Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:19:28.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Governing the innovation commons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2017

JASON POTTS Open the ORCID record for JASON POTTS [Opens in a new window]
JASON POTTS*
Affiliation:
School of Economics, Finance and Marketing, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
*
*Email: jason.potts@rmit.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper analyses the origin of innovation using institutional economic theory. Because of distributed information and fundamental uncertainty, an efficient institutional context for the economic organization of innovation in its early stages is often that of a common pool resource. The theory of the innovation commons draws upon Hayek, Williamson and Ostrom to present the innovation problem as a combined knowledge problem, implicit contracting problem and collective action governance problem. Innovation commons theory also implies that Kirzner's model of entrepreneurial opportunity discovery extends to higher-order groups, suggesting a multilevel selection model of economic evolution.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 14 , Special Issue 6: Special Issue on Innovation and Institutions From The Bottom Up , December 2018 , pp. 1025 - 1047
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aghion, P. and Tirole, J. (1994), ‘The management of innovation’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109 (4): 1185–210.Google Scholar
Allen, D. (2017), ‘Blockchain innovation commons’, available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2919170.Google Scholar
Allen, D. and Potts, J. (2016), ‘How innovation commons contribute to discovering and developing new technologies’, International Journal of the Commons, 10 (2): 1035–54.Google Scholar
Allen, R. (1983), ‘Collective invention’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 4 (1): 1–24.Google Scholar
Aoki, M. (2007), ‘Endogenizing institutions and institutional changes’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 3 (1): 1–31.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. (1962), ‘Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for innovation’, in Nelson, R. (ed.) The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Baldwin, C., Heinerth, C. and von Hippel, E. (2006), ‘How user innovations become commercial product: a theoretical investigation and case study’, Research Policy, 35 (9): 1291–313.Google Scholar
Benkler, Y. (2004a), ‘Sharing nicely: on shareable goods and the emergence of sharing as a modality of economic production’, Yale Law Journal, 114 (2): 306–51.Google Scholar
Benkler, Y. (2004b), ‘Commons-based strategies and the problem of patents’, Science, 305 (5687): 1110–1.Google Scholar
Benkler, Y. (2006), The Wealth of Networks. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, T. (2002), ‘Evolution of social behavior: individual and group selection’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16 (2): 67–88.Google Scholar
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (2005), ‘Can self-interest explain cooperation?’ Evolutionary and Institutional Economic Review, 2 (1): 21–41.Google Scholar
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (2013), A Cooperative Species. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bowles, S., Choi, K. and Hopfensitz, A. (2003), ‘The coevolution of individual behavior and social institutions’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 223 (2): 135–47.Google Scholar
Buenstorf, G. (2003), ‘Designing clunkers: demand-side innovation and the early history of the mountain bike’, in Metcalfe, J. S. and Cantner, U. (eds) Change, Transformation and Development, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, pp. 53–70.Google Scholar
Chesbrough, H. (2003), ‘The era of open innovation’, MIT Sloan Management Review, 44 (3): 35–41.Google Scholar
Dahlander, L. and Wallin, M. (2006), ‘A man on the inside: unlocking communities as complementary assets’, Research Policy, 35 (9): 1243–59.Google Scholar
David, P. (1998), ‘Common agency contracting and the emergence of “open science” institutions’, American Economic Review, 88 (2): 15–21.Google Scholar
Davidson, S. and Potts, J. (2016), ‘A new institutional approach to innovation policy’, Australian Economic Review, 49 (2): 200–7.Google Scholar
Dodgson, M., Hughes, A., Foster, J. and Metcalfe, S. J. (2011), ‘Systems thinking, market failure, and the development of innovation policy: the case of Australia’, Research Policy, 40 (9): 1145–56.Google Scholar
Dopfer, K. and Potts, J. (2008), The General Theory of Economic Evolution. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dosi, G. (1982), ‘Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change’, Research Policy, 11 (3): 147–62.Google Scholar
Eckhardt, J. and Shane, S. (2003), ‘Opportunities and entrepreneurship’, Journal of Management, 29 (3): 333–49.Google Scholar
Fauchart, E. and von Hippel, E. (2008), ‘Norms-based intellectual property systems: the case of French chefs’, Organization Science, 19 (2): 187–201.Google Scholar
