nep-ino New Economics Papers
on Innovation
Issue of 2013‒09‒06
sixteen papers chosen by
Steffen Lippert
University of Otago, Dunedin

  1. The “green-impact” of the open innovation mode. Bridging knowledge sourcing and absorptive capacity for environmental innovations By Sandro Montresor; Claudia Ghisetti; Alberto Marzucchi
  2. Patent Licensing in Spatial Models By Yuanzhu Lu; Sougata Poddar
  3. Innovation Platforms, Complexity and the Knowledge-Intensive Firm. By Patrucco, Pier Paolo
  4. The effect of innovative SMEs' growth to the structural renewal of the EU economy - A projection to the year 2020 – By Pietro Moncada-Paterno-Castello; Peter Voigt
  5. Complexity and the Coordination of Technological Knowledge: The Case of Innovation Platforms By Consoli, Davide; Patrucco, Pier Paolo
  6. Adaptability and innovation in healthcare facilities. Lessons from the past for future developments By Barlow, JG; Koberle-Gaiser, M; Moss, R; Noble, A; Scher, P; Stow, D
  7. Mind the Science and Technology Skills Gap By Maria del Sorbo; Fernando Hervás Soriano
  8. Does Government Support for Private Innovation Matter? Firm-Level Evidence from Turkey and Poland By Wojciech Grabowski; Teoman Pamukcu; Krzysztof Szczygielski; Sinan Tandogan
  9. The Evolution of Knowledge Organization: The Emergence of Innovation Platform in the Turin Car System. By Patrucco, Pier Paolo
  10. Regional Determinants of Establishments' Innovation Activities: A Multi-Level Approach By Bellmann, Lutz; Crimmann, Andreas; Evers, Katalin; Hujer, Reinhard
  11. Innovation and Growth in Regions with Specific Geographical Features By Juliana Dahl
  12. The Rise and Fall of R&D Networks By Mauro V. Tomasello; Mauro Napoletano; Antonios Garas; Frank Schweitzer
  13. Innovation and Income Inequality. By Antonelli, Cristiano; Gehringer, Agnieszka
  14. Globalization Localized Technological Change and the Knowledge Economy. By Antonelli, Cristiano
  15. Conservation Agriculture: Innovations, Constraints and Strategies for Adoption By Meena, M.S.; Singh, K.M.
  16. Patents as indicators for knowledge generation and diffusion in mechanical engineering and green biotechnology: A first assessment By Neuhäusler, Peter; Frietsch, Rainer

  1. By: Sandro Montresor (JRC-IPTS); Claudia Ghisetti (University of Bologna); Alberto Marzucchi (Catholic University of Milan)
    Abstract: This Policy Brief presents recent results on the impact that an open innovation mode has on European firms' environmental innovations. New evidence drawn from the CIS suggests that knowledge sourcing can increase the environmental innovation performance of firms. However, the way firms search for external knowledge and work to absorb it can lead them to different results, depending on whether they are involved in the adoption of an eco-innovation or the extension of their eco-innovation portfolio. Drawing on these results, policy implications for the European Research and Innovation Agenda are discussed.
    Keywords: innovation, environment, eco-innovation
    Date: 2013–08
  2. By: Yuanzhu Lu (China Economics and Management Academy, Central University of Finance and Economics, China); Sougata Poddar (Department of Economics, Faculty of Business and Law, Auckland University of Technology)
    Abstract: We show that a two-part tariff licensing contract is always optimal to the insider patentee in spatial models irrespective of the size of the innovation or any pre-innovation cost asymmetries. The result provides a simple justification of the prevalence of two-part tariff licensing contracts in industries.
    Keywords: Salop Model, Hotelling Model, Costs, Innovation,PAtent Licensing
    JEL: D43 D45 L13
    Date: 2013–07
  3. By: Patrucco, Pier Paolo (University of Turin)
    Date: 2013–07
  4. By: Pietro Moncada-Paterno-Castello (European Commission – JRC - IPTS); Peter Voigt
    Abstract: The Policy Brief addresses the following question: To what extent the high-growth of current innovative R&D-intensive SMEs can drive the envisaged structural change of the EU economy towards high R&D intensive sectors? It aims to contribute to the debate about how to set the right priorities and find the most appropriate policy interventions to allow Europe to reach the 3% R&D intensity target and hence its growth and employment objectives. It first summarises stylised findings from the literature on the relevance of innovative companies for economic growth, then presents results from a recent JRC-IPTS study which go some way towards answering the question posed above, and concludes by outlining some of the contributions that enrich the policy debate.
