nep-ino New Economics Papers
on Innovation
Issue of 2011‒04‒02
eight papers chosen by
Steffen Lippert
Massey University, Albany

  1. Privatization of Knowledge: Did the U.S. Get It Right? (New Version). By Cozzi, Guido; Galli, Silvia
  2. Leadership Contestability, Monopolistic Rents and Growth By Roberto Piazza
  3. The Transatlantic Productivity Gap: Is R&D the Main Culprit? By Ortega-Argilés, Raquel; Piva, Mariacristina; Vivarelli, Marco
  4. Drivers and Impacts in the Globalization of Corporate R&D: An Introduction Based on the European Experience By Moncada-Paternò-Castello, Pietro; Vivarelli, Marco; Voigt, Peter
  5. Does the Support of Innovative Clusters Sustainably Foster R&D Activity? Evidence from the German BioRegio and BioProfile Contests By D. Engel; T. Mitze; R. Patuelli; J. Reinkowski
  6. Commercialization of Government Funded R&D : Follow-up Research Survey on NEDO Research Projects By Aoshima, Yaichi; Matsushima, Matsushima; Eto, Manabu
  7. Extension of the Study on the Diffusion of Innovation in the Internal Market By Jordi Suriñach; Fabio Manca; Rosina Moreno
  8. Large firm dynamics on the Nordic-Baltic scene Implications for innovation and growth By Braunerhjelm, Pontus; Halldin, Torbjörn; Pedersen, Torben; Pajarinen, Mika; Ylä-Anttila, Pekka; Heum, Per; Kalvet, Tarmo