Fehr, E. and Gächter, S. (2002), ‘Altruistic punishment in humans’, Nature, 415 (6868): 137–40.Google Scholar
Foster, J. (2005), ‘From simplistic to complex systems in economics’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29 (6): 873–92.Google Scholar
Franke, N. and Shah, S. (2003), ‘How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users’, Research Policy, 32 (1): 157–78.Google Scholar
Franzoni, C. and Sauermann, H. (2014), ‘Crowd science: the organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects’, Research Policy, 43 (1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Frischmann, B. (2012), Infrastructure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frischmann, B., Madison, M. and Strandburg, K. (eds) (2014), Governing Knowledge Commons. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gächter, S., von Krogh, G. and Haefliger, S. (2010), ‘Initiating private-collective innovation: the fragility of knowledge sharing’, Research Policy, 39 (7): 893–906.Google Scholar
Gans, J. and Stern, S. (2010), ‘Is there a market for ideas?’ Industrial and Corporate Change, 19 (3): 805–37.Google Scholar
Gawer, A. and Cusumano, M. (2014), ‘Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31 (3): 417–33.Google Scholar
Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Boyd, R. and Fehr, E. (2003), ‘Explaining altruistic behavior in humans’, Evolution Human Behavior, 24: 153–72.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2007), ‘The new synthesis in moral psychology’, Science, 316 (5827): 998–1002.Google Scholar
Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M. and Ukkonen, A. (2015), ‘The sharing economy: why people participate in collaborative consumption’, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67 (9): 2047–59.Google Scholar
Harper, D. and Endres, A. (2010), ‘Capital as a “layer cake”: a systems approach to capital and its multi-level structure’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 74 (1–2): 30–41.Google Scholar
Hartley, J. and Potts, J. (2014), Cultural Science. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Hausmann, R. and Rodrik, D. (2004), ‘Economic development as self-discovery’, Journal of Development Economics, 72 (2): 603–33.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1973), Law, Legislation, and Liberty, Vol. 1: Rules and Order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1988), ‘The fatal conceit’, in Bartley, W. (ed.) Collected Works of F. A. Hayek. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1945), ‘The use of knowledge in society’, American Economic Review, 35 (4): 519–30.Google Scholar
Henrich, J. (2004), ‘Cultural group selection, coevolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 53 (1): 3–35.Google Scholar
Hess, C. (2008), Mapping the New Commons. Available at SSRN 1356835.Google Scholar
Hess, C. and Ostrom, E. (eds) (2006), Understanding Knowledge as a Commons. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Holmstrom, B. (1989), ‘Agency costs and innovation’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 12 (3): 305–27.Google Scholar
Juma, C. (2016), Innovation and its Enemies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kealey, T. and Ricketts, M. (2014), ‘Modelling science as a contribution good’, Research Policy, 43 (6): 1014–24.Google Scholar
Kera, D. (2014), ‘Innovation regimes based on collaborative and global tinkering: synthetic biology and nanotechnology in the hackerspaces’, Technology in Society, 37: 28–37.Google Scholar
Kirzner, I. (1973), Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kirzner, I. (1996), The Meaning of Market Process. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Klein, B., Crawford, R. and Alchian, A. (1978), ‘Vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive contracting process’, Journal of Law and Economics, 21 (2): 297–326.Google Scholar
Kostakis, V., Nairos, V. and Giotitsas, C. (2015), ‘Production and governance in hackerspaces: a manifestation of commons-based peer production in the physical realm?’ International Journal of Cultural Studies, 18 (5): 555–73.Google Scholar
Lachmann, L. (1994), Expectations and the Meaning of Institutions (edited by Lavoie, D.), London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lakhani, K. and Panetta, J. (2007), ‘The principles of distributed innovation’, Innovations, 2 (3): 97–112.Google Scholar
Langlois, R. and Garzarelli, G. (2008), ‘Of hackers and hairdressers: modularity and the organizational economics of open‐source collaboration’, Industry and Innovation, 15 (2): 125–43.Google Scholar
Lavoie, D. (2004), ‘Subjectivism, entrepreneurship, and the convergence of groupware and hypertext’, in Birner, J. and Garrouste, P. (eds) Markets, Information, and Communication. New York: Routledge, pp. 21–46.Google Scholar
Lerner, J. and Tirole, J. (2002), ‘Some simple economics of open source’, Journal of Industrial Economics, 52 (2): 197–234.Google Scholar
Lerner, J. and Tirole, J. (2004), ‘Efficient patent pools’, American Economic Review, 94 (3): 691–711.Google Scholar
