Philippe Aghion

Philippe Aghion is a French economist known for building formal theories of how technological innovation drives long-run economic growth. Born in Paris in 1956, he studied at Paris universities and earned his doctorate at Harvard University before holding posts at Harvard, University College London, MIT, Oxford and later at the London School of Economics, INSEAD and the Collège de France. His most influential work, written with Peter Howitt, extends Joseph Schumpeter's idea of creative destruction into a mathematical growth model, the Aghion–Howitt model, which became a central reference point of endogenous growth theory and of the field now often called Schumpeterian growth theory.

In October 2025 the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded him, Howitt and Joel Mokyr the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Aghion and Howitt shared one half of the prize for their theory of sustained growth through creative destruction, while Mokyr received the other half for his historical account of the prerequisites for technology-driven growth. The honour made Aghion's research on how competition, entry, and incumbent firms shape innovation widely visible beyond academic economics.

This entry first outlines his career and academic training, then the intellectual background of growth theory that his work responded to. It next explains the core Schumpeterian model and his later work on competition, institutions, education, inequality, and green innovation. The entry then covers his books, awards and influence, and closes with criticisms and open questions in the literature.

早年、教育与学术生涯

Philippe Mario Aghion was born in Paris on 17 August 1956. His mother, Gaby Aghion, was a fashion designer who co-founded the house Chloé, and the family had roots in Alexandria. He studied mathematics at the mathematics section of the French École normale supérieure de Cachan, from 1976 to 1980. He then moved into mathematical economics at Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, earning a diplôme d'études approfondies in 1981 and a third-cycle doctorate in 1983. That French thesis, on market equilibria, competition and price formation, was supervised by Yves Balasko, whose work centres on general equilibrium theory.

哈佛博士与早期职业

He entered Harvard University for doctoral work and received his PhD in economics in 1987, with a dissertation titled Three Essays in the Theory of Industrial Organization. Its advisers were Jerry Green and Eric Maskin, whose work on contracts and mechanisms shaped his approach to incentives. The dissertation year was supported by a Sloan Foundation dissertation fellowship. After the PhD he spent 1987 to 1989 as an assistant professor at MIT. In 1989 he returned to France as a researcher at the CNRS, and from 1990 to 1992 he served as deputy chief economist at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in London, later as its research coordinator until 2000.

The academic posts that followed were spread across Britain and the United States. He was an official fellow of Nuffield College, University of Oxford, from 1992 to 1996, and then professor of economics at University College London from 1996 to 2002. He was also a professor at Harvard from 2000, holding the Robert C. Waggoner chair in economics from 2002 to 2015. In 2015 he took up the chair in the economics of institutions, innovation and growth at the Collège de France and became a centennial professor at the London School of Economics. In 2020 he became a professor at INSEAD, where he holds the Kurt Björklund chair in innovation and growth.

研究网络与学术身份

Throughout this period Aghion was tied to European research networks as well as American ones. He has been a fellow of the Centre for Economic Policy Research since 1991, and he sat on the executive and supervisory committee of the CERGE research centre in Prague. He is a fellow of the Econometric Society and of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, which elected him in 2009. These affiliations reflect the mobility of his career: the sequence of posts in France, the United Kingdom and the United States, followed by a return to Paris, gave him access to several overlapping research communities in growth and industrial economics.

增长理论的背景：从索洛模型到内生增长

Postwar growth theory was organised around the Solow–Swan model, which Robert Solow and Trevor Swan developed independently in 1956. The model links long-run growth to capital accumulation, population growth and productivity gains. In its steady state, output per worker grows at the rate of technical progress. Because that rate is supplied from outside the model, the model shows how saving and population affect the level of output but does not explain the long-run growth rate itself. Its sources of sustained growth stay unexplained.

By the mid-1980s, a group of growth theorists had become dissatisfied with this treatment. Their response was to replace the unexplained technology term with a structure in which the determinants of growth appear explicitly. Paul Romer's 1986 paper in the Journal of Political Economy and Robert Lucas's 1988 work on human capital are usually cited as the starting points of this line of research. Both showed that the long-run growth rate can emerge from decisions made by economic agents rather than from an exogenous technology trend. The technical key was to drop diminishing returns to a broadly defined capital stock. Knowledge and human capital were treated as producing spillovers that keep their private returns from falling. Gene Grossman and Elhanan Helpman's 1991 book extended these ideas to innovation in an international setting, and by the early 1990s the literature had grown rapidly.

A central question in this literature was how the production of knowledge is rewarded. Romer stressed that ideas are nonrival: one firm's use of a design does not prevent another from using it. This property implies increasing returns at the level of the whole economy, even when each firm operates under constant returns. Researchers and entrepreneurs therefore need some expected profit from discovery to justify their effort. Yet many early endogenous growth models did not spell out how such profits are created, eroded or replaced over time. In particular, they gave little attention to the fact that a successful innovation can make existing products and firms obsolete.

Joseph Schumpeter's notion of creative destruction addressed exactly this gap. In his account, growth proceeds through new products and production methods that displace old ones, and the entrepreneur's gain comes at the expense of incumbents. Models in which new knowledge simply joins a common stock treat innovation as nearly frictionless, because they do not impose costs on the producers whose technologies are superseded. Aghion and Howitt aimed to turn Schumpeter's intuition into a formal general equilibrium framework. In such a framework, a better product entering the market reduces the sales of firms still using older technologies, and this loss is an integral part of the growth process rather than a side effect.

The underlying motivation of Aghion's research programme was to make the microeconomic incentives behind growth explicit. Instead of assuming a growth rate, the approach specifies how innovation, entry by new firms and the obsolescence of incumbent technologies affect the reward to research. This shift allowed growth theory to address the precise mechanisms and conditions under which creative destruction produces aggregate growth. It also set the stage for the later analysis of market structure, institutions and policy that is developed in other parts of this entry.

熊彼特式增长模型与创造性破坏

Aghion and Howitt's 1992 paper, "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," appeared in growth theory's Econometrica issue and set out a general-equilibrium framework in which growth comes from a sequence of quality-improving innovations. A model of endogenous growth is developed in which vertical innovations, generated by a competitive research sector, constitute the underlying source of growth. Because each new product is better than the last, the model treats innovation as a process of replacement rather than simple accumulation of capital or knowledge.

