HORIZONTAL INNOVATIONS AND ENDOGENOUS GROWTH: ASSUMPTIONS, MECHANISMS, AND DEBATES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37332/Keywords:
economic growth, innovative development, patents, R&D, horizontal innovations, technological progress, endogenous growth models, scale effectsAbstract
Pasichnyk T.O. HORIZONTAL INNOVATIONS AND ENDOGENOUS GROWTH: ASSUMPTIONS, MECHANISMS, AND DEBATES
Purpose. The aim of the article is to systematize the key assumptions of P. Romer's horizontal innovation models, this paper systematizes the key assumptions of Paul Romer’s horizontal innovation models, shows how these assumptions underpin the main theoretical conclusions about the role of R&D and firms’ innovative activity in economic growth, and outlines the major issues and debates in innovation, competition, and patent policy that follow from this framework.
Methodology of research. The study employs analysis and synthesis to select and integrate the literature on horizontal innovation models and related contemporary debates; logical and deductive analysis to trace causal links between model assumptions and growth outcomes; and comparative analysis to contrast the structural elements of the “knowledge-driven” specification and the “lab-equipment” model.
Findings. The paper summarizes the core assumptions of Paul Romer-type horizontal innovation models: the nonrivalry of ideas; partial excludability (notably via patent protection); imperfect competition and firms’ market power; the “love-for-variety” mechanism; and an aggregate R&D production function that links research inputs to the arrival of new designs. The analysis shows that innovation is driven by private incentives (expected monopoly rents), while technological progress is interpreted as an expansion in the set of designs – or, equivalently, the number of varieties of intermediate goods – which raises productivity in final-goods production. The two specifications are shown to share a common structure but differ fundamentally in the form of the R&D production function, particularly in how the accumulated stock of knowledge affects research productivity. The paper also highlights the main debates associated with these models, including assumptions about R&D productivity, the trade-off between competition and innovation incentives, the empirical relevance of scale effects, and the inefficiency of decentralized equilibrium and its sources.
Originality. The study clarifies how the “knowledge-driven” and “lab-equipment” specifications differ in their R&D technologies and in the role assigned to the knowledge stock in determining research productivity. In addition, it systematizes the key tensions and contested policy implications arising from this theoretical framework.
Practical value. The research results provide a structured basis for the appropriate use of Paul Romer-type horizontal innovation models in applied analysis and economic policy design. In particular, they can serve as a methodological tool for assessing and comparing alternative policy scenarios (R&D support, the design of intellectual property institutions, competition policy, etc.).
Key words: economic growth, innovative development, patents, R&D, horizontal innovations, technological progress, endogenous growth models, scale effects.
References
1. Liu, T. and Liu, Z. (2022), “A growth model with endogenous technological revolutions and cycles”, Journal of Mathematical Economics, Vol. 103, Article 102774, DOI: 10.1016/j.jmateco.2022.102774.
2. Trammell, P. (2025), “The Extreme Inefficiency of Expanding Variety in Endogenous Growth Theory”, Working Paper, available at: https://philiptrammell.com/static/Endogenous_Growth_and_Excess_Variety.pdf (access date January 04, 2026).
3. Etro, F. (2023), “Technologies for endogenous growth”, Journal of Mathematical Economics, Vol. 105, Article 102808, DOI: 10.1016/j.jmateco.2023.102808.
4. He, S. (2022), “Growing through endogenous innovation cycles”, Journal of Macroeconomics, Vol. 71, Article 103388, DOI: 10.1016/j.jmacro.2021.103388.
5. Gersbach, H., Schetter, U. and Schmassmann, S. (2023), “From local to global: A theory of public basic research in a globalized world”, European Economic Review, Vol. 160, Article 104530, DOI: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2023.104530.
6. Lehr, N.H. (2023), Innovation in an aging economy, available at: https://nilshaakonlehr.github.io/professional_webpage/atag/lehr_2023_aging_innovation.pdf (access date January 04, 2026).
7. Yang, Y. (2021), “Welfare effects of patent protection in a growth model with R&D and capital accumulation”, Macroeconomic Dynamics, Vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 579-602, DOI: 10.1017/S1365100519000233.
8. Klein, M.A. and Yang, Y. (2025), “Patents, secrecy, and financing innovation”, DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5283518.
9. Arrow, K.J. (1962), “The economic implications of learning by doing”, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 155-173, DOI: 10.2307/2295952.
10. Romer, P.M. (1986), “Increasing returns and long-run growth”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 94, no. 5, pp. 1002-1037, DOI: 10.1086/261420.
11. Romer, P.M. (1990a), “Endogenous technological change”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 98, no. 5, Part 2, pp. S71-S102, DOI: 10.1086/261725.
12. Romer, P.M. (1989), “Increasing returns and new developments in the theory of growth”, NBER Working Paper, no. 3098, DOI: 10.3386/w3098.
13. Rivera-Batiz, L.A. and Romer, P.M. (1990), “Economic integration and endogenous growth”, NBER Working Paper, no. 3528, DOI: 10.3386/w3528.
14. Jones, C. (2019), “Paul Romer: Ideas, nonrivalry, and endogenous growth”, The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Vol. 121, no. 3, pp. 859-883, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/sjoe.12370.