Lerner, J. and Tirole, J. (2005), ‘The Economics of technology sharing: open source and beyond’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19 (2): 99–120.Google Scholar
Lüthje, C., Herstatt, C. and von Hippel, E. (2005), ‘User-innovators and “local” information: the case of mountain biking’, Research Policy, 34 (6): 951–65.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (2013), The Society for Useful Knowledge. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Madison, M., Frischmann, B. and Strandburg, K. (2010), ‘Constructing commons in a cultural environment’, Cornell Law Review, 95 (4): 657–709.Google Scholar
Madison, M., Frischmann, B. and Strandburg, K. (2009), ‘The university as a constructured cultural commons’, Journal of Law and Policy, 30: 365–403.Google Scholar
Madison, M., Strandburg, K. and Frischmann, B. (2016), ‘Knowledge commons’, in Menell, P. and Schwartz, D. (eds), Research Handbook on the Economics of Intellectual Property Law (Vol. II). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Martin, S. and Scott, J. (2000), ‘The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation’, Research Policy, 29 (4–5): 437–47.Google Scholar
McCloskey, D. (2016), Bourgeois Equality, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McIntyre, J., Mitchell, R., Boyle, B. and Ryan, S. (2013), ‘We used to get and give a lot of help: networking, cooperation and knowledge flow in the Hunter Valley wine cluster’, Australian Economic History Review, 53 (3): 247–67.Google Scholar
Meisenzahl, R. and Mokyr, J. (2011), ‘The rate and direction of invention in the british industrial revolution: incentives and institutions’, in The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity Revisited, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 443–79.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, J. S. (2008), ‘Accounting for economic evolution: fitness and the population method’, Journal of Bioeconomics, 10: 23–49.Google Scholar
Meyer, P. (2003), ‘Episodes of collective invention’, US Bureau of Labor Statistics Working Paper 368.Google Scholar
Moilanen, J., Daly, A., Lobato, R. and Allen, D. (2015), ‘Cultures of sharing in 3D printing: what can we learn from the licence choices of Thingiverse users’, Journal of Peer Production, 6. Available at http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-6-disruption-and-the-law/peer-reviewed-articles/cultures-of-sharing-in-thingiverse-what-can-we-learn-from-the-licence-choices-of-thingiverse-users/ (accessed 25 August 2017).Google Scholar
Mokyr, J. (2011), The Enlightened Economy. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Mokyr, J. (2016), A Culture of Growth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mokyr, J. (2017), ‘Bottom-up or top-down? The origins of the Industrial Revolution’, Journal of Institutional Economics (submitted).Google Scholar
Moser, P. (2012), ‘Innovation without patents: evidence from world's fairs’, Journal of Law and Economics, 55 (1): 43–74.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. (2004), ‘The market economy and the scientific commons’, Research Policy, 33 (3): 455–71.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. (ed) (1993), National Innovation Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nielsen, M. (2012), Reinventing Discovery. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. (2006), ‘Five rules for the evolution of cooperation’, Science, 314 (5805): 1560–3.Google Scholar
Nowak, M., Tarnita, C. and Wilson, E. O. (2010), ‘The evolution of eusociality’, Nature, 466 (7310): 1057–62.Google Scholar
Nuvolari, A. (2004), ‘Collective invention during the British industrial revolution: the case of the Cornish pumping engine’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28 (3): 347–63.Google Scholar
Osterloh, M. and Rota, S. (2007), ‘Open source software development: just another case of collective invention?’ Research Policy, 36 (2): 157–71.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2005), Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2007), ‘A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 (39): 15,181–15,187.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2010), ‘Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems’, American Economic Review, 100 (3): 641–72.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. and Hess, C. (2003), ‘Ideas artifacts and facilities: information as a common-pool resource’, Law & Contemporary Problems, 66 (1/2): 111–45.Google Scholar
Pisano, G. (1991), ‘The governance of innovation: vertical integration and collaborative arrangements in the biotechnology industry’, Research Policy, 20 (3): 237–249.Google Scholar
Potts, J. and Thomas, S. (2015), ‘The curious case for media monopoly in technology-driven sports?’ Media International Australia.Google Scholar
Potts, J. and Hartley, J. (2015), ‘How the social economy produces innovation’, Review of Social Economy, 73 (3): 263–82.Google Scholar