    Keywords: Industrial Economics, Corporate R&D and innovation, industrial R&D investment, economic performance of the private sector, productivity, business trends, research, innovation, technological innovation, intangible assets, competitiveness, growth and employment, company growth, scoreboard, survey, economic analysis, policy analysis, Europe 2020 strategy
    Date: 2013–07
  5. By: Consoli, Davide; Patrucco, Pier Paolo (University of Turin)
    Date: 2013–07
  6. By: Barlow, JG; Koberle-Gaiser, M; Moss, R; Noble, A; Scher, P; Stow, D
    Date: 2013–08–19
  7. By: Maria del Sorbo (JRC-IPTS); Fernando Hervás Soriano (JRC-IPTS)
    Abstract: This policy brief shows new evidence on the causes of the S&T skills gap in European regions. It highlights that the S&T skills gap is mainly due to shortages of capabilities that are crucial to support the innovation and growth of firms and the other actors of the regional system, including university and government. From these findings, ad hoc policy implications upon the development of innovation capabilities and skills for the European Research Strategy and Innovation agenda are proposed and future research issues identified.
    Keywords: Science and Technology skills gap, innovation, research
    Date: 2013–08
  8. By: Wojciech Grabowski; Teoman Pamukcu; Krzysztof Szczygielski; Sinan Tandogan
    Abstract: The aim of the project is to analyze government support for innovation in a comparative perspective by first examining the main existing instruments of financial support for innovation in Turkey and Poland, and secondly to assess their effectiveness by applying recent econometric techniques to firm-level data for both countries obtained from the Community Innovation Survey (CIS). Comparing Turkey to Poland is both meaningful and promising from a policy-analysis point of view. Both countries are comparable in terms of levels of economic development and technological capabilities, i.e. the ability of their economies to create knowledge and exploit it commercially. Both have undergone deep market-oriented reforms in the last decades – Turkey since 1980, Poland since 1989 – resulting in a significant catching-up of their economies. However, as the possibilities for further growth based on structural change and eliminating obstacles to business are shrinking, the problem of building a knowledge-based economy comes to the fore. In Turkey, one can observe the growing popularity and the generous practices of public incentives in industrial R&D and innovation, in addition to the recent trends in public policies to support technological entrepreneurship and the commercialization of research output. Since 2004, significant changes and improvements have taken place in Turkey concerning science and technology policy schemes that have actually influenced the national innovation system in a number of ways. These include: an important increase in public support provided to private R&D, the diversification of direct support programmes for private R&D and innovation (which was tailored to the needs of potential innovators), a widening of the scope of existing fiscal incentives for private R&D activities and the implementation of new ones, the implementation of new call-based grant programmes targeted at technology areas and industries based on national priorities. Considering the large resource allocation for the government involvement, there is a growing and urgent need for the systematic monitoring and evaluation of R&D and innovation policies in Turkey. In Poland, the science, technology and innovation (STI) policies were seen as less important than other reforms (financial system, privatization, pensions etc.) during the economic transition. The STI policies have lacked funding, co-ordination and vision. The institutional Architecture has evolved with a lack of continuity and a short institutional memory. A major breakthrough occurred after 2004 when considerable funds for innovation were provided via EU structural funds. The three principle areas of support were the creation of technologies, technology absorption and indirect support. However, with respect to public programmes targeting firms, technology absorption has dominated all other instruments. Consequently, it is legitimate to ask whether the EU funds are being spent in the best possible way, and in particular, whether they contribute to the enhanced innovation performance of economy. To assess the efficiency of public support, the same econometric methodology is applied to the Turkish and Polish 2008 and 2010 editions of the Community Innovation Survey for manufacturing firms. Two models are estimated: one following the now classical CDM model and assessing the role of innovation spending, but assuming government support to be exogenous, and another controlling for the endogeneity of support but assuming a simplified version of the innovation performance equation. Depending on data availability, extensions of the analysis for both countries are offered: for Turkey the estimation of a full-fledged CDM model and for Poland the analysis of panel data for 2006-2010 and an assessment of the Efficiency of specific kinds of public support. The evidence indicates that government support contributes to higher innovation spending by firms and this in turn improves their chances to introduce product innovations. The positive impact remains valid even when a possibly non-random selection of firms