  1. By: Cozzi, Guido; Galli, Silvia
    Abstract: To foster innovation and growth should basic research be publicly or privately funded? This paper studies the impact of the gradual shift in the U.S. patent system towards the patentability and commercialization of the basic R&D undertaken by universities. We see this movement as making universities becoming responsive to "market" forces. Prior to 1980, universities undertook research using an exogenous stock of researchers that were motivated by "curiosity." After 1980, universities patent their research and behave as private firms. This move, in a context of two-stage inventions (basic and applied research) has an a priori ambiguous effect on innovation and welfare. We build a Schumpeterian model and match it to the data to assess this important turning point.
    Keywords: R&D and Growth; Sequential Innovation; Basic Research; Patent Laws.
    JEL: O41 O34 O31
    Date: 2011–01–15
  2. By: Roberto Piazza
    Abstract: I construct an endogenous growth model where R&D is carried out at the industry level in a game of innovation between leaders and followers. Innovation costs for followers are assumed to increase with the technological lag from leaders. We obtain three results that contrast with standard Schumpeterian models, such as Aghion and Howitt (1992). First, leaders may innovate in equilibrium, in an attempt to force followers out of the innovation game. Second, policies (such as patents) that allow for strong protections of monopolies can reduce the steady state growth rate of the economy. Third, multiple equilibria arise when monopolies' protection is large.
    Date: 2011–03–23
  3. By: Ortega-Argilés, Raquel (European Commission); Piva, Mariacristina (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore); Vivarelli, Marco (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore)
    Abstract: The literature has pointed to different causes to explain the productivity gap between Europe and United States in the last decades. This paper tests the hypothesis that the lower European productivity performance in comparison with the US can be explained not only by a lower level of corporate R&D investment, but also by a lower capacity to translate R&D investment into productivity gains. The proposed microeconometric estimates are based on a unique longitudinal database covering the period 1990-2008 and comprising 1,809 US and European companies for a total of 16,079 observations. Consistent with previous literature, we find robust evidence of a significant impact of R&D on productivity; however – using different estimation techniques – the R&D coefficients for the US firms always turn out to be significantly higher. To see to what extent these transatlantic differences may be related to the different sectoral structures in the US and the EU, we differentiated the analysis by sectors. The result is that both in manufacturing, services and high-tech sectors US firms are more efficient in translating their R&D investments into productivity increases.
    Keywords: R&D, productivity, embodied technological change, US, EU
    JEL: O33
    Date: 2011–03
  4. By: Moncada-Paternò-Castello, Pietro (European Commission); Vivarelli, Marco (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore); Voigt, Peter (European Commission)
    Abstract: The globalization of R&D activities has continued its growth path as companies are increasingly trying to capture knowledge and market opportunities internationally. The rapid evolution of national economies and the ways to conduct knowledge-intensive businesses has led researchers and analysts to pursue a deeper understanding of the globalization of corporate R&D and the related driving factors and impacts. This introduction to the Special Section: "Globalization and Corporate R&D" forthcoming in Industrial and Corporate Change (vol. 20 (2), April 2011) provides an update of trends in the globalization of corporate R&D. It reviews the literature on the main drivers and impacts of the process under investigation, introduces the papers for this Special Section, and offers some concluding remarks.
    Keywords: globalization, R&D, outsourcing, FDI
    JEL: F23 O32
    Date: 2011–03
  5. By: D. Engel; T. Mitze; R. Patuelli; J. Reinkowski
    Abstract: In this paper, we evaluate the R&D enhancing effects of two large public grant schemes aiming at encouraging the performance of firms organized in clusters. These are Germany's well known BioRegio and BioProfile contests for which we compare the research performance of winning regions in contrast with non-winning and non-participating comparison regions. We apply Difference-in-Difference estimation techniques in a generalized linear model framework, which allows to control for different initial regional conditions in the biotechnology related R&D activity. Our econometric findings support the view that winners generally outperform non-winning participants during the treatment period, thus indicating that exclusive funding as well as the stimulating effect of being a “winner" seems to work in the short-term. In contrast, no indirect impacts stemming from a potential mobilizing effect of the contest approaches have been detected. Also, we find only limited evidence for long-term effects of public R&D grants in the post-treatment period. The results of our analysis remain stable if we additionally augment the model to account for the particular role of spatial dependence in the R&D outcome variables.
    JEL: O38 R38 C23
    Date: 2011–03
  6. By: Aoshima, Yaichi; Matsushima, Matsushima; Eto, Manabu
    Abstract: Drawing on data obtained from the questionnaire survey for the 242 private R&D projects supported by NEDO (New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization), Japan’s public management organization promoting R&D, this paper explores how the private R&D projects’ dependence on public supports affects their R&D processes and, in turn, projects’ performance and the commercialization of developed technologies. Our analyses show that dependence on government resources gives rise to some ―isolation. of the projects from the other parts of companies that they belong to. Such isolation, mainly derived from projects’ unique positions in ―double dependence. structures, negatively affects R&D performance especially related to commercialization. First, high dependence on public resources prevents project members from interacting with people outside the projects within the company. This precludes the projects to effectively leverage internal resources in overcoming technological problems. Secondly, high dependence weakens governance or control on project’s activities by internal management. This deters development of commercialization technologies and makes it difficult for the projects to acquire legitimacy for further investment towards commercialization. Our findings suggest that both companies and public funding agencies should promote projects to keep intimate relationships with the other parts of their organization for successful R&D leading to commercialization.
    Date: 2011–02
  7. By: Jordi Suriñach; Fabio Manca; Rosina Moreno
    Abstract: The main aim of the present study is to analyse the drivers of innovation adoption, specifically the identification of the channels through which innovation adoption takes place and the estimation of the main determinants of this adoption process in the Internal Market (IM). In doing so, we follow the idea that public policies play an important role.
    Date: 2011–02
  8. By: Braunerhjelm, Pontus (CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, Royal Institute of Technology); Halldin, Torbjörn (CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, Royal Institute of Technology); Pedersen, Torben (Copenhagen Business School); Pajarinen, Mika (The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy); Ylä-Anttila, Pekka (The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy); Heum, Per (Institute for Research in Economics and Business Administration (SNF)); Kalvet, Tarmo (Tallinn University of Technology)
    Abstract: This paper investigates the role of the 30 largest firms in the respective Nordic country and in Estonia over the last decade and for some variables between 1975 to 2006. The analysis confirms that the largest firms play a critically important role for industrial dynamics in the Nordic countries. Statistics are presented with regard to e.g. ownership, the distribution of employment between home country and foreign units, internationalization, R&D, the share of overall employment and value-added, and the dynamics over time. Both firms in the manufacturing and the service sectors are included. Even though large firms differ in terms of size and industry distribution, they do still play a dominant in all Nordic countries, albeit somewhat diminished over the investigated time period. From a policy point of view it seems of vital concern for the Nordic countries to retain their increasingly foot-loose and globally oriented large firms.
    Keywords: Large firms; internationalization and industrial dynamics
    JEL: F23 L20 O30
    Date: 2011–01–01

This nep-ino issue is ©2011 by Steffen Lippert. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.