垂直创新与竞争性研究部门

In the model, research is carried out by competing firms, and a successful researcher receives a monopoly on a higher-quality version of an intermediate good. The innovator's rents last only until the next innovation arrives. The expected profit from research is therefore tied to the probability that a rival will succeed, which the authors treat as a Poisson arrival process. Each successful innovation raises the productivity benchmark for all subsequent innovations, so knowledge accumulates across generations of products. This is what distinguishes the framework from productivity-based models in which knowledge spills over without any firm earning a rent from it.

过时效应：增长的赢家与输家

Obsolescence is the channel through which creative destruction enters the model. The payoff from research this period is the prospect of monopoly rents next period. Those rents will last only until the next innovation occurs, at which time the knowledge underlying the rents will be rendered obsolete. The incumbent who loses its market to a new entrant is therefore an actual loser, and the growth process redistributes rents continuously. This is the point at which the model departs most sharply from the frictionless view of innovation, in which new technology is adopted without cost to existing producers.

前瞻性差分方程与未来研究的抑制作用

Equilibrium research in any period is governed by a forward-looking difference equation. The amount of research this period depends negatively upon the expected amount next period, through two effects. The first is creative destruction. Because the expected present value of the rents depends negatively upon the Poisson arrival rate of the next innovation. The expectation of more research next period will increase that arrival rate, and hence will discourage research this period. In compact form, the sign of the relationship is

where $n_t$ denotes the amount of research in period $t$. The implication is that a credible expectation of intense future research can, paradoxically, reduce current research. The authors also show that the average growth rate of the economy is not necessarily increased by an increase in the productivity of research.

business-stealing 外部性及其规范含义

The second effect is the "business-stealing" externality. Following the patent-race literature, the authors note that researchers do not internalize the destruction of existing rents created by their innovations. A private firm captures the profits from its own innovation but ignores the losses it imposes on the incumbent it displaces, so the social cost is not reflected in its decision. The result is a tension between two externalities. Knowledge spillovers, which are a positive externality, push toward underinvestment, while business stealing pushes toward overinvestment. In normative terms, obsolescence creates a negative externality from innovations, and hence a tendency for laissez-faire economies to generate too many innovations, i.e too much growth. This "business-stealing" effect is partly compensated by the fact that innovations tend to be too small under laissez-faire. The welfare conclusion is therefore ambiguous: under laissez faire the economy's growth rate may be more or less than optimal, and the answer depends on which effect dominates. The authors give sufficient conditions for each case rather than a universal verdict, which is why later work on market failure and welfare economics in growth models has tended to treat the question as empirical.

平衡增长路径与内生增长率

The model has a balanced growth equilibrium in which the average growth rate is determined within the model rather than assumed. The model possesses a unique balanced growth equilibrium in which the log of GNP follows a random walk with drift. In this equilibrium, the long-run rate depends on three elements: how large each innovation is, how often innovations arrive, and how much market power innovators hold during their period of monopoly. A rough approximation for the expected growth rate is $g \approx \lambda \ln \gamma$, where $\lambda$ is the arrival rate of innovations and $\gamma$ is the proportional quality improvement. The larger the innovation and the more frequent it is, the faster the growth; the shorter the period of monopoly rents, the weaker the incentive to research. Market power and the rate of obsolescence therefore appear in the growth rate itself, linking the theory to later work on market power and innovation incentives.

竞争、进入与创新的倒U型关系

In the basic Aghion–Howitt framework, competition is bad for innovation: a firm that innovates earns a temporary monopoly rent, and more rivals or easier entry shrink that rent. Later work by Aghion and Howitt, with coauthors, showed that this result depends on the position of firms in the technology ladder. Once firms are split into leaders and laggards, competition can have opposite effects on different groups, and the aggregate relationship can take an inverted-U shape.

逃避竞争效应（escape-competition effect）

The first mechanism applies to firms that are roughly level with their rivals. Here, competition cuts into the profits a firm earns before it innovates. If a rival innovates first, the firm loses a large share of its current rent, so the payoff from moving ahead rises. Each firm therefore has a strong incentive to innovate in order to pull away, which is the "escape-competition" effect. In the framework's own terms, competition reduces pre-innovation rents, which raises the incremental profit from becoming the leader. The effect is strongest in "neck-and-neck" sectors, where no firm has a lead.

熊彼特效应（Schumpeterian effect）

The second mechanism applies to laggards in "unleveled" sectors, where one firm is ahead and others are behind. A laggard that innovates does not simply get a new rent; it must first catch up with the leader and then earn a rent for being ahead. Tougher competition reduces the post-innovation rents a laggard can capture, so it discourages the catch-up innovation. This is the "Schumpeterian" effect, sometimes described as rent dissipation: competition reduces the rewards from innovating for those with the least to gain now. Aghion and Howitt's extension also allows for the anticipated escape-competition effect. A laggard that expects to become a neck-and-neck rival later will partly offset the discouragement, and patient laggards are less discouraged than impatient ones. Experimental and field evidence has been used to separate these two channels.

倒U型关系的来源：构成效应

The inverted U arises from how competition changes the distribution of firms across sectors. At low levels of competition, few firms have an incentive to innovate, so most sectors remain neck-and-neck, and the escape-competition effect dominates overall. At high levels of competition, neck-and-neck sectors innovate intensively and quickly move into a leader–laggard configuration, so most sectors become unleveled, and the Schumpeterian effect dominates. Aghion and coauthors call this the composition effect. Taken together, the escape-competition effect and the Schumpeterian effect yield an aggregate relationship that rises and then falls as competition increases.

实证证据

The inverted-U prediction was tested in Aghion, Bloom, Blundell, Griffith and Howitt's 2005 paper in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which used panel data on UK firms and found strong evidence of an inverted-U relationship. The authors also confirmed two further predictions: the average technological distance between leaders and followers grows with competition, and the inverted U is steeper in industries that are more neck-and-neck. Earlier analysis of Fortune 500 firms had found a similar hump-shaped pattern, but subsequent research largely returned to linear specifications, which is one reason the 2005 study attracted attention. Later work tested the frontier-versus-nonfrontier prediction on UK firm data, and Aghion, Howitt and Prantl (2013) used OECD country–industry panels to test complementarity between competition and patent protection. Work using experimental variation in competition, including studies of the causal effects of competition on innovation, has sought to identify the two mechanisms directly, because competition and innovation are mutually determined and naive regressions can be biased.

