|
on Innovation |
| By: | Artuc, Erhan; Pourpourides, Panayiotis M. |
| Abstract: | The research and development (R&D) sector is considered one of the main driving forces of sustainable growth in the long run. The sector, however, also shows excessive volatility and is one of the important sources of macroeconomic fluctuations. Using data from the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis and National Science Foundation, we show how significant technology innovations'contributions are to improve sector productivity and the efficiency of physical capital. After taking nominal innovations into consideration, such as shocks in monetary policy and inflation, capital innovations explain 70 percent of fluctuations of real investment in R&D, while productivity innovations in the R&D sector explain 30 percent of the variation in the output of the non-R&D sectors. Technology innovations explain most of the variation of output in the R&D sector and 78 percent of the variation of output in the rest of the economy. Although the R&D sector is relatively small, it has a significant impact on the fluctuations of aggregate output. |
| Keywords: | E-Business,Economic Theory&Research,Political Economy,Research and Development,Labor Policies |
| Date: | 2012–03–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:6017&r=ino |
| By: | Leonardo Buzzavo |
| Abstract: | Strategy innovation gained popularity during the 1990s as a notion applying to firms that reinvented competition in an industry. Throughout the 2000s business model innovation drew much of the spotlight. The key traits of both these concepts (and how they relate to each other) are often implicit or unclear. Through a literature review and by applying the key elements to some innovative firms for illustrative purposes, this paper discusses the emergence of the notion of strategy (and business model) innovation aiming to bridge these concepts while identifying their basic constituents. Successful firms manage to envision and implement new combinations along different routes, but always exploiting the complementarities through self-reinforcing mechanisms. Finally, the paper argues that strategy innovation triggers the need to broaden the interpretative schemes in the field of strategy, as it resembles more an art than a science. |
| Keywords: | Strategy; Innovation; Business Model |
| Date: | 2012–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:vnm:wpdman:15&r=ino |
| By: | Christopher F Baum (Boston College; DIW Berlin); Mustafa Caglayan (University of Sheffield); Oleksandr Talavera (Durham Business School, Durham University) |
| Abstract: | We empirically examine the role of diversification in export markets on firm-level R&D activities. In our investigation we allow for heterogeneous behavior across firms and industries. To properly treat the incidence of R&D as a variable with a sizable concentration of zeroes, we produce Tobit and Generalized Linear Model (GLM) estimates. Our results provide strong evidence that export sales diversification across different regions induces firms to increase R&D expenditures, as they must innovate and develop new products to maintain a competitive edge over their rivals. When we split the data into durable versus nondurable firms, we observe that this effect is mainly operational among firms in the durable goods sector. |
| Keywords: | R&D investment, Export diversification, Foreign direct investment, Cash holdings |
| JEL: | G21 G32 C24 |
| Date: | 2012–03–30 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:boc:bocoec:794&r=ino |
| By: | Vijayaraghavan, K.; Dutz, Mark A. |
| Abstract: | This paper describes and analyzes a series of complementary policy initiatives in India to adapt and commercialize existing global biotechnologies to meet local needs in healthcare, agriculture, industry and the environment in a more affordable manner. This evolving approach has been implemented through six complementary elements, namely (1) translational research; (2) technology access through global consortia; (3) commercialization supported by public-private partnerships, broadly interpreted; (4) skills development; (5) regulation; and (6) institutional governance, including special purpose vehicles, for effective project management. The paper focuses on two public-private partnership initiatives, the Small Business Innovation Research Initiative and the Biotechnology Industry Partnership Program, which together have allocated more than US$70 million in public funding to almost 150 projects, contributing to a total public-private investment of more than $170 million over the past five years. The authors'key recommendation, to ensure effective resource use and better policy impact, is for these innovation-support initiatives to adopt more continuous monitoring with quicker feedback from learning to implementation, and more rigorous impact evaluation including approaches that allow the results of firms benefiting from support to be compared with an appropriate group of firms not benefiting from support. |
| Keywords: | ICT Policy and Strategies,Agricultural Knowledge&Information Systems,Rural Development Knowledge&Information Systems,E-Business,Agricultural Research |
| Date: | 2012–04–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:6022&r=ino |
| By: | Benjamin Montmartin (GATE Lyon Saint-Etienne - Groupe d'analyse et de théorie économique - CNRS : UMR5824 - Université Lumière - Lyon II - École Normale Supérieure - Lyon) |
| Abstract: | Les politiques de soutien financier à la R&D se sont multipliées depuis les années 80 dans les pays de l'OCDE avec une utilisation croissante des mesures fiscales. Cependant, il existe assez peu d'études mesurant l'impact macroéconomique de ces mesures sur l'investissement privé en R&D. L'objectif de cet article est d'analyser l'impact et la complémentarité des politiques internes de soutien financier à la R&D mais aussi l'influence des politiques externes sur l'intensité de la R&D financée par le secteur privé. En utilisant une base de données couvrant 25 pays de l'OCDE sur la période 1990-2007, nos estimations en panel dynamique montrent que seules les politiques internes de soutien financier indirect (incitations fiscales) influencent significativement l'intensité de la R&D privée. Si les instruments de soutien direct (subventions et prêts) n'ont pas d'impact significatif, il apparaît que leur renforcement nuirait à l'efficacité des mesures indirectes. Alors que la R&D publique externe semble dynamiser l'investissement privé en R&D, les politiques extérieures de soutien financier (direct et indirect) ne montrent pas d'influence significative. |
| Keywords: | R&D financial support policies; Business-funded R&D intensity; complementarity; panel data |
| Date: | 2012–03–29 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-00683648&r=ino |