Is there a market for ideas?
Open accessAbstract
This paper draws on recent work in market design to evaluate the conditions under which a market for ideas or technology (MfTs) will emerge and operate efficiently. As highlighted by Roth (2007), effective market design must ensure three basic principles: market thickness, lack of congestion, and market safety. Roth also highlight the importance of dealing with “repugnance.” Our analysis identifies the factors that are, in most circumstances, likely to inhibit the allocative efficiency of MfT. We show that key institutional developments such as the development of formalized IP exchanges suggest that effective market design may be possible for some innovation markets. Finally, our analysis suggests that markets for ideas are beset by the “repugnance” problem: from the perspective of market design, Open Science is an institution that places normative value on “free” disclosure and so undermines the ability of ideas producers to earn market-based returns for producing even very valuable “pure” knowledge.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Because the market for information/knowledge about new opportunities isn't well developed, entrepreneurs and managers must build organizational capabilities inside business firms to assist in knowledge creation and knowledge capture.
“Because the market for information/ knowledge about new opportunities (Gans & Stern, 2010; Teece, 1981b) isn't well developed, entrepreneurs and managers must build organizational capabilities inside businesses firms to assist in knowledge creation and knowledge capture (Teece, 1986b, 2006b).”
From A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise (2014) · cites this paper as Gans & Stern, 2010
Cites
The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement
Gouldner, A. W. (1960) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2092623 · Cited by 12,001 · see citing works
Toward a new economics of science
Partha, D., & David, P. A. (1994) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/0048-7333(94)01002-1 · Cited by 2,448 · see citing works
Internet encyclopaedias go head to head
Giles, J. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/438900a · Cited by 1,978 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise
Teece, D. J. (2014) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2013.54 · Cited by 1,300 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gans, J. S., & Stern, S.
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Northwestern University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gans, J. S.
- Stern, S.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Industrial and Corporate Change
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-04-12
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 805-837
- ISSN
- 0960-6491 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3650
- OpenAlex
- W3124033313
- Cited by
- 203
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 32.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Industrial and Corporate Change (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Intellectual Property and Patents
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic Theory and Institutions
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
- Keywords
- technology markets, market design, allocative efficiency, repugnance, innovation market, open science, knowledge disclosure, market thickness, market safety, congestion
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review