|
on Innovation |
| By: | Gans, Joshua S. (Rotman School of Management); Persson, Lars (Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN)) |
| Abstract: | This paper examines the interaction between intellectual property protection and competition policy on the choice of entrepreneurs with respect to commercialization as well as the rate of innovation. We find that stronger intellectual property protection makes it more likely that entrepreneurs will commercialize by cooperating with incumbents rather than competing with them. Consequently, we demonstrate that competition policy has a clearer role in promoting a higher rate of innovation in that event. Hence, we identify one reason why the strength of the two policies may be complements from the perspective of increasing the rate of entrepreneurial innovation. |
| Keywords: | Entrepreneurs; Innovation; Commercialization; Intellectual property law; Competition law |
| JEL: | O31 |
| Date: | 2012–01–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hhs:iuiwop:0895&r=ino |
| By: | Julien Jacob |
| Abstract: | We suggest a model of innovation and diffusion of a new technology in which two firms, one innovative and one non-innovative, undertake risky activities that are regulated by liability rules. One originality of this study is to consider the presence of a “double-impact” innovation, impacting both the cost of risk prevention and the probability of accident. We compare strict liability and negligence in terms of incentives to innovate, to adopt the new technology and to prevent the risk. We find that the type of innovation and the behavior of the Regulator play key roles: when the Regulator acts as a “leader”, a negligence rule is socially preferable if the innovation mainly impacts the cost of risk prevention. In other cases (Regulator as a “follower” and/or innovation with sufficiently high impact on the probability of accident), strict liability is preferable. |
| Keywords: | Innovation, technological risk, strict liability, negligence. |
| JEL: | E2 E5 E6 F3 |
| Date: | 2011 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ulp:sbbeta:2011-24&r=ino |
| By: | Haufler, Andreas (University of Munich); Norbäck, Pehr-Johan (Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN)); Persson, Lars (Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN)) |
| Abstract: | Many governments promote small businesses for the dual reasons of fostering ‘breakthrough’ innovations and employment growth. In this paper we study the effects of tax and subsidy policies on entrepreneurs’ choice of riskiness of an innovation project and on their mode of commercializing the innovation (market entry versus sale). Limited loss offset provisions in the tax system induce entrepreneurs to choose projects with too little risk and this problem arises primarily when entrepreneurs market their product themselves. When innovations reduce only the fixed costs of production this leads to a fundamental policy trade-off between the declared goals of promoting employment and innovation in small, entrepreneurial firms. When innovations reduce variable production costs, policies to promote small businesses may even be unambiguously harmful. |
| Keywords: | Entrepreneurship; Innovation; Corporate taxes; Firm growth |
| JEL: | H25 L13 M13 O31 |
| Date: | 2012–01–02 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hhs:iuiwop:0896&r=ino |
| By: | Dutz, Mark A.; Sharma, Siddharth |
| Abstract: | The paper explores existing patterns of green innovation and presents an overview of green innovation policies for developing countries. The key findings from the empirical analysis are: (1) frontier green innovations are concentrated in high-income countries, few in developing countries but growing; (2) the most technologically-sophisticated developing countries are emerging as significant innovators but limited to a few technology fields; (3) there is very little South-South collaboration; (4) there is potential for expanding green production and trade; and (5) there has been little base-of-pyramid green innovation to meet the needs of poor consumers, and it is too early to draw conclusions about its scalability. To promote green innovation, technology and environmental policies work best in tandem, focusing on three complementary areas: (1) to promote frontier innovation, it is advisable to limit local technology-push support to countries with sufficient technological capabilities -- but there is also a need to provide global technology-push support for base-of-pyramid and neglected technologies including through a pool of long-term, stable funds supported by demand-pull mechanisms such as prizes; (2) to promote catch-up innovation, it is essential both to facilitate technology access and to stimulate technology absorption by firms -- with critical roles played by international trade and foreign direct investment, with firm demand spurred by public procurement, regulations and standards; and (3) to develop absorptive capacity, there is a need to strengthen skills and to improve the prevailing business environment for innovation -- to foster increased experimentation, global learning, and talent attraction and retention. There is still considerable progress to be made in ranking green innovation policies as most appropriate for different developing country contexts -- based on more impact evaluation studies of innovation policies targeted at green technologies. |
| Keywords: | Environmental Economics&Policies,E-Business,ICT Policy and Strategies,Technology Industry,Climate Change Mitigation and Green House Gases |