竞争政策的含义

The framework has direct implications for competition policy, because the effect of a given policy depends on market structure. A policy that intensifies rivalry is not uniformly good or bad for innovation. In sectors where firms are neck-and-neck, stronger competition can raise investment, so measures that prevent collusion or lower entry barriers may spur innovation. In sectors dominated by a leader with a large lead, the same measures may reduce the rewards for catching up and slow innovation. Aghion and Howitt have suggested that the optimal policy depends on where a market sits on the inverted U, and that markets with intense competition may already lie on the downward-sloping part of the curve. Policy design must therefore consider the distribution of technology gaps, not only the number of firms. Aghion and coauthors also argue that competition from abroad can force domestic firms to innovate, which matters for trade and industrial policy.

制度、前沿距离与追赶型增长

Aghion's Schumpeterian framework separates economies at the world technological frontier from those still behind it. At the sector level, laggards face a two-stage path: they must first close the distance to the leader before they can challenge it a firm that is currently behind the technological leader in the same sector or industry must catch up with the leader before becoming a leader itself. Aggregate growth therefore draws on different sources in the two groups. Aghion and Akcigit present imitation as the engine of China's rapid expansion, which began far below the frontier growth in China is driven by technological imitation, and when one starts far below the frontier. This is the logic of catch-up growth, as opposed to growth driven by innovation at the frontier.

The institutions that maximize growth change as the gap closes. For economies far from the frontier, arrangements that ease the adoption of existing methods matter most, while economies near the frontier need arrangements that encourage original research far from the frontier a country will maximize growth by favouring institutions that facilitate implementation; however, as it catches up with the technological frontier, to sustain a high growth rate the country will have to shift from implementation-enhancing institutions to innovation-enhancing institutions. Argentina is a cautionary case in this account: import substitution and related institutions produced capital accumulation and catch-up, but were not reshaped to support an innovation-based economy Countries like Argentina either had institutions or had implemented policies (in particular import substitution) that fostered growth by accumulation of capital and economic catch-up. They did not, however, adapt their institutions to enable them to become innovating economies. Aghion and Bircan extend the same lens to the middle-income trap We provide an outline for viewing the middle-income trap through the lens of the Schumpeterian growth paradigm.

Cross-country evidence supports the view that distance from the frontier conditions institutional effects. Using a panel of more than 100 countries for 1960–2000, Acemoglu, Aghion and Zilibotti find that growth slows faster as a country approaches the frontier when openness is low Acemoglu, Aghion and Zilibotti (2006) show, using a cross-country panel of more than 100 countries over the 1960-2000 period, that: 1. Average growth should decrease more rapidly as a country approaches the world frontier when openness is low. The same study finds that entry barriers grow more harmful as the frontier is approached High entry barriers become increasingly detrimental to growth as the country approaches the frontier. A related prediction holds that the link between democracy and innovation is stronger in more frontier economies, which Aghion, Alesina and Trebbi test with employment and productivity data Prediction 4: The correlation between democracy and innovation/growth is more positive and significant in more frontier economies. This prediction is confirmed by Aghion, Alesina and Trebbi (2007) using employment.

Financial and labor-market institutions act through reallocation. In a dynamic general-equilibrium model developed by Aghion and co-authors, banks that restructure loans with high default risk release funds and push unviable firms out; the lower equilibrium interest rate that results encourages firm creation banks restructure loans with high default risk, thereby releasing funds for new lending and forcing firms with poor prospects to close down. By reducing banks' reliance on external funds, loan restructuring lowers the equilibrium interest rate, which stimulates firm creation. The same team reports an inverted-U relation between credit access and productivity growth Philippe Aghion & Antonin Bergeaud & Gilbert Cette & Rémy Lecat & Hélène Maghin, 2019. "Coase Lecture ‐ The Inverted‐U Relationship Between Credit Access and Productivity Growth," Economica. In this view, productivity gains come mainly from shifting capital and workers away from declining incumbents toward entrants and more productive firms, so the rules governing financial markets, labor markets and insolvency determine how quickly that process runs.

Policy is treated as conditional on structure. A 2013 study by Acemoglu and co-authors compares the equilibrium effects of several industrial policy designs on productivity growth Acemoglu, Akcigit, Bloom and Kerr (2013) analyze the effects of various industrial policies on equilibrium. Aghion and Roulet apply the framework to welfare-state reform during the shift from catch-up growth to innovation-led growth, noting that one extreme view keeps the arrangements of the catch-up period, from 1945 to the early 1970s, unchanged Aghion and Roulet (2011) use Schumpeterian growth theory to discuss why and how the welfare state should be reformed in the process of making the transition to an innovation-led economy. One extreme view is that the state should remain organized as it was when European countries were in a catching-up phase (from 1945 to the early 1970s).

Empirical work finds that responses to competition and reform differ across firms and sectors. Using UK firm panel data, Aghion, Blundell, Griffith, Howitt and Prantl find that competition can raise innovation among frontier firms while discouraging it among non-frontier firms Prediction 2: More intense competition enhances innovation in "frontier" firms but may discourage it in "non-frontier" firms. This prediction is tested by Aghion, Blundell, Griffith, Howitt and Prantl (2009) using again panel data of UK firms. Taken together, the Schumpeterian literature holds that Schumpeterian growth theory helps bridge the gap between growth and development economics, and that the appropriate institutional and policy mix depends on where an economy stands relative to the technological frontier.

教育、人力资本与增长

In Aghion's framework, education plays two roles. It supplies the skilled workers that research needs, and it determines how well an economy can absorb technologies developed elsewhere. In the 1992 Aghion–Howitt model, skilled labor is an essential factor in research, and an economy must decide how its fixed stock of skilled people is allocated between R&D and intermediate good production. The size of this stock therefore limits how much innovation an economy can sustain at any point in time. The model is built around technological change and economic growth, so education enters as a supply-side constraint on innovation.

The most influential empirical strand asks whether the payoff from schooling depends on how close a place is to the technological frontier. Using panel data for US states, Aghion, Boustan, Hoxby and Vandenbussche (2009) find that graduate education tends to be more growth-enhancing in countries or in US states that are closer to the technological frontier, while primary-secondary (possibly undergraduate) education tends to be more growth enhancing in countries or in US states that are farther below the frontier. The pattern also appears across countries: tertiary education is more positively correlated with productivity growth in countries that are closer to the world technology frontier. A study of 19 OECD countries reports a similar result, with tertiary schooling mattering more in the more technologically advanced members.

Aghion and collaborators also separate the effect of human capital on growth into a level effect and a composition effect. Holding composition constant, a higher aggregate stock of human capital always promotes growth. Holding the level constant, however, the growth effect depends on how skills are distributed across types, so the mix of education matters as well as its size. This is why the same increase in schooling can produce very different outcomes in different economies.

