Submitted to the Foculty of Groduqte Studies ond Reseorch in portiol ...

-20-
(net. ã pp. 37L-72). The most importont determinont in his view
is thei richness of opportunities opened up þy science ond
technico!. knowledge. However, there is extensive inter-industry
voriotion becouse some oppegr to be in o better position thon
otherg to ovoil themselves of ns\4r opportunities. A second
foctor is on qttitude of receptiveness on the port of entre-
preneurs, whot Moclourin _cqlls 'reseorch conception' (AER, f954).
Qther studies (Sti9ler qnd Philtis 1956, Horowítz 1962)
inciicote thot mqrket concentrqtion in foct hos o fovouroble
impoct on technologicol ínnovotion. But how much concêntrotion
is useful in this resp€ct remqins to be seen. l)ligopo1ists hqve
most of the odvontoges ottributed to o monopolist. For reosons
similor to those underlying their odvertising rivolry, oligopolists
hove qn incentive to increqse their morket shqr€s by
meons of non-price competition in generol. One such method is
product innovotion. Indeed, - it seens to fit in well with their
'ingrdined oggressive instincts I
The following conclusion wos qrrived ot by Schêrer (Ref. 2
p. 37e): rwhot is needed for ropid technologicol progress is o
subtlê blend of competition qnd monopoly, with more emphosis
in generol on the former thqn the lotter, ond with the role of
monopolístic el.ements díminishing when rich technologicol
opportunities exist.,,
Concluding notes. - On the whole, big firms ore likely to
be technologicolly more progr?çsive, qlthough nêith€r the orgu-