for government support programmes is controlled for. The extended analysis of Turkey has proved that there is a positive relationship between innovation and firm productivity. On the other hand, substantial differences between various kinds of public aid were identified. In particular, support from local government proved inefficient or less efficient than the support from central government or the European Union. Moreover, in Poland, grants for investment in new machinery and equipment and human resources upgrading proved to contribute significantly less to innovation performance than support for R&D activities in firms. In terms of policy recommendations, this report supports an increase in the volume of innovation support and in the number of instruments used in Turkey. However, a more specific analysis is needed to explain the inefficiency of support from local government. The recommendation for Poland is to redesign the innovation support schemes for firms so as to put more focus on R&D activities and the development of truly new products and technologies
    Keywords: Innovation, Manufacturing Firms, Government Support, EU Structural Policy, Poland, Turkey
    JEL: O31 O38 H81
    Date: 2013–08
  9. By: Patrucco, Pier Paolo (University of Turin)
    Abstract: The paper aims at explaining the changes in how economic actors and their organizations acquire and coordinate innovative and productive capabilities. Through the illustrative evidence of organizational change occurred in the automobile industry in the area of Turin over the last 50 years, the paper describes how transformations in the structure of interactions between firms are steered by the modification in the pattern of specialization and differentiation in the capabilities and technological skills of economic actors. The automobile system in Turin is characterized by the emergence of a distributed innovation platform, which is seen as a major innovation in the organization of innovation and technological knowledge in the system.
    Date: 2013–07
  10. By: Bellmann, Lutz (Institute for Employment Research (IAB), Nuremberg); Crimmann, Andreas (Institute for Employment Research (IAB), Nuremberg); Evers, Katalin (Institute for Employment Research (IAB), Nuremberg); Hujer, Reinhard (Goethe University Frankfurt)
    Abstract: This paper analyses the determinants of different innovation types. Beside a wide range of firm characteristics also the effects of regional factors are estimated using three-level random effect logit models which account for the clustered and longitudinal structure of the data. The analyses contain three regional variables: the unemployment rate, the assessment of the region with reference to proximity to research and technology centres and universities and the rate of graduates in mathematics, informatics, natural sciences and technological sciences (MINT-graduates). The empirical basis is the IAB-Establishment Panel Survey 2006 to 2010. Process and radical innovations are significant affected by the unemployment rate and the share of MINT-graduates. The unemployment rate has also for some of the innovation combos a significant effect. The proportion of MINT-graduates is relevant for the probability of all 4 innovation types simultaneously.
    Keywords: determinants of innovation, regional effects, multilevel modelling
    JEL: D21 O30 R15
    Date: 2013–08
  11. By: Juliana Dahl
    Abstract: Since the year 2000, innovation and the path towards a “knowledge-based” economy have become prominent concepts in the European policy sphere. Although fostered by the goal of the innovationoriented Lisbon Strategy, it remains questionable in how far the situation of being the “most competitive economy” favours the diverse territories in the European Union. In this matter, very little is known about the ability to translate innovation into regional growth in territories with geographical disadvantages. The present paper discusses the intensified emphasis of the European policy approach towards innovation and its adequacy to the need of regions with unfavourable geographical features. This thorough discussion aims to shed some light on the issue of whether the EU’s twin goals for 2007-2013, to achieve global competitiveness and cohesion, are suitable for areas with geographical limitations
    Keywords: European Regional Development Fund, Innovation, Regional Policy, Specific Geographical Features
    JEL: O31
    Date: 2013–05
  12. By: Mauro V. Tomasello; Mauro Napoletano; Antonios Garas; Frank Schweitzer
    Abstract: Drawing on a large database of publicly announced R&D alliances, we track the evolution of R&D networks in a large number of economic sectors over a long time period (1986- 2009). Our main goal is to evaluate temporal and sectoral robustness of the main statistical properties of empirical R&D networks. By studying a large set of indicators, we provide a more complete description of these networks with respect to the existing literature. We find that most network properties are invariant across sectors. In addition, they do not change when alliances are considered independently of the sectors to which partners belong. Moreover, we find that many properties of R&D networks are characterized by a rise-and-fall dynamics with a peak in the mid-nineties. Finally, we show that such properties of empirical R&D networks support predictions of the recent theoretical literature on R&D network formation.