The idea connects to the notion of absorptive capacity. In Aghion's account, technology spillovers drive growth, but the capacity to capture them is shaped by human capital stocks or investment rates. Followers therefore need skills in order to adopt frontier technologies, and R&D itself builds the ability to learn. In catching-up economies, such as Central and Eastern European countries, investing in R&D and better education can improve the capacity both to innovate and to imitate leading-edge technologies. An earlier model with Acemoglu and Zilibotti distinguishes "high-brow" education, which fosters innovation, from "low-brow" education, which fosters imitation. The implication is that the optimal composition of schooling shifts as an economy moves toward the frontier, which matches the frontier-distance evidence above.

Policy discussions built on this framework have treated higher education as one component of productivity policy for advanced economies. Aghion's policy presentations list investment in higher education alongside product and labor market liberalization, and they stress that over time, and particularly with globalization, innovation has become the driving force of growth in developed economies. The same material notes that innovation requires flexibility and turnover, and different policies and institutions, which implies that schooling alone does not secure growth.

The empirical link between education and growth is not uniform. Krueger and Lindahl (2001) found that education [is] statistically significantly and positively associated with subsequent growth only for the countries with the lowest education. Aghion and coauthors concluded that the education-growth relationship is not so simple that one can compute average years of education in a state and confidently predict growth. Their explanation rests on the frontier-distance mechanism rather than on average attainment, which helps account for why some economies sustain faster growth than others over long periods.

Skills also diffuse through firms. Evidence summarized in Aghion's work indicates that in innovative firms, workers in occupations that require little formal education experience stronger wage progression than in other firms. Researchers attribute this partly to on-the-job training, since the firm provides training and learning on the job that is productivity-enhancing to the low-educated workers. These findings tie the education channel to the labor market and to questions of income inequality discussed elsewhere in this entry.

增长、不平等与社会流动

Aghion's work on inequality mainly asks whether the innovation that drives growth also changes who gets the income. The best-known study is Aghion, akcigit-placeholder... no, the study is with Ufuk Akcigit, Antonin Bergeaud, Richard Blundell and David Hémous. It uses cross-state panel data for the United States. Its central result is a positive correlation between measures of innovativeness, such as patents per capita, and the income share of the top 1%. Two distinct instrumentation strategies suggest that this correlation (partly) reflects a causality from innovativeness to top income inequality, and the effect is significant. Using patents per capita, the authors estimate that innovativeness accounts for about 17% of the rise in the top 1% income share between 1975 and 2010, averaged across states.

The findings are narrow in one important respect. Innovation appears to push up the share of income going to the very top rather than broader measures of inequality. Innovation does not increase broader measures of inequality which do not focus on top incomes, and innovation is positively correlated with social mobility, but less so in states with more intense lobbying activities. The authors therefore present the result as support for a Schumpeterian reading in which innovation-led growth partly explains the rise in top incomes, while the same process also creates openings for movement up the income ladder.

The distinction between entrants and incumbents is central to the mechanism. The model developed in the paper, a Schumpeterian framework in which quality-improving innovations come either from incumbents or from potential entrants, predicts that innovation by both groups raises top income inequality, while innovation by entrants raises social mobility. Entry barriers lower the positive effects of entrants' innovations on top income inequality and social mobility. The empirical work at the commuting-zone level supports this pattern: the link between innovativeness and upward mobility is driven mainly by entrant innovators and less so by incumbent innovators. The idea that new firms can open paths for people from less advantaged backgrounds to become business owners is what gives creative destruction its mobility dimension.

The theoretical framework also suggests that the inequality generated by innovation may be temporary. In the Aghion–Howitt setting, this inequality will be concentrated at the top and largely temporary, with mobility driven by entry and imitation. Rents from a successful innovation are expected to erode over time, but the authors note that the dissipation of rents is not guaranteed. Whether incumbents can keep their advantages depends on competition and entry. A related result from Jones and Kim is that creative destruction by entrants can be a force reducing top income inequality, though the success of incumbents at creative destruction can increase top income inequality. Evidence on concentration points in the same direction. Recent work cited in the Aghion–Howitt literature finds that bursts of creative destruction appear, on net, to increase the share of products and sales controlled by the largest firms, which matters for wealth inequality because firm ownership is concentrated rather than being equally distributed across the population.

Innovation also generates losers, and the costs fall on workers and communities rather than only on top earners. Blundell and Jaravel note that job destruction from innovation-led growth can have serious adverse impacts on well-being, the severity of which depends on, among other things, the generosity of social insurance policies. Aghion has argued that background matters for who gets to innovate. He points to the "lost Einsteins" phenomenon, in which social and economic backgrounds continue to constrain innovative potential. In this view, the policy goal is to combine support for entry and innovation with social protection and access to education, so that the gains from creative destruction reach a wider group.

Measuring these distributional effects over time raises several difficulties. Top income shares depend on tax data and the treatment of capital income, and the correlations are sensitive to which measures of innovation are used, such as patent counts, patent citations, or entry rates. The instruments used to move beyond correlation must be credible, and the authors' lobbying measure is only one proxy for institutional barriers. Productivity itself may be mismeasured when creative destruction is involved, a point the authors acknowledge. An alternative or complementary explanation is that productivity growth from creative destruction may be mismeasured, which would affect both growth accounting and the inferred relationship with inequality. Finally, the mobility results rest on cross-sectional comparisons across commuting zones, so separating cause from regional sorting remains a challenge for later work.

绿色增长与气候相关创新

Aghion's climate-related work rests on the idea of directed technical change: firms choose the direction of their research, toward clean or dirty technologies, in response to market and policy incentives. The formal starting point is "The Environment and Directed Technical Change" (American Economic Review, 2012), written with Daron Acemoglu, Leonardo Bursztyn and David Hémous. It places endogenous, directed innovation inside a growth model with environmental constraints and finite resources. Final output combines inputs from a clean sector and a dirty sector, so the question becomes which sector receives the research effort. The authors argue that a laissez-faire economy can devote too much innovation to dirty technologies, because firms do not account for the environmental damage their emissions cause. This is a form of market failure linked to the externality of greenhouse gas emissions.

