|
on Innovation |
| By: | Michael Schwartz; Francois Peglow; Michael Fritsch; Jutta Günther |
| Abstract: | Systemic innovation theory emphasizes that innovations are the result of an interdependent exchange process between different organizations. This is reflected in the current paradigm in European innovation policy, which aims at the support of collaborative R&D and innovation projects bringing together science and industry. Building on a large data set using project-level evidence on 406 subsidized R&D cooperation projects, the present paper provides detailed insights on the relationship between the innovative success of R&D cooperation projects and project characteristics. Patent applications and publications are used as measures for direct outcomes of R&D projects. We also differentiate between academic-industry projects and pure inter-firm projects. Main results of negative binomial regressions are that large-firm involvement is positively related to pa-tent applications, but not to publications. Conversely, university involvement has positive effects on project outcomes in terms of publications but not in terms of patent applications. In general, projects’ funding is an important predictor of innovative success of R&D cooperation projects. No significant results are found for spatial proximity among cooperation partners and for the engagement of an applied research institute. Results are discussed with respect to the design of R&D cooperation support schemes. |
| Keywords: | R&D Cooperation; Innovation; Academic-Industry-Linkages; Innovation Policy |
| JEL: | O31 O32 O38 |
| Date: | 2010–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iwh:dispap:7-10&r=ino |
| By: | Christian Keuschnigg; Peter Egger |
| Abstract: | The paper proposes a model where heterogeneous firms choose whether to undertake R&D or not. Depending on R&D choice, innovative firms are more productive, have larger investment opportunities and lower own funds than non-innovating firms. As a result, innovative firms are financially constrained while standard firms are not. The efficiency of the financial sector and a country's institutional quality relating to corporate governance determine the share of R&D intensive firms and the comparative advantage in innovative goods. We show how protection, R&D subsidies and financial development improve access to external finance in distinct ways, support the expansion of innovative industries and boost national welfare. International welfare spillovers depend on the interaction between terms of trade effects and financial frictions and may be positive or negative, depending on foreign countries' trade position. |
| Keywords: | Innovation, financial development, R&D subsidies, protection |
| JEL: | F11 G32 L26 O38 |
| Date: | 2010–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:usg:dp2010:2010-08&r=ino |
| By: | Bruno van Pottelsberghe |
| Abstract: | In this Policy Brief, Bruegel Senior Fellow Bruno van Pottelsberghe makes the argument in favour of a single EU patent system. The author explains that the absence of a one-stop-shop for EU-wide patents hampers innovation and will pose serious challenges to small and medium-sized companies in the face of global competition. This paper analyses how a uniform patent system can sustain long-term competitiveness and boost growth and thereby achieve EU2020 targets. It makes policy recommendations in four key areas of a single patent system - language, complexity, affordability and governance. |
| Date: | 2010–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:bre:polbrf:413&r=ino |
| By: | Luciano Martins Costa Póvoa (FACE-UFG, Ciências Econômicas); Márcia Siqueira Rapini (UFRJ and CEDEPLAR/UFMG) |
| Abstract: | This paper presents an analysis of the technology transfer process from universities and public research institutes to firms in Brazil. In particular, this study is concerned with the role of patents in this process. Although there is a certain enthusiasm in promoting technology transfer offices to manage university patents, the importance of patents to the technology transfer process is not yet well understood in literature. We conducted a survey with leaders of research groups from universities and public research institutes that developed and transferred technology to firms. The results show that patents are one of the least used channels of technology transfer by universities and public research institutes. But the importance of the channels varies according to the type of technology transferred and to the firms' industry. |
| Keywords: | Technology transfer; university; public research institutions, patent. |
| JEL: | O31 O34 |
| Date: | 2010–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ufb:wpaper:014&r=ino |
| By: | Hussler Caroline; Pénin Julien |
