intervene.


            Author and article information

            Pluto Journals
            1 September 2014
            : 32
            : 3 ( doiID: 10.1080/prometheus.32.issue-3 )
            : 265-279
            University of Hohenheim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, Institute of Economics, Stuttgart, Germany
            © 2014 Pluto Journals

            All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

            Custom metadata

            Computer science,Arts,Social & Behavioral Sciences,Law,History,Economics


            1. Abernathy, W. and Utterback, J. (1975) ‘A dynamic model of process and product innovation’, Omega, 3, 6, pp.639–56.

            2. Ahrweiler, P., Gilbert, N. and Pyka, A. (2011) ‘A new model for university-industry links in knowledge-based economies’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28, pp.218–35.

            3. Ahrweiler, P., Schilperoord, M., Pyka, A. and Gilbert, N. (2014) ‘Testing policy options for Horizon 2020 with SKIN’ in Ahrweiler, P., Gilbert, N. and Pyka, A. (eds) Simulating Knowledge Dynamics in Innovation Networks, Understanding Complex Systems, Springer, Berlin, pp.155–84.

            4. Ahuja, G. (2000) ‘Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, pp.425–55.

            5. Arrow, K. (1951/1963) Social Choice and Individual Values, Yale University Press, New Haven CT.

            6. Arrow, K. (1959) The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention, Economics Division P-1856, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica CA.

            7. Barabasi, A. and Albert, R. (1999) ‘Emergence of scaling in random networks’, Science, 286, 5439, pp.509–12.

            8. Buchmann, T. and Pyka, A. (2011) ‘Innovation networks’ in Krafft, J. and Dietrich, M. (eds) Handbook on the Theory of Firms, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp.466–84.

            9. Burt, R. (1992) Structural Holes, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

            10. Cantner, U. and Pyka, A. (2001) ‘Classifying technology policy from an evolutionary perspective’, Research Policy, 30, pp.759–75.

            11. Capozzi, M. (2010) ‘Leadership and innovation’, Development Outreach, 21, 1, pp.25–8.

            12. Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. (1989) ‘Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D’, Economic Journal, 99, pp.569–96.

            13. Cooke, P. and Morgan, K. (1998) The Associational Economy: Firms, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

            14. Coombs, R. (1988) ‘Technological opportunities and industrial organization’ in Dosi, G. et al. (eds) Technical Change and Economic Theory, Pinter, London, pp.295–308.

            15. Cyert, R. and March, J. (1963) A Behavioural Theory of the Firm, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ.

            16. Dosi, G. (1982) ‘Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technological change’, Research Policy, 11, pp.147–62.

            17. Dosi, G. (1988) ‘The nature of the innovative process’ in Dosi, G. et al. (eds) Technical Change and Economic Theory, Pinter, London, pp.221–38.

            18. Eliasson, G. (1991) ‘Deregulation, innovative entry and structural diversity as a source of stable and rapid economic growth’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1, pp.49–63.

            19. Erdmann, G. (1993) Elemente Einer Evolutorischen Innovationstheorie, J.C.B. Mohr, Tübingen.

            20. Ergas, H. (1987) ‘The importance of technology policy’ in Dasgupta, P. and Stoneman, P. (eds) Economic Policy and Technological Performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

            21. EU Commission (2008) The Concept of Clusters and Cluster Policies and their Role for Competitiveness and Innovation: Main Statistical Results and Lessons Learned, INNOVA/PRO INNO paper 9, Brussels.

            22. Freeman, C. (1987) Technology and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan, Pinter, London.

            23. Gilsing, V. and Nooteboom, B. (2006) ‘Exploration and exploitation in biotechnology industries: the case of pharmaceutical biotechnology’, Research Policy, 35, pp.1–26.

            24. Hanusch, H. and Pyka, A. (2007) ‘Principles of neo-Schumpeterian economics’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31, pp.275–89.

            25. Katz, R. and Allen, T. (1982) ‘Investigating the not invented here (NIH) syndrome: a look at the performance, tenure and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups’, R&D Management, 12, pp.7–19.

            26. Kline, S. and Rosenberg, N. (1986) ‘An overview of innovation’ in Landau, R. and Rosenberg, N. (eds) The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth, National Academic Press, Washington DC, pp.275–305.

            27. Knight, F. (1921) Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Hart, Schaffner and Marx Prize Essay 31, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

            28. Lundvall, B. (ed.) (1992) National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Pinter, London.

            29. Malerba, F. (2004) Sectoral Systems of Innovation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

            30. Metcalfe, S. (1994) ‘Evolutionary economics and technology policy’, Economic Journal, 104, pp.931–44.

            31. Metcalfe, S. (1995) ‘Technology systems and technological policy in an evolutionary framework’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19, pp.25–46.

            32. Metcalfe, S. and Georghiou, L. (1997) Equilibrium and Evolutionary Foundations of Technology Policy, Discussion Paper 3, Centre for Research on Innovation and Competition, University of Manchester.

            33. Moreau, F. (2004) ‘The role of the state in evolutionary economics’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28, pp.847–74.

            34. Mytelka, L. and Smith, K. (2002) ‘Policy learning and innovation theory: an interactive and co-evolving process’, Research Policy, 31, pp.1467–79.

            35. Nelson, R. (ed.) (1993) National Systems of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

            36. Nelson, R. (2009) ‘Building effective innovation systems versus dealing with market failures as ways of thinking about technology policy’ in Foray, D. (ed.) The New Economics of Technology Policy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp.7–17.

            37. Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Belknap, Cambridge MA.

            38. OECD (2009) Open Innovation in Global Networks, OECD, Paris.

            39. Pelikan, P. (2003) ‘Why economic policies need comprehensive evolutionary analysis’ in Pelikan, P. and Wegner, G. (eds) The Evolutionary Analysis of Economic Policy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp.15–45.

            40. Pyka, A. (2000) ‘Informal networking and industrial life cycles’, Technovation, 20, pp.25–35.

            41. Pyka, A. (2002) ‘Innovation networks in economics – from the incentive-based to the knowledge-based approaches’, European Journal of Innovation Management, 5, 3, pp.152–63.

            42. Pyka, A. and Windrum, P. (2003) ‘The self-organization of strategic alliances’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 12, pp.245–68.

            43. Saviotti, P. and Catherine, D. (2008) ‘Innovation networks in biotechnology’ in Patzelt, H. Brenner, T. and Audretsch, D. (eds) Handbook of Bioentrepreneurship, Springer, Berlin, pp.51–80.

            44. Saviotti, P. and Pyka, A. (2004) ‘Economic development by the creation of new sectors’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14, 1, pp.1–36.

            45. Schumpeter, J. (1912) Theorie der wirtschaftlichen entwicklung, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin.

            46. Simon, H. (1976) ‘From substantial to procedural rationality’ in Latsis, S. (ed.) Method and Appraisal in Economics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.129–48.

            47. Simon, H. (1985) ‘What we know about the creative process’ in Kuhn, R. (ed.) Frontiers in Creative and Innovative Management, Ballinger, Cambridge MA, pp.3–22.

            48. Smith, A. (1776) The Wealth of Nations, Penguin Classics [reprinted 1986].

            49. Solow, R. (1956) ‘A contribution to the theory of economic growth’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70, 1, pp.65–94.

            50. Solow, R. (1957) ‘Technical change and the aggregate production function’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 39, 3, pp.312–20.

            51. Teece, D. (1988) ‘Technological change and the nature of the firm’ in Dosi, G. et al. (eds) Technical Change and Economic Theory, Pinter, London, pp.263–81.


            Comment on this article