    Date: 2013–09–03
  13. By: Antonelli, Cristiano; Gehringer, Agnieszka (University of Turin)
    Abstract: The paper articulates and tests the hypothesis that innovation is a major factor in the reduction of income inequalities. The relationship between the pace of technological change and the dynamics of income inequalities has been first suggested by Kuznets (1955), but found little elaboration and empirical investigation in the subsequent literature. The evidence of a large data set including advanced countries, such as the US, Canada and the members of the European Union, as well as the newly industrializing BRIC members, in the years 1995-2011, confirms the virtuous circle between technological change and income inequalities.
    Date: 2013–05
  14. By: Antonelli, Cristiano (University of Turin)
    Abstract: This work elaborates a dynamic version of the H-O model based upon the hypothesis that technological change is endogenous and biased towards the most intensive use of production factors that are locally most abundant in comparative terms. In the standard H-O model, the difference in the levels of the output elasticity of inputs is assumed to be exogenous. In this dynamic version, instead, this difference is fully endogenous. This approach rests upon the localized technological change approach that integrates the advances of the new economic of knowledge with the Schumpeterian notion of creative reaction, the analysis of induced technological change and technological congruence. According to the Schumpeterian notion of innovation as the result of the creative reaction, firms caught in out-of-equilibrium conditions by the changing conditions of both factor and product markets might try and react by means of the introduction of biased technological changes directed towards the most intensive use of inputs that are locally most abundant in relative terms. Their success and hence the actual introduction of technological innovations will depend upon the availability of appropriate knowledge externalities. According to this framework, countries exposed the out-of-equilibrium conditions engendered by the globalization of product markets can react with the successful introduction of innovations aimed at increasing the intensity of capital -the most abundant input- with the increase of its output elasticity. For the same token they can contrast the twin globalization of capital and product markets with the introduction of the technology production function that makes intensive use of technological knowledge as the most abundant input. Technological knowledge in fact is characterized by its strong collective and systemic character that limits its dissemination and use outside its context of origin.
    Date: 2013–05
  15. By: Meena, M.S.; Singh, K.M.
    Abstract: Untenable use of factors of production is causing severe land degradation and food insecurity problems especially in developing world. Land degradation threatens the ecosystem health and food security worldwide and will remain high priority on international agenda. Conservation agriculture (CA) innovations offer a new paradigm for agricultural research and development. While examining the total innovation-decision process, one can see how the farmers observe innovations (knowledge), relate to images and message within technological innovations (persuasion), formulate a want for item (decision), actively pursue the desire for item (implementation), and ultimately decide whether future uses of technologies / are desirable (confirmation). The adoption of CA innovations can be facilitated by locally identified and specially trained group leaders or by promoters. For the success, farmers will need to be in forefront for helping in identification, development and deployment of CA innovations. Developing and promoting RCT systems is highly demanding in terms of knowledge base. This will call for greatly enhanced capacity of scientists to address the prevailing problems / constraints from a systems perspective and be able to work in close partnerships with farmers and other stakeholders. There is also need to strengthen the knowledge and information-sharing mechanisms. Improvement in coordination amongst various stakeholders like research, extension service, farmers, service providers, agricultural machinery, and manufacturers for transfer of technologies will play a pivotal role in accelerating the Conservation Agriculture.
    Keywords: Conservation agriculture, Processes innovations, Adoption strategies
    JEL: O13 O31 O32 O33 Q15 Q2
    Date: 2013–08–17
  16. By: Neuhäusler, Peter; Frietsch, Rainer
    Abstract: This study includes two expert reports, which are based on each other. At the core of the first expertise is the analysis of the patent application structures within the technological field of mechanical engineering and their evolution over time at an international level. Secondly, building on the first expertise, a field comparison of mechanical engineering and green biotechnology is performed with the help of a patent analysis. --
    Date: 2013

This nep-ino issue is ©2013 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.