Recommendations:

Basic knowledge of micro- and macroeconomics is assumed, as taught in the courses Economics I [2600012], and Economics II [2600014]. In addition, an interest in quantitative-mathematical modeling is required.

Excerpt:

• Aghion, P., Howitt, P. (2009), The Economics of Growth, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
• de la Fuente, A. (2000), Mathematical Methods and Models for Economists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
• Klodt, H. (1995), Grundlagen der Forschungs- und Technologiepolitik. Vahlen, München.
• Linde, R. (2000), Allokation, Wettbewerb, Verteilung - Theorie, UNIBUCH Verlag, Lüneburg.
• Ruttan, V. W. (2001), Technology, Growth, and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Scotchmer, S. (2004), Incentives and Innovation, MIT Press.
• Tirole, Jean (1988), The Theory of Industrial Organization, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

• Incentives for the emergence of innovations
• Patents
• Diffusion
• Impact of technological progress
• Innovation Policy

The total workload for this course is approximately 135.0 hours. For further information see German version.

Students shall be given the ability to

• identify the importance of alternative incentive mechanisms for the emergence and dissemination of innovations
• understand the relationships between market structure and the development of innovation
• explain, in which situations market interventions by the state, for example taxes and subsidies, can be legitimized, and evaluate them in the light of economic welfare

The assessment consists of a written exam (60 min) according to Section 4(2), 1 of the examination regulation. The exam takes place in every semester. Re-examinations are offered at every ordinary examination date.

Students will be given the opportunity of writing and presenting a short paper during the lecture time to achieve a bonus on the exam grade. If the mandatory credit point exam is passed, the awarded bonus points will be added to the regular exam points. A deterioration is not possible by definition, and a grade does not necessarily improve, but is very likely to (not every additional point improves the total number of points, since a grade can not become better than 1). The voluntary elaboration of such a paper can not countervail a fail in the exam.