A central empirical finding concerns path dependence. In "Carbon Taxes, Path Dependency, and Directed Technical Change" (Journal of Political Economy, 2016), Aghion, Antoine Dechezleprêtre, Hémous, Ralf Martin and John Van Reenen build a firm-level panel of automotive patents covering roughly 80 countries over several decades. They separate "dirty" patents on internal combustion engines from "clean" patents on technologies such as electric and hybrid vehicles. They find that firms shift their inventive effort toward clean technologies when tax-inclusive fuel prices rise. They also find that past innovation matters: a firm's earlier clean or dirty patenting raises the likelihood of similar future work, and knowledge spillovers across the industry reinforce this pattern. The implication is that a technological trajectory, once established, tends to persist, so the cost of postponing a change of direction grows over time. The same paper uses its model to simulate the carbon tax increases required for clean technologies to overtake dirty ones.

The directed-change framework also yields clear recommendations for policy design. In the 2012 model, the authors show that, under reasonable parameter values and sufficient substitutability between clean and dirty inputs, it is optimal to redirect innovation toward clean technologies immediately, and that environmental regulation need not lower long-run growth. The usual prescription combines a carbon tax with subsidies for clean research. The tax corrects the environmental externality, while the research subsidy offsets the head start that dirty technologies already enjoy, and this combination avoids an excessively high tax. Because path dependence strengthens with every period of delay, the cost of waiting rises: the sooner and more decisively policy acts, the shorter the transitional phase of slow growth. This is the basis for the argument that delayed action is costly, not merely cautious.

The same logic applies to the energy transition more broadly. In a related working paper, "Climate Change, Directed Innovation, and Energy Transition: The Long-run Consequences of the Shale Gas Revolution," Acemoglu, Aghion, Lint Barrage and Hémous study how cheap shale gas affects the path of innovation. Emissions fall at first, because gas is cleaner than other fossil fuels. Over time, however, the boom diverts research away from renewable energy, and emissions rise steadily relative to a benchmark without the boom. The paper also suggests that unilateral carbon pricing may intensify the pollution-haven effect once innovation is treated as endogenous, since production and innovation can migrate to jurisdictions without comparable policies. The authors conclude that the case for carbon taxes combined with clean-research subsidies becomes stronger, not weaker, under these dynamics.

Aghion's later research and project work extend these themes. With Lucas Bénabou, Martin and Roulet, he examines how consumers' environmental concerns and market competition jointly shape firms' incentives to innovate in clean technologies. An MSCA project in which he took part studied integrated models of climate and energy policy aimed at low-carbon, energy-efficient growth. He also leads the SCOR Foundation's Green Innovation to Fight Climate Change project, which argues that growth and climate action can be reconciled through innovation, provided that private and public incentives are aligned. After the 2025 Nobel Prize, Aghion said he intended to use the prize money to support his laboratory's work on artificial intelligence, green growth and R&D policy. Taken together, this agenda connects directed innovation theory to renewable energy deployment, environmental regulation and the economic cost of delayed climate change mitigation.

与其他经济学分支的联系

The Schumpeterian framework was built to bridge several subfields rather than to sit inside growth theory alone. Its roots are in industrial-organization. The paradigm grew out of modern industrial organization theory and put firms and entrepreneurs at the heart of the growth process. Its basic ingredients, namely entry, the rents earned by innovators, and the displacement of incumbents, are standard objects of IO analysis. The model therefore treats market-power, oligopoly and entry barriers as inputs to the pace of innovation, not only as allocative outcomes. The same logic bears on competition-law, since a policy that changes market structure can also change the rate at which firms innovate.

Competition enters the theory through two opposing channels, and this is where the link to strategic analysis is most direct. Firms close to the frontier innovate more to escape more intense competition, whereas productivity growth in firms that are farther below the frontier reacts negatively to more intense competition. The escape effect rests on step-by-step races between rivals, which is why game-theory and the theory of monopolistic-competition are needed to model it. The combined result is an inverted-U shape, which synthesizes the positive escape competition effect and the negative discouragement effect.

The theory also shares ground with the empirical study of firm dynamics, which is the subject of firm-dynamics. The Schumpeterian model was designed to match regularities in micro data: small firms exit more frequently than large firms; conditional on survival, small firms grow faster; there is a very strong correlation between firm size and firm age; and finally, firm size distribution is highly skewed. In this framework, entry and exit are the channels through which resources move from declining to rising producers, so aggregate productivity depends on reallocation as well as on improvements within individual firms. The predictions are explicitly meant to be checked against data: in each case Schumpeterian growth theory delivers predictions that distinguish it from other growth models and which can be tested using micro data. Testing them requires firm-level panels and causal designs drawn from econometrics and statistics.

The model's externalities connect it to the standard tools of welfare-economics and market-failure. Each innovation raises the technological benchmark for later research, which is a positive spillover, while it also erodes the rents of the previous innovator, which is a negative one. Another distinctive implication of the model is that innovation-led growth may be excessive under laissez-faire. Assessing whether growth is too fast or too slow therefore requires weighing these two effects against each other, a question that sits between externality theory and growth policy.

On the macroeconomic side, the framework addresses fluctuations and trends in the long run rather than short-run business cycles. The authors discuss why such waves are associated with an increase in the flow of firm entry and exit; why they may initially generate a productivity slowdown; and why they may increase wage inequality both between and within educational groups. The same body of work has been applied to debates over economic-growth and secular stagnation, a topic that falls within macroeconomics. It also implies that the appropriate policy mix depends on how far an economy sits from the frontier, since different types of policies or institutions appear to be growth-enhancing at different stages of development.

Finally, the model links to contract-theory, mechanism-design and corporate finance. Innovators must raise funds against future rents that may disappear once a rival arrives, so investors face both risk and the prospect of obsolescence. Information asymmetries between entrepreneurs and financiers, incentive problems in managerial effort, and the design of rewards for inventors all fall within contract theory. The speed at which capital moves from failing incumbents to new entrants depends on credit markets and bankruptcy rules, which connects the theory to the study of the financial-market.

主要著作与学术出版

Aghion's books are mostly collaborative, and they are the main vehicles through which his research program on economic-growth reached students, policymakers and the wider profession. Their subjects shift over time, from the foundations of endogenous growth theory to the links between competition, entry and growth, and later to the broader social consequences of creative destruction.

Endogenous Growth Theory (MIT Press, 1998), written with Peter Howitt, is the earliest of these major volumes. It surveys the theoretical and empirical debates raised by modern growth theory, where many other books on the subject concentrate on a single theme such as trade or convergence. The book takes the view that long-run growth is governed by forces inside the economic system, above all the incentives to create technological knowledge. Some catalogues date the book to late 1997, and the MIT Press edition is most often cited as 1998.

