|
on Innovation |
| By: | Dirk Fornahl; Tom Broekel; Ron Boschma |
| Abstract: | This paper aims to explain whether firm-specific features, their engagement in collaboration networks and their location influence patent activity of biotech firms in Germany in the period 1997-2004. First, we demonstrate that non-collaborative R&D subsidies do not increase patent intensity of biotech firms. Second, the number of knowledge links biotech firms is also not influencing their patent performance. However, strong and robust evidence is found that some but not too much cognitive distance between actors involved in R&D collaborations increases patent performance of firms. Third, being located in a biotech cluster does positively impact on patent performance. |
| Keywords: | relatedness, R&D subsidies, biotechnology, knowledge networks, proximity paradox |
| JEL: | O33 O38 R58 |
| Date: | 2010–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:egu:wpaper:1009&r=ino |
| By: | Valentina De Marchi (Università di Padova) |
| Abstract: | This paper explores the relationship between firms’ cooperation and their propensity toward environmental innovation. Previous literature has emphasized the peculiarities of such innovations based on their drivers, their positive spill-overs and the importance of regulation to trigger them. This paper contributes to the literature by focusing on the importance of cooperation and of vertical, horizontal and lateral cooperative agreements on environmental innovation propensity. I test these hypotheses through a large scale dataset, the Community Innovation Survey for Spanish firms (PITEC), through the use of estimation techniques that allow to control for possible selection bias. The econometric estimations suggest that environmental innovative firms cooperate on innovation to an higher extent than other innovative firms. Furthermore, cooperation with suppliers, KIBS and universities is more relevant than for other innovative firms, whereas cooperation with clients does not seem to be differentially important. |
| Keywords: | environmental innovation, cooperation, R&D, two step logit model, innovation survey. |
| Date: | 2010–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pad:wpaper:0119&r=ino |
| By: | Valeria Arza; Andres Lopez |
| Abstract: | This paper adapts the Crepon, Duguet, and Mairesse (1998) approach to estimate the relationship between innovation and productivity and the realities of innovative activities in developing countries. Panel data for Argentina during the period 1998-2004 to estimate a structural model in which different types of firms’ innovative behavior—including in-house activities and the incorporation of external technologies—feeds into the probability of achieving successful results in product and process innovation, which in turn explains labor productivity. The endogeneity of this three-stage process is controlled for. The results suggest that all types of innovative activities are relevant to explain success in product and process innovation, and both are important factors to explain labor productivity. Moreover, investing systematically in R&D implies an extra payoff in labor productivity. These results suggest that investing in different types of innovative activities—and not only in R&D—and doing in-house activities systematically contribute to firms’ innovative and economic performance. |
| Keywords: | Innovation, Productivity, Argentina |
| JEL: | O33 O14 O12 |
| Date: | 2010–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:idb:wpaper:4681&r=ino |
| By: | R. Antonietti; G. Cainelli |
| Date: | 2010–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:bol:prinwp:014&r=ino |
| By: | Kimberly Elliott |
| Abstract: | Feeding an additional three billion people over the next four decades, along with providing food security for another one billion people that are currently hungry or malnourished, is a huge challenge. Meeting those goals in a context of land and water scarcity, climate change, and declining crop yields will require another giant leap in agricultural innovation. The aim of this paper is to stimulate a dialogue on what new approaches might be needed to meet these needs and how innovative funding mechanisms could play a role. In particular, could “pull mechanisms,” where donors stimulate demand for new technologies, be a useful complement to traditional “push mechanisms,” where donors provide funding to increase the supply of research and development (R&D). With a pull mechanism, donors seek to engage the private sector, which is almost entirely absent today in developing country R&D for agriculture, and they pay only when specified outcomes are delivered and adopted. |
| Keywords: | agriculture, pull mechanisms, food security, hunger, innovaction |
| Date: | 2010–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cgd:wpaper:215&r=ino |