15. Romer, P.M. (1993), “Idea gaps and object gaps in economic development”, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 543-573, DOI: 10.1016/0304-3932(93)90029-F.
16. Barro, R.J. and Sala-i-Martin, X. (2004), Economic Growth, 2nd ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, YSA, 654 p.
17. Schmookler, J. (1966), Invention and Economic Growth, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, DOI: 10.4159/harvard.9780674432833.
18. Spulber, D.F. (2024), “How should antitrust market definition address innovation?”, Concurrences, no. 4, pp. 52-58, available at: https://www.concurrences.com/en/review/numeros/no-4-2024/law-economics/how-should-antitrust-market-definition-address-innovation-121089 (access date January 04, 2026).
19. Acemoglu, D. (2009), Introduction to Modern Economic Growth, Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA, 1008 p.
20. Pasichnyk, T. (2025), “Exogenous technological progress in the neoclassical Ramsey–Cass–Koopmans model: Effects on economic growth and welfare”, Halytskyi ekonomichnyi visnyk, Vol. 97, no. 6, pp. 59-73, DOI: 10.33108/galicianvisnyk_tntu2025.06.059.
21. Griliches, Z. and Schmookler, J. (1963), “Inventing and maximizing”, American Economic Review, Vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 725-729, available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1811022 (access date January 04, 2026).
22. Dixit, A.K. and Stiglitz, J.E. (1977), “Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity”, American Economic Review, Vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 297-308, available at: https://www.aeaweb.org/aer/top20/67.3.297-308.pdf (access date January 04, 2026).
23. Gancia, G. and Zilibotti, F. (2005), “Horizontal innovation in the theory of growth and development”, UPF Economics and Business Working Paper, no. 831, 65 p., DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.859364.
24. Pasichnyk, T.O., Petrunia, Yu.Ye., Maliar, D.V. and Petrunia, V.Yu. (2026), “Technological progress and innovation management in Adam Smith’s theory of economic growth”, Akademichnyi ohliad, no. 1(64), pp. 234-250, DOI: 10.32342/3041-2137-2026-1-64-15.
25. Romer, P.M. (1987), “Growth based on increasing returns due to specialization”, American Economic Review, Vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 56-62, available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1805429 (access date January 04, 2026).
26. Yaqub, O. (2018), “Serendipity: towards a taxonomy and a theory”, Research Policy, Vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 169-179, DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.007.
27. Bloom, N., Jones, C.I., Van Reenen, J. and Webb, M. (2020), “Are ideas getting harder to find?”, American Economic Review, Vol. 110, no. 4, pp. 1104-1144, DOI: 10.1257/aer.20180338.
28. Boeing, P. and Hünermund, P. (2020), “A global decline in research productivity? Evidence from China and Germany”, Economics Letters, Vol. 197, Article 109646, DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2020.109646.
29. Alston, J.M. and Pardey, P.G. (2022), “Are ideas really getting harder to find?”, Staff Paper, 320517, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics, USA, 33 p., DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.320517.
30. OECD/Eurostat (2018), Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, 4th ed., OECD Publishing/Eurostat, Paris/Luxembourg, DOI: 10.1787/9789264304604-en.
31. Nakabo, Y. and Tabata, K. (2019), “An inverted-U effect of patents on economic growth in an overlapping generations model”, Discussion Paper Series, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University, 191, 28 p., available at: https://kyou2010.kwansei.ac.jp/RePEc/pdf/kgdp191.pdf (access date January 04, 2026).
32. Ramondo, N., Rodríguez-Clare, A. and Saborío-Rodríguez, M. (2016), “Trade, domestic frictions, and scale effects”, American Economic Review, Vol. 106, no. 10, pp. 3159-3184, DOI: 10.1257/aer.20141449.
33. Luintel, K.B. and Pourpourides, P.M. (2022), “New results and a model of scale effects on growth”, Cardiff Economics Working Papers, no. E2022/19, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Cardiff, UK, available at: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/284162/1/E2022_19.pdf (access date January 04, 2026).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Open-access articles (open-access journals)
Authors whose articles are published in open-access retain all rights to the content of the articles.
Open access articles are committed to be published under Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0. This license allows others to distribute, edit, correct and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they indicate your authorship. Detailed information at Creative Commons site: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Permissions for open-access journals
If the article is published in open-access under CC BY 4.0 or CC BY-NC 4.0 (which was possible till the 15th of December, 2018) licenses, users may reproduce it in accordance with their terms.
Additionally, if the article had been published under CC BY-NC 4.0 (this license authorizes others to download your works and share them with others as long as they indicate your authorship, but they can’t use them commercially in any case.), the use for the following commercial purposes requires permission:
– reproduction of content in a work or product intended for sale;
– reproduction in presentations, brochures or other marketing materials used for commercial purposes;
– distribution of the content to promote or market a person, product, course, service or organization;
– text and data mining for the purpose of creating a saleable product or product which benefits from promotional or advertising revenue;
– use of the content by a commercial entity or individual for the purposes of remuneration, directly or indirectly through sale, licensing, promotion or advertising;
– linking to the content (in an email, webpage, portable electronic device or otherwise) for the specific purpose of marketing or advertising a person, product, course, service or organization for commercial benefit.
For further details and permission requests, please contact.