Competition and Growth (MIT Press), written with Rachel Griffith in the Zeuthen Lectures series, is built as a dialogue between two perspectives. An applied theorist works with Schumpeterian growth models, while a microeconometrician uses new methods to measure competition and entry. The authors begin from a tension they identify in the literature: existing models of industrial organization and growth generally predict that competition harms growth, because it erodes the monopoly rents that reward successful innovators. Each chapter tests the models against data, and the models are revised where the evidence does not fit. The book's main proposal is that innovation can allow firms to escape competition, a claim that rests on distinguishing rents earned before and after an innovation. Publication dates vary across catalogues: a hardcover edition appeared in 2005, a paperback in 2008, and the Nobel Prize materials give 2006.

The Economics of Growth (MIT Press, 2009), also written with Howitt, carries the same research program into a more systematic treatment of growth theory alongside its empirical foundations. It is the book that most resembles a graduate-level reference among Aghion's works.

The Power of Creative Destruction: Economic Upheaval and the Wealth of Nations (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2021) was co-authored with Céline Antonin and Simon Bunel, and translated into English by Jodie Cohen-Tanugi. It runs to about 400 pages and was a finalist for the Hayek Book Prize. Its central argument is that modern living standards rest on innovations enabled by free-market capitalism, but that these gains come with disruption. The authors call for state involvement with appropriate checks and balances, so that innovation can continue, social costs are managed, and today's leading innovators cannot block tomorrow's entrants. Reviewers note that the book draws on evidence from both France and the United States, which makes it relevant to readers on both sides of the Atlantic.

Among the academic publications, the survey "What Do We Learn from Schumpeterian Growth Theory?", written with Ufuk Akcigit and Peter Howitt, is the most systematic review of the approach that Aghion and his co-authors developed. It consolidates the literature that followed from the 1992 model of growth through creative destruction, and it is the standard starting point for readers who want to move from the books to the journal literature.

奖项、荣誉与学术影响

The 2025 Nobel Memorial Prize

The committee's selection, made public on 13 October 2025, placed Aghion alongside Joel Mokyr and Peter Howitt as co-laureates of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Aghion, Howitt, and Mokyr were recognised "for having explained innovation-driven economic growth." Mokyr received one half of the prize. The other half was divided between Aghion and Howitt, and the citation credits them with "the theory of sustained growth through creative destruction". The prize carries a sum of 11 million Swedish crowns ($1.2 million).

The Nobel recognition closed a sequence of honours that the two economists had received for the same body of work, which connects their growth models to the broader problem of how innovation sustains economic-growth.

Earlier honours

The BBVA Foundation gave the pair its Frontiers of Knowledge Award in Economics, Finance and Management in its twelfth edition, for "fundamental contributions to the study of innovation, technical change, and competition policy". Sources date this honour differently. The Collège de France biography places the announcement in March 2020, while a Western University report describes it as the 2019 BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Award.

Aghion's earlier prizes also include the Yrjö Jahnsson Award and the John von Neumann Prize. In 2001, Professor Aghion received the Yrjo Jahnsson Award of the best European economist under age 45, in 2009 he received the John Von Neumann Award.

Fellowships, memberships and editorial roles

Aghion holds a fellowship in the Econometric Society and a fellowship in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The American Economic Association made him a foreign honorary member in 2017, and in the same year he received the AEJ Best Paper Award (Aghion is an AEA Foreign Honorary Member (2017), as well as a previous winner of the AEJ Best Paper Award (2017).).

His service to the profession includes leadership roles in national and regional bodies. He has previously presided over the French Economics Association and the European Economic Association. He has served on the editorial boards of journals including Econometrica, Review of Economic Studies and Review of Economics and Statistics.

European Research Council and Marie Skłodowska-Curie funding

Two Advanced Grants from the European Research Council have supported his research, worth a total of €4.41 million. The earlier grant, awarded in 2017 and worth around €1.97 million, examined how innovation, growth and social mobility are connected, building on Schumpeter's ideas. A later grant, awarded in 2024 worth €2.44 million, which he will commence on 1 December 2025, funds work on R&D policy, green innovation and the economic effects of artificial-intelligence.

He has also taken part in several Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions projects. These include ECOCEP, which examined how integrated approaches to modelling the impacts of climate and energy policies could guide the way to a highly energy efficient, low carbon and green global economy. He also coordinated the ERIETE project. With the 2025 prize, he became the fifteenth researcher substantially funded by the ERC to win a Nobel prize (This brings the number of ERC grantees who have won a Nobel Prize up to fifteen.).

Influence on the field

Together with Howitt, Aghion pioneered what became known as the Schumpeterian growth paradigm, which later served to analyse the design of growth policies and the role of the state in growth (see Joseph Schumpeter). Their work has also been highly influential for ongoing research areas, including the relationship between innovation and environmental degradation, financial development and growth, and the effect of institutions on economic development.

批评、争议与未解问题

Schumpeterian growth theory has been criticized less for its core logic than for how well its quantitative predictions match data. The first debate concerns the forces that the model generates but that are hard to observe directly. In the 1992 framework, each innovation destroys the rents of the previous innovator, which creates a negative externality. Obsolescence therefore creates a negative externality from innovations, which tends to make laissez-faire economies generate too many innovations. This "business-stealing" effect is partly offset by the fact that innovations tend to be too small under laissez-faire. Whether the economy grows too fast or too slowly therefore depends on the empirical balance between these forces. Growth is excessive under laissez-faire when the business-stealing effect dominates the intertemporal knowledge spillovers from current to future innovators, and insufficient when it is dominated by them. Since the sizes of these effects are not directly measured, researchers infer them from indirect evidence, and the normative conclusion is correspondingly sensitive to calibration.

经验识别：相关性与因果性

Much of the empirical work relies on firm turnover and productivity data. The theory predicts that faster growth generally implies a higher rate of firm turnover, because creative destruction generates entry of new innovators and exit of former innovators. Cross-industry evidence for the United States shows that job creation, firm entry and firm exit rates all move together with labour productivity growth over five-year periods. The authors of that work note an ambiguity: this could reflect the direct contribution of creative destruction and possibly also an indirect effect of creative destruction on incumbent efforts to improve their own products. Distinguishing these channels requires variation that correlations alone cannot provide, and this is one of the central methodological challenges that critics and proponents alike identify.

