|
on Technology and Industrial Dynamics |
| By: | Poti' Bianca (Ceris - Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth, Rome, Italy); Cerulli Giovanni (Ceris - Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth, Rome, Italy) |
| Abstract: | This work deals with two main issues: first, the possibility of identifying differences in firm economic returns (operating profit margins) for different groups of innovation strategy and second, the possibility of checking for factors explaining the probability of being within the best performers for each group of innovation strategy. It is an empirically based analysis using descriptive statistics (first part) and a probit econometric analysis (second part) where data are collected at firm level from two CIS surveys matched with economic accountability data for 902 Italian manufacturing firms for the period 1998-2000. The distribution analysis of profit margins by different populations of firms shows a better economic performance for groups characterized by more complex innovation strategies. Unexpectedly, the risk associated to economic returns is lower for groups where returns’ mean is higher. In this case skewness is higher too suggesting that reaching “excellence” is more difficult. The probit regressions account for the role played by different (market and firm) factors on the probability of being the best positioned for each firm population. This work gives two main messages: first, when studying the impact of R&D activity (both on firm productivity or competitiveness) it is worth to distinguish among different kinds of innovation strategy rather than limiting the analysis to aggregated results and second, it appears quite clear that competition awards more complex innovation strategies than simple R&D intra-muros activity. |
| Keywords: | profitability, strategic heterogeneity, R&D and innovation, probit regression |
| JEL: | L60 L10 O30 C25 |
| Date: | 2007–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:csc:cerisp:200706&r=tid |
| By: | Schulz, Norbert |
| Abstract: | Both M&A and innovation are instruments for growth and competitive advantage. Therefore they are fundamental to each firm’s competitive strategy. Usually, both instruments have been studied separately, but much less in conjunction. This is unfortunate as both processes - the process of innovation and the process of mergers and acquisitions - are intimately connected. The impact of mergers on innovation can only be rigorously assessed, if the converse direction of influence - mergers caused by innovation - is accounted for. Therefore this review tries to take a balanced view on both processes and to point out links between them. Nevertheless, the focus is on the impact of mergers on innovation. This discussion paper is identical with an older version with the title ‘Review on the Literature of Mergers on Innovation’. |
| Keywords: | innovation incentives, market structure, merger incentives |
| JEL: | L10 L25 O31 |
| Date: | 2007 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:zewdip:6661&r=tid |
| By: | Gantumur, Tseveen (European University Viadrina); Stephan, Andreas (JIBS and CESIS) |
| Abstract: | The telecommunications in the 1990s witnessed an enormous worldwide round of Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A). This paper examines the innovation determinants of M&A activity and the consequences of M&A transactions on the technological potential and the innovation performance. We examine the telecommunications equipment industry over the period 1988-2002 using a newly constructed data set with firm-level data describing M&A and innovation activity as well as financial characteristics. Based on a matching propensity score procedure, the study provides evidence that M&A realize significantly positive changes to the firm’s postmerger innovation performance. |
| Keywords: | Mergers & Acquisitions; Innovation Performance; Telecommunications Equipment Industry |
| JEL: | L10 L63 O30 |
| Date: | 2007–12–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hhs:cesisp:0111&r=tid |
| By: | Klaus S. Friesenbichler (WIFO) |
| Abstract: | Aiming at both low prices and innovation, policy makers and economists have long argued about the optimal intensity of competition. While the current discussion in telecommunication regulation points out that competition can be detrimental to innovation due to the low appropriability of rents established economic approaches advocate competition to be conducive to innovation. This reflects the dispute in economics between Schumpeterian and neoclassical theories. Aghion et al. (2005) offered reconciliation by modelling an inverted U relationship, which in this paper I test for European mobile phone providers. Innovation is measured by a service launch indicator and R&D investments, and competition is approximated by market concentration. As markets are clearly defined, problems of market definition which usually blur concentration indices are avoided. I find robust and statistically significant support for the tested quadratic relationship for both innovation indicators. The innovation optimising Herfindahl-Hirschman laid around 5,500 between 2001 and 2003, but may however vary over time. This finding points at a conflict in the realisation of the regulatory objectives of low prices and innovation at the same time. |
| Keywords: | Innovation, R&D, market concentration, inverted U, mobile telecommunication research and Development |
| Date: | 2007–11–20 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:wfo:wpaper:y:2007:i:306&r=tid |
| By: | Kander, Astrid; Schön, Lennart |
| Abstract: | The focus in this paper is on industrial dynamics and its impact on energy systems.. We highlight some fundamental patterns of this long-term dynamics, using the Dahmenian concept ‘development blocks’, with ‘market widening’ and ‘market suction’, and discuss the implications for innovative pressure in the energy sector. We discern three epochs in the historical data: the Traditional Areal Epoch, the Punctiform Industrial Epoch and the Modern Areal Epoch. Each epoch has its typical energy sources and encompasses some fundamental development blocks. The Modern Areal Epoch is in formation at the end of the 20th century; its innovations are still under incremental evolution, and we discuss its future potential - in particular in relation to those shifts in markets that presently occur due to global spread of industrialization and economic growth. |
| Keywords: | Development blocks, innovation, energy epochs, biofuels |
| JEL: | O31 O32 O33 O34 O38 N5 O47 R58 |
| Date: | 2007 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cil:wpaper:103&r=tid |
| By: | Carlsson, Bo (Case Western Reserve University); Acs, Zoltan (University of Baltimore); Audretsch, David (Max-Planck Institute); Braunerhjelm, Pontus (CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, Royal Institute of Technology) |
| Abstract: | This paper explores the relationship between knowledge creation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth in the United States over the last 150 years. According to the “new growth theory,” investments in knowledge and human capital generate economic growth via spillovers of knowledge. But the theory does not explain how or why spillovers occur, or why large investments in R&D do not always result in economic growth. What is missing is “the knowledge filter” - the distinction between general knowledge and economically useful knowledge. Also missing is a mechanism (such as entrepreneurship) converting economically relevant knowledge into economic activity. This paper shows that the unprecedented increase in R&D spending in the United States during and after World War II was converted into economic activity via incumbent firms in the early postwar period and increasingly via new ventures in the last few decades. |
| Keywords: | knowledge; economic growth; entrepreneurship; spillovers; history |
| JEL: | N90 O14 O17 O30 |
| Date: | 2007–12–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hhs:cesisp:0104&r=tid |
| By: | Eickelpasch, Alexander (DIW Berlin); Lejpras, Anna (European University Viadrina Frankfurt/Oder); Stephan, Andreas (JIBS and CESIS) |
| Abstract: | This paper investigates predictions of Porter’s Diamond model regarding the impact of locational factors on innovativeness and performance at the firm level. We formulate a structural equation model based on the relationships between locational conditions, e.g., transportation infrastructure, proximity to universities and research institutes, qualified labour, on the one hand, and innovativeness measured by new product or process development, number of patents, and firm performance in terms of market growth or profit assessment, on the other hand. Based on a sample of about 2,100 East German firms, we apply the partial least squares path modelling approach to test the proposed relationships. We find that particularly cooperation intensity at the local level spurs the innovativeness of firms; whereas in contrast to Porter’s predictions, our results indicate that strong local competition and a locally focused market appear to impede the innovativeness and performance of firms. |
| Keywords: | Hard and Soft Locational Factors; Innovativeness; Firm Performance; East German Firms; Structural Equation Modelling; Partial Least Squares Approach |
| JEL: | L25 O31 R30 |
| Date: | 2007–12–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hhs:cesisp:0109&r=tid |