| Date: | 2012–01–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:5932&r=ino |
| By: | Marco Vivarelli |
| Abstract: | This paper critically discusses the theoretical and empirical literature on the quantitative and qualitative employment impact of technological change, compares the relative explanatory power of the competing theories, and explains in detail the macro and micro evidence on the issue, with reference both to the advanced economies and the developing countries (DCs). |
| Keywords: | Science & Technology :: New Technologies, Science & Technology, Technology, innovation, employment, skill, skill-biased technological change |
| JEL: | O33 |
| Date: | 2011–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:idb:brikps:61058&r=ino |
| By: | William Latham (Department of Economics, University of Delaware - University of Delaware); Christian Le Bas (GATE Lyon Saint-Etienne - Groupe d'analyse et de théorie économique - CNRS : UMR5824 - Université Lumière - Lyon II - École Normale Supérieure de Lyon); Dmitry Volodin (Department of Economics, University of Delaware - University of Delaware) |
| Abstract: | The aim of this paper is to provide new insights into (1) the determinants of the value of inventions and (2) the role that mobility plays in the behavior of prolific inventors, whom we identify based on the number of patents exceeding a threshold of productivity. We examine mobility in two dimensions: from firm to firm (inter-firm) and from one technical field to another. We exploit data on patents filed by inventors from five countries (France, the UK, Germany, the US and Japan) in the US Patent and Trademark office during the period from 1975 to 2002. From our regressions we obtain a rich set of results. In particular we show that: (1) as predicted by evolutionary theory, inventor productivity is a positive determinant of invention value, (2) inter-firm mobility is a consistently positive determinant of productivity and (3) technological mobility is a negative determinant. The last implies that the more specialized an inventor is, the higher his productivity is. |
| Keywords: | prolific inventor; mobility; productivity; value of invention |
| Date: | 2011–12–22 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-00654501&r=ino |
| By: | Carlo Reggiani; Tommaso Valletti |
| Date: | 2012 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:man:sespap:1202&r=ino |
| By: | E. Santarelli; H. T. Tran |
| Abstract: | This study investigates the effects of human capital, social capital and their interaction on the performance of 1,398 Vietnamese new-born firms. Operating profit is used as the measure of success. Human capital is captured by individual-level professional education, start-up experience, and learning. Whereas the first two dimensions of human capital are measured with traditional indicators, we define learning as ability to accumulate knowledge to conduct innovation activities (new product introduction, product innovation and process innovation). Social capital is measured as benefits obtained from personal strong-tie and weak-tie networks. Key findings are three-fold: (i) human capital strongly predicts firm success, with learning exerting a statistically significant positive impact on operating profit; (ii) benefits from weak ties outweigh those from strong ties; (iii) interaction of human capital and social capital displays a statistically significant positive effect on new-firm performance. |
| JEL: | L26 L25 L14 J24 O53 |
| Date: | 2012–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:bol:bodewp:wp803&r=ino |
| By: | Nuno Boavida (IET, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia); Susana Martins Moretto (IET, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia) |
| Abstract: | In the context of the revitalization of the Portuguese railway sector with the construction of the high-speed railway network, the working paper proposes an analysis of the results found from the application of an innovation scoring to the Portuguese branch of a global multinational in the railway business. The aim of this exercise is to learn on the innovation management flow between the global corporation and the local branch in Portugal. It also aims to assess the degree of local innovation multinationals generate in view of such type of mega public investments. The working paper is structured in five chapters. In chapter one introduces the innovation scoring tool, instrument of work; chapter two covers the methodology used; the chapter tree presents the case study, subject of research; chapter four presents the findings; and chapter 5 closes with concluding remarks. |
| Keywords: | railway sector; Portugal; innovation scoring; global corporation |
| JEL: | M16 R42 |
| Date: | 2011–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ieu:wpaper:35&r=ino |
| By: | Jean-Michel Larrasquet (ESTIA Recherche - Ecole Supérieure des Technologies Industrielles Avancées (ESTIA), CREG - Centre de recherche et d'études en gestion - Université de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour); Véronique Pilnière (ESTIA Recherche - Ecole Supérieure des Technologies Industrielles Avancées (ESTIA), CREG - Centre de recherche et d'études en gestion - Université de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour) |