竞争与增长的关系

The original 1992 model implies that competition discourages innovation, whereas the broader cross-country and firm-level evidence often points the other way. Both empirical studies and casual evidence point to a positive correlation between growth and product market competition, which is at odds with what most endogenous growth models predict. The proposed reconciliation, the inverted-U relationship, relies on step-by-step innovation in which more intense competition enhances innovation in "frontier" firms but may discourage it in "non-frontier" firms. Supporting evidence has been drawn from UK firm panels, but the fit of the inverted-U depends on the specification. Its robustness to alternative sector definitions, measures of competition, and data sources remains a point of ongoing discussion, and the policy implications for competition authorities are sensitive to these choices.

框架的适用范围

A second line of questioning concerns whether the framework travels beyond the advanced economies for which it was calibrated. The survey by Aghion, Akcigit and Howitt itself observes that growth-enhancing policies or institutions may vary with a country's distance from the frontier, which implies that a single model may not capture economies with weak institutions, limited competition or low research intensity. Critics therefore ask whether the mechanisms that operate near the frontier, such as escape-competition by incumbents, hold where innovation is largely imitative or where R&D is scarce. Answering this requires models in which institutional quality enters explicitly, and such extensions remain partial.

放缓、数字技术与长期波动

Some of the most debated questions concern long-run trends. The survey argues that long-term technological waves may initially generate a productivity slowdown and may increase wage inequality, which offers one candidate explanation for the slowdown in measured productivity growth in several advanced economies. A related debate concerns declining business dynamism. A calibrated unified Schumpeterian model replicates a large number of stylized facts on the industry life cycle, growth and inequality, and all ten stylized facts on "declining business dynamism" in the USA proposed by Akcigit and Ates. Yet a weakened antitrust policy stands out as being able to replicate all of these facts in one such exercise, which illustrates that several distinct mechanisms can fit the same aggregate patterns. Whether the current wave of digital and artificial intelligence technologies will generate a similar sequence of obsolescence, entry, concentration and eventual productivity gains is an open question. The existing framework was built around the process of replacing one technology with another, and its application to general-purpose technologies with very different diffusion dynamics has been relatively limited.

理论模型与因果识别之间的权衡

The Schumpeterian program was built to generate predictions that can be tested. The survey states that in each case Schumpeterian growth theory delivers predictions that distinguish it from other growth models and which can be tested using micro data. Yet the mapping from micro data to the model's parameters is often indirect, and the same aggregate outcome may be produced by several mechanisms. A further difficulty is that the normative verdict on growth depends on which externality dominates, so empirical identification of individual channels is directly relevant to policy. The tension between the richness of structural models and the cleaner causal designs favoured in applied microeconomics therefore remains a central methodological issue in empirical growth research.

