Núm. 47 (2017)

The Engines of the Creative Response: Reactivity and Knowledge Governance

Cristiano Antonelli
Universidad de Torino, Collegio Carlo Alberto
Publicado diciembre 1, 2017


The notion of endogenous innovation as the outcome of the creative response of firms to out-of-equilibrium conditions is the cornerstone of the new evolutionary complexity. This essay explores the role of the reactivity of firms to out-of-equilibrium conditions and of knowledge governance in assessing the chances that creative responses actually take place as an alternative to adaptive responses. It implements a systemic frame able to show that: i) the levels of reactivity of firms enhance the research efforts of rims that try and cope with out-of-equilibrium conditions; ii) the actual rates of introduction of innovations and increase of total factor productivity are contingent upon the quality of knowledge governance, and iii) out-of-equilibrium conditions, as well as the amount of knowledge externalities are the endogenous outcome of the creative response.


  1. Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Bursztyn and L., Hémous, D. (2012), “The environment and directed technical change”, American Economic Review, 102, 131-66.
  2. Aghion, P., Dechezlepretre, A., Hemous, D., Martin, R. and Van Reenen, J. (2016), “Carbon taxes, path dependency, and directed technical change: Evidence from the auto industry”, Journal of Political Economy, 124, 52-104.
  3. Antonelli, C. (2008), Localized technological change. Towards the economics of complexity, Routledge, London.
  4. Antonelli, C. (ed.) (2011), Handbook on the economic complexity of technological change, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
  5. Antonelli, C. (2013), “Knowledge governance, pecuniary knowledge externalities and total factor productivity growth”, Economic Development Quarterly, 27, 62-70.
  6. Antonelli, C. (2015a), “Innovation as a creative response. A reappraisal of the Schumpeterian legacy”, History of Economic Ideas, 23, 99-118.
  7. Antonelli, C. (2015b), “The dynamics of knowledge governance”, in Antonelli, C., Link, A. (eds.) Handbook on the economics of knowledge, Routledge, London, 232-262.
  8. Antonelli, C. (2017), Endogenous innovation: The economics of an emergent system property, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
  9. Arrow, K. J. (1962), “Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention”, in Nelson, R. R. (ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors. Princeton University Press for n.b.e.r., Princeton, 609-625.
  10. Arthur, B. (2007), “Complexity and the economy”, in Hanusch, H., Pyka, A. (eds.), Elgar companion to Neo-Schumpeterian economics, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
  11. Arthur, B. (2015), Complexity and the Economy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  12. Arthur, W. B. (2009), The nature of technology. What it is and how it evolves. Free Press, New York.
  13. Arthur, W. B., Durlauf, S.N. and Lane, D.A. (eds.) (1997), The economy as an evolving complex system II, Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, CA.
  14. Crépon, B., Duguet, E. and Mairesse, J. (1998), “Research and development, innovation and productivity: An econometric analysis at the firm level”, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 7 (2), 115-58.
  15. Dasgupta, P. and Stiglitz, J. (1980), “Industrial structure and the nature of innovative activity”, Economic Journal, 90, 266-293.
  16. Foster J., Metcalfe J. S. (2012), “Economic emergence: An evolutionary economic perspective”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 82 (2), 420-432.
  17. Griliches, Z. (1979), “Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth”, Bell Journal of Economics, 10 (1), 92-116.
  18. Metcalfe, J. S. (1998), Evolutionary economics and creative destruction, Routledge, London.
  19. Nelson, R. R. and Winter S. G. (1982), An evolutionary theory of economic change, Cambridge, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  20. Newell, R. G., Jaffe, A. B. and Stavins, R. N. (1999), “The induced innovation hypothesis and energy-saving technological change”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 941-975.
  21. Ostrom, E. and Hess, C. (eds.) (2006), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice, MIT Press, Cambridge.
  22. Page, S. E. (2011), Diversity and complexity, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  23. Porter, M. E. and van der Linde, C. (1995), “Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 97-118.
  24. Scherer, F. M. (1986), Innovation and growth: Schumpeterian perspectives, MIT Press, Cambridge.
  25. Schumpeter, J. A. (1911, 1934), The theory of economic development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
  26. Schumpeter, J. A. (1939), Business cycles. A theoretical, historical and statistical analysis of the capitalist process, McGraw-Hill, New York.
  27. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942), Capitalism socialism and democracy, Harper and Brothers, New York.
  28. Schumpeter, J. A. (1947), “The creative response in economic history”, Journal of Economic History, 7, 149-159.
  29. Simon, H. A. (1947), Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization, London, Macmillan.
  30. Simon, H. A. (1979), “Rational decision making in business organizations”, American Economic Review, 69 (4), 493-513.
  31. Simon, H. A. (1982), Metaphors of Bounded Rationality: Behavioral Economics and Business Organization, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
  32. Weitzman, M. L. (1996), “Hybridizing growth theory”, American Economic Review, 86, 207-212.