| Abstract: | This paper explores the determinants of scientific research agenda. By using an original dataset that includes extensive information about 269 French academic inventors, we analyze why scientists choose to perform patentable versus non-patentable research. Usually economic studies tackle this problem by using the number of invented patents as a proxy of researchers’ willingness to perform patentable research. The originality of the paper is that, in addition to the number of invented patents, we rely on a survey-base dependant variable that indicates whether or not scientists acknowledge orienting deliberately their research towards patentable areas. Our results indicate that past experience with respect to patenting activity matters: academic inventors who have already experienced a successful technology transfer are more inclined to orient their research towards patentable domains. Similarly, the institutional environment plays an explanatory role, whereas conversely, scientific discipline, age and individual research performance do not seem to affect the decision to orient research towards patentable areas. Yet, age and scientific performance positively influence the number of patents scholars effectively invent. |
| Keywords: | University, patent, scientific agenda, technology transfer, academic inventors. |
| JEL: | O3 |
| Date: | 2010 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ulp:sbbeta:2010-06&r=ino |
| By: | Jacques Mairesse; Pierre Mohnen |
| Abstract: | After presenting the history, the evolution and the content of innovation surveys, we discuss the characteristics of the data they contain and the challenge they pose to the analyst and the econometrician. We document the two uses that have been made of these data: the construction of scoreboards for monitoring innovation and the scholarly analysis of various issue related to innovation. In particular we review the questions examined and the results obtained regarding the determinants, the effects, the complementarities, and the dynamics of innovation. We conclude by suggesting ways to improve the data collection and their econometric analysis. |
| JEL: | C35 C81 O30 O50 |
| Date: | 2010–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:15857&r=ino |
| By: | Tuomo Nikulainen |
| Abstract: | This paper discusses the outcomes of university-industry interaction from the perspective of an individual academic researcher. Two contributions are made to the extant literature. First, in the existing research, the focus has mostly been on outcomes such as university-based patenting, licensing revenues, invention disclosures to technology transfer offices, and academic entrepreneurship. This narrow focus has excluded intangible outcomes, such as the identification of new research ideas and commercial opportunities, from the discussion. Therefore, in this paper, both intangible and tangible outcomes are taken into account, and the empirical analysis identifies unique individual-level factors related to the different types of outcomes. Second, in the extant literature, it is argued that a boundary-spanning position within different types of networks is related to higher performance and the identification of unique ideas. This aspect is analysed by identifying the role of a boundary-spanning position in research collaboration networks with respect to the different outcomes. The empirical results show that the different outcomes are clearly related to different individual-level factors, and that a boundary-spanning position in research collaboration networks is related to both intangible and tangible outcomes. |
| Keywords: | technology transfer, university-industry interaction, individual researchers, research collaboration, research networks, boundary spanning, nanotechnology |
| JEL: | O31 O33 |
| Date: | 2010–03–25 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:rif:dpaper:1214&r=ino |
| By: | Jasjit Singh; Ajay K. Agrawal |
| Abstract: | When firms recruit inventors, they acquire not only the use of their skills but also enhanced access to their stock of ideas. But do hiring firms actually increase their use of the new recruits’ prior inventions? Our estimates suggest they do, quite significantly in fact, by approximately 202% on average. However, this does not necessarily reflect widespread “learning-by-hiring.” In fact, we estimate that a recruit’s exploitation of her own prior ideas accounts for almost half of the above effect. Furthermore, although one might expect the recruit’s role to diminish rapidly as her tacit knowledge diffuses across her new firm, our estimates indicate that her importance is surprisingly persistent over time. We base these findings on an empirical strategy that exploits the variation over time in hiring firms’ citations to the recruits’ pre-move patents. Specifically, we employ a difference-in-differences approach to compare pre-move versus post-move citation rates for the recruits’ prior patents and the corresponding matched-pair control patents. Our methodology has three benefits compared to previous studies that also examine the link between labor mobility and knowledge flow: 1) it does not suffer from the upward bias inherent in the conventional cross-sectional comparison, 2) it generates results that are robust to a more stringently matched control sample, and 3) it enables a temporal examination of knowledge flow patterns. |
| JEL: | O31 O32 O33 O34 |
| Date: | 2010–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:15869&r=ino |