References

1. Philippe Aghionen.wikipedia.org
2. Philippe Aghion - Wikiwandwikiwand.com
3. CURRICULUM VITAE (last updated October 2019) Name: Philippe Aghion Address:scholar.harvard.edu
4. CURRICULUM VITAE (last updated August 2021) Name: Philippe Aghion Address:scholar.harvard.edu
5. Philippe Aghion-CORE Academycoreacad.org
6. Biography and publicationscollege-de-france.fr
7. Philippe Aghioninsead.edu
8. Philippe Aghion: Age, Net Worth, Career & Biography - Mabumbemabumbe.com
9. Endogenous growth theoryen.wikipedia.org
10. Solow%E2%80%93Swan modelen.wikipedia.org
11. Solow-Swan Model and Growth Dynamics: moving forwardlink.springer.com
12. Technological Progress in the Solow Modelqed.econ.queensu.ca
13. 3 Exogenous Growthsweet.ua.pt
14. UNIT 2 THE SOLOW MODELegyankosh.ac.in
15. Paul Romer: Ideas, Nonrivalry, and Endogenous Growthwww-leland.stanford.edu
16. Economics 314 Coursebook, 2012 Jeffrey Parker 5 THEORIES OF ENDOGENOUS GROWTHreed.edu
17. Elementary Endogenous Growth Theory Ping Wang Department of Economicscpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com
18. Endogenous Growth Theory: A Critical Assessmentideas.repec.org
19. Sustained growth through creative destruction: Nobel laureates Philippe Aghion and Peter Howittcepr.org
20. A Model of Growth Through Creative Destructionindividual.utoronto.ca
21. Aghion-Howitt Model Of Creative Destructioninnovation.world
22. The Aghion-Howitt Model: Creative Destruction Meets Growth Theorymarcusnunes.substack.com
23. A Model of Growth Through Creative Destructioneconometricsociety.org
24. A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction Philippe Aghion; Peter Howittweb.econ.ku.dk
25. Growth Model Analysis of Creative Destruction by Aghion & Howitt (1992) - Studocustudocu.com
26. NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES A MODEL OF GROWTH THROUGH CREATIVE DESTRUCTIONnber.org
27. The Economics of Creative Destruction: New Research on Themes from Aghion and Howitt 9780674293052 - DOKUMEN.PUBdokumen.pub
28. Philippe Aghion: explaining sustained growth through creative destructioncep.lse.ac.uk
29. Competition and Innovation: An Inverted U Relationshipnber.org
30. Competition and Innovation: An Inverted-U Relationshipucl.ac.uk
31. Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationshipideas.repec.org
32. Competition and innovation: An inverted-u relationship - Research Explorer The University of Manchesterresearch.manchester.ac.uk
33. Lessons from Schumpeterian Growth Theoryaeaweb.org
34. The Middle Income Trap from a Schumpeterian Perspectivelse.ac.uk
35. The middle-income trap from a Schumpeterian perspectiveebrd.com
36. The Causal Effects of Competition on Innovation: Experimental Evidencescholar.harvard.edu
37. NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES THE CAUSAL EFFECTS OF COMPETITION ON INNOVATION:nber.org
38. No.022 November 2021 Product market competition, creative destruction andeprints.lse.ac.uk
39. The Middle-Income Trap from a Schumpeterian Perspectiveadb.org
40. 1 Innovation and Growth: The Schumpeterian Perspectivecambridge.org
41. Lessons from Schumpeterian Growth Theory - DASH (Harvard)dash.harvard.edu
42. Banks, Credit Reallocation, and Creative Destructionideas.repec.org
43. Innovation and Growth: The Schumpeterian Perspectivep-hunermund.com
44. What Do We Learn From Schumpeterian Growth Theory? Philippe Aghionyscholar.harvard.edu
45. The Schumpeterian Growth Paradigmresearchgate.net
46. An Evolutionary Interpretation of the Aghion & Howitt (1992) Modelresearchgate.net
47. NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES WHAT DO WE LEARN FROM SCHUMPETERIAN GROWTH THEORY?nber.org
48. Enhancing Productivity Growth Philippe Aghioneib.org
49. PHILIPPE AGHION, LEAH BOUSTAN, CAROLINE HOXBY, and JEROME VANDENBUSSCHEbrookings.edu
50. Innovation and inequalitiesacademic.oup.com
51. The Schumpeterian Approach to Education and Growthlink.springer.com
52. Growth and Development: A Schumpeterian Approachaeconf.com
53. Harvard University and CEPR † University of California-Los Angeles and NBER ††scholar.harvard.edu
54. Discussion Paper No.1764 April 2021 Education and economic growth Anna Valerocep.lse.ac.uk
55. Productivity Implications of R&D, Innovation, and Capital Accumulation for Incumbents and Entrants: Perspectives from a Catching-up Economyarxiv.org
56. Innovation and Top Income Inequalitynber.org
57. Innovation and Top Income Inequality by Philippe Aghion, Ufuk Akcigit, Antonin Bergeaud, Richard W. Blundell, David Hémous :: SSRNpapers.ssrn.com
58. NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES INNOVATION AND TOP INCOME INEQUALITY Philippe Aghionnber.org
59. lnstitute for Fiscal Studies Working paper Richard Blundell Xavier Jaravelifs.org.uk
60. Nobel laureate Philippe Aghion speaks at LSElse.ac.uk
61. Innovation and Top Income Inequalityfaculty.washington.edu
62. Innovation, income inequality, and social mobilitycepr.org
63. Innovation and Top Income Inequality - Paris School of Economicsparisschoolofeconomics.eu
64. Green innovation and the transition toward a clean economypiie.com
65. Carbon Taxes, Path Dependency and Directed Technical ...nber.org
66. The Environment and Directed Technical Changeideas.repec.org
67. Climate Change, Directed Innovation, and Energy Transition:economics.mit.edu
68. Carbon taxes, Path Dependence and Directed Technical ...nobel2012.iies.su.se
69. Carbon Taxes, Path Dependency and Directed Technical Change: Evidence from the Auto Industry by Philippe Aghion, Antoine Dechezleprêtre, David Hémous, Ralf Martin, John Van Reenen :: SSRNpapers.ssrn.com
70. Carbon taxes, path dependency and directed technical change: evidence from the auto industry - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environmentlse.ac.uk
71. Philippe Aghion wins the 2025 Nobel Prize in Economicsfoundation.scor.com
72. Economics Nobel celebrates researchers who showed how science and technology drive growthscience.org
73. EU-funded economist wins 2025 Nobel Prize - Research and innovationresearch-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu
74. Thirty years ago, Peter Howitt and I elaborated a new theory, now knowndirect.mit.edu
75. CHAPTER ONE What Do We Learn From Schumpeterian Growth Theory?ufukakcigit.com
76. What Do We Learn from Schumpeterian Growth Theory? by Philippe Aghion, Ufuk Akcigit, Peter Howitt :: SSRNpapers.ssrn.com
77. What Do We Learn From Schumpeterian Growth Theory?nber.org
78. Endogenous Growth Theory - Philippe Aghion, Peter Howitt, Maxine Brant-Collett, Cecilia García-Peñalosa - Google Booksbooks.google.com
79. Endogenous Growth Theory by Philippe Aghion, Peter W. Howitt: 9780262528467penguinrandomhouse.com
80. Endogenous Growth Theoryscholar.harvard.edu
81. Competition and Growthmitpress.mit.edu
82. Competition and growth: reconciling theory and evidenceifs.org.uk
83. Competition and Growth: Reconciling Theory and Evidence (Zeuthen Lectures): Aghion, Philippe, Griffith, Rachel: 9780262512022: Amazon.com: Booksamazon.com
84. Competition and Growthscholar.harvard.edu
85. THE POWER OF CREATIVE DESTRUCTION: ECONOMIC UPHEAVAL AND THE WEALTH OF NATIONS Philippe AghionCéline AntoninSimon Bunel (translated by Jodie Cohen‐Tanugi) The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (2021), 400 pp. ISBN: 978–0674971165 (hb, £28.95); 978–0674258662 (e‐book, £18.82) - Crafts - 2021 - Economic Affairs - Wiley Online Libraryonlinelibrary.wiley.com
86. The Power of Creative Destruction: Economic Upheaval and the Wealth of Nationsjstor.org
87. The Power of Creative Destruction: Economic Upheaval and the Wealth of Nations - Philippe Aghion, Céline Antonin, Simon Bunel - Google Booksbooks.google.com
88. The Power of Creative Destruction. - Paris School of Economicsparisschoolofeconomics.eu
89. Book Review: The Power of Creative Destruction: Economic Upheaval and the Wealth of Nations, By Philippe Aghion, Céline Antonin, and Simon Bunelindependent.org
90. Academy of Europe: Nobel Prize to Philippe Aghionae-info.org
91. Philippe Aghion, Peter Howitt, and Joel Mokyr Awarded 2025 Nobel Prizenber.org
92. Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2025nobelprize.org
93. Trio win 2025 Nobel economics prize for work on innovation and 'creative destruction'cnbc.com
94. Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt win the Frontiers of Knowledge Award in Economicseurekalert.org
95. Frontiers Award honours economist Howitt’s career - Western Newsnews.westernu.ca
96. Philippe Aghioninsead.edu
97. Congratulations to Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion, and Peter Howitt on being awarded the 2025 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciencesaeaweb.org
98. Philippe Aghion, 12th Frontiers of Knowledge Award in Economics, Finance and Managementfrontiersofknowledgeawards-fbbva.es
99. ERC Grantee Philippe Aghion Wins 2025 Nobel Prize in Economic Scienceseuraxess.ec.europa.eu
100. ERC grantee Philippe Aghion takes home Economics Nobel Prizeerc.europa.eu
101. Peter Howitt, 12th Frontiers of Knowledge Award in Economics, Finance and Managementfrontiersofknowledgeawards-fbbva.es
102. ERC and MSCA grantee Philippe Aghion takes home Economics Nobel Prizeeuraxess.ec.europa.eu
103. A Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction by Philippe Aghion, Peter Howitt :: SSRNpapers.ssrn.com
104. Growth, inequality, and declining business dynamism in a unified Schumpeter Mark I + II modelacademic.oup.com