Potts, J. and Waters-Lynch, J. (2017), ‘The social economy of coworking spaces: a focal point model of coordination’, Review of Social Economy (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Price, G. (1972), ‘Fisher's “fundamental theorem” made clear’, Annals of Human Genetics, 36 (2): 129–40.Google Scholar
Raustiala, K. and Sprigman, C. (2006), ‘The piracy paradox: innovation and intellectual property in fashion design’, Virginia Law Review, 86 (8): 1687–777.Google Scholar
Richerson, P., Boyd, R. and Henrich, J. (2003), ‘The cultural evolution of human cooperation’, in Hammerstein, P., (ed.). The Genetic and Cultural Evolution of Cooperation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 357–88.Google Scholar
Robertson, P. and Langlois, R. (1995), ‘Innovation, networks, and vertical integration’, Research Policy, 24 (4): 543–62.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. (1939), Business Cycles, 2 Volumes, New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Shah, S. (2005), ‘From innovation to firm formation in the windsurfing, skateboarding and snowboarding industries’, University of Illinois Working Paper #05-0107.Google Scholar
Shah, S. and Mody, C. (2014), ‘Creating a context for entrepreneurship’, in Frischmann et al. (eds) Governing Knowledge Commons. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 313–39.Google Scholar
Shane, S. (2000), ‘Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunity’, Organizational Science, 11 (4): 448–69.Google Scholar
Simon, H. (2005), ‘Darwinism, altruism and economics’, in Dopfer, K., (ed.). The Evolutionary Foundations of Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sober, E. and Wilson, D. S. (1998), Unto Others. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Strandburg, K., Frischmann, B. and Madison, M. (eds) (2017), Governing Medical Knowledge Commons. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sundararajan, A. (2016), The Sharing Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Swann, P (2014), Common Innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Tarko, V. (2016), Elinor Ostrom: An Intellectual Biography. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Taylor, M. Z. (2016), The Politics of Innovation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Teece, D. (1986), ‘Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy’, Research Policy, 15 (6): 285–303.Google Scholar
Teece, D. (1992), ‘Competition, cooperation, and innovation: organizational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological progress’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 18 (1): 1–25.Google Scholar
Traulsen, A. and Nowak, M. (2006), ‘Evolution of cooperation by multilevel selection’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103 (29): 10,952–5.Google Scholar
Turchin, P. (2015), Ultrasociety. Storrs, CT: Peter Turchin Publishing.Google Scholar
Van Vugt, M. (2006), ‘Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10 (4): 354–71.Google Scholar
Von Hippel, E. (2005), Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Von Hippel, E. (1987), ‘Cooperation between rivals: informal know-how trading’, Research Policy, 16 (6): 291–302.Google Scholar
Von Hippel, E. (2007), ‘Horizontal innovation networks: by and for users’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 16 (2): 293–315.Google Scholar
Von Hippel, E. and von Krogh, G. (2003), ‘Open source software development and the private-collective innovation model: issues for organization science’, Organization Science, 14 (2): 208–23.Google Scholar
Waguespack, D. and Fleming, L. (2009), ‘Scanning the commons: evidence on the benefits to startups participating in open standards development’, Management Science, 55 (2): 210–23.Google Scholar
West, J. and Lakhani, K. (2008), ‘Getting clear about communities in open innovation’, Industry and Innovation, 15 (2): 223–31.Google Scholar
Williams, M. and Hall, J. (2015), ‘Hackerspaces: a case study in the creation and management of a common pool resource’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 11 (04): 769–81.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. (1979), ‘Transaction cost economics: the governance of contractual relations’, Journal of Law and Economics, 22 (2): 233–61.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. (1985), The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. (2002), ‘The lens of contract: private ordering’, American Economic Review, 92 (2): 438–43.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. S., Ostrom, E. and Cox, R. (2013), ‘Generalizing the core design principles for the efficacy of groups’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 90: S21–S32.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. S. and Wilson, E. O. (2007), ‘Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology’, Quarterly Review of Biology, 82 (4): 327–48.Google Scholar
Zinovyeva, N. (2010), ‘Multilevel selection processes in economics: theory and methods’, DRUID Working Papers. Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
Zywicki, T. (2000), ‘Was Hayek right about group selection after all?’ Review of Austrian Economics, 13 (1): 81–95.Google Scholar