| Abstract: | The world's economic and political interactions and exchanges are in a considerable mess today. All private and public sector institutions (including universities) are moving in the same direction by adapting, adopting, accepting the logic of market forces and growth as their own values and goals. It is the blind adherence to these values and practices by leaders and managers that has contributed to the chaos in our western societies. Locked into this mode of thinking, they believe that the only way to make progress is to do more and faster, but in doing so, they not only feed the dynamics of a destructive economic and political machine but also take their institutions to the ultimate terminal state. In the process, we have begun to lose our social and generous values; senses (reason); responsibility for our behaviour; social conscience; the sense of solidarity. And paradoxically we are also losing creativity, initiative, genuine innovation and generating conformity. All societies are moving towards entropy. That is fundamentally why tensions have begun to rise and to become definitely unsustainable. In this context what should the role of universities be? Should they all have the same purpose? Should universities reflect the same destructive values as those in society or should they be the leaders highlighting the dangers and offering alternatives? What role should universities play in the reduction of inequalities? What is innovation at social or collective levels? How could we measure the contribution of innovation to the improvement or destruction of the society? In this context, what is sustainable innovation? All these questions challenge the direction taken not only by western societies but also by human civilization as a whole. There is an urgent need for social debate. In this debate, universities should help participants to understand the implications of the choices being made for the future development of human societies. Then, let that debate inform universities, so as to allow them to make their strategic choices, regarding scientific activities, education, research, transfer and innovation, in a better informed manner. |
| Keywords: | Research, innovation, social responsibility |
| Date: | 2012–05–31 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00656954&r=ino |
| By: | Joanna Kuczewska (Faculty of Economics, University of Gdansk) |
| Abstract: | Regional competitiveness is the crucial area of research in modern economics. The European Union uses the regional competitiveness and divergences studies in creating the European Member States economies competitive advantages. Regional competitiveness determinates also the enterprises competitiveness advantages and plays the crucial role in creating their competitiveness position. The importance of the regional competiveness increases in the knowledge-based economy circumstances, where competitiveness depends on the ability to use knowledge, skills and attitudes of entrepreneurship. Regions are the leaders responsible for these resources mobilization so identification of their strengths and weaknesses allows to indicate the crucial growth tools. In terms of traditional concept, competitiveness is based on the classical theories of absolute advantage by Smith, Ricardo‘s comparative advantage to the first theory of Porter‘s competitive advantage. Modern knowledge-based economy creates a new approach to regional competitiveness researches – from the advanced Porter competitive advantage theory to the dynamic concept of constructed advantages. The key element of constructed advantages theory is an eclectic approach that combines a variety of different concepts such as Regional Innovation Systems, Triple Helix-concept and public-private partnership. They are characterized by multi-directional and multi-dimensional interactions between the actors of the economy. The purpose of the analysis is a preliminary assessment of selected economic relations between the entities in Pomeranian region. There be analyzed relations between business and research and development institutions with particular emphasis on the role of Science and Technology Park in Gdynia as an institution affecting the shape and strength of relationships that create advantages of the region. |
| Keywords: | regional competitiveness, constructed advantages, Triple Helix, Regional Innovations Systems, science and technological parks |
| JEL: | R11 I25 J24 |
| Date: | 2011–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:gda:wpaper:1106&r=ino |
| By: | Guido Buenstorf (Institute of Economics and International Center for Higher Education Research (INCHER-Kassel), University of Kassel); Alexander Schacht (Graduate College "The Economics of Innovative Change", Friedrich Schiller University Jena) |
| Abstract: | Using a new dataset with detailed geographic information about licensing activities of the Max Planck Society, Germany's largest non-university public research organization, we analyze how the probability and magnitude of commercial success are affected by geographic distance between licensors and licensees. Our evidence suggests that proximity is not generally associated with superior commercialization outcomes. A negative association between distance and commercialization success is identified only for the specific cases of, first, spin-off licensees located outside Germany and, second, foreign licensees within the subsample of inventions with multiple licensees. |
| Keywords: | academic inventions, licensing, spin-off entrepreneurship, geographic distance |
| JEL: | L24 L26 O34 R30 |
| Date: | 2012–01–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:jrp:jrpwrp:2011-061&r=ino |