nep-ino New Economics Papers
on Innovation
Issue of 2017‒01‒22
25 papers chosen by
Uwe Cantner
University of Jena

  1. The economic performance of innovations in a collaborative setting: the case of KIBS firms By Anna Cabigiosu; Diego Campagnolo
  2. Patenting vs. Secrecy for Startups and the Trade of Patents as Negotiating Assets By Andreas Panagopoulos; In-Uck Park
  3. Using the Patent Term Changes in Assessing the Evolution of Patent Valuation from Filing to Maturity By Andreas Panagopoulos; Kyriakos Drivas
  4. Global collaborative patents By Pekkala Kerr, Sari; Kerr, William R.
  5. Innovation and public understanding of science: possibility of new indicators for the analysis of public attitudes to science, technology and innovation By Tartaruga, Iván G. Peyré; Cazarotto, Rosmari Terezinha; Martins, Clitia Helena Backx; Fukui, Ana
  6. Disentangling Innovation in Small Food Firms: The role of External Knowledge, Support, and Collaboration By Wixe, Sofia; Nilsson, Pia; Naldi, Lucia; Westlund, Hans
  7. Cross-Border Co-opetition through Market Co-creation By Andreas Panagopoulos; Christos Pitelis; Panos Desyllas
  8. RIO Country Report 2015: Brazil By Laura Maragna
  9. Licensing Terms of Standard Essential Patents: A Comprehensive Analysis of Cases By Chryssoula Pentheroudakis; Justus A. Baron
  10. Can grants to consortia spur innovation and science-industry collaboration? Regression-discontinuity evidence from Poland By Bruhn, Miriam; McKenzie, David J.
  11. RIO Country Report 2015: Turkey By Erkan Erdil; Teoman Pamukçu; Gülsah Gülen Çiftçi
  12. The local effects of an innovation: Evidence from the French fish market By Gobillon, Laurent; Wolff, François-Charles
  13. Setting up a Technology Commercialization Office at a Non-Entrepreneurial University: An Insider's Look at Practices and Culture By Katerina Sideri; Andreas Panagopoulos
  14. Innovaciones sociales e inclusivas: límites y posibilidades para el desarrollo territorial en el contexto de la globalización By Tartaruga, Iván G. Peyré
  15. Technology trade with asymmetric tax regimes and heterogeneous labor markets: Implications for macro quantities and asset prices By Curatola, Giuliano; Donadelli, Michael; Grüning, Patrick
  16. Immigrant entrepreneurship By Pekkala Kerr, Sari; Kerr, William R.
  17. Labour mobility through business visits as a way to foster productivity By Piva, Mariacristina; Tani, Massimiliano; Vivarelli, Marco
  18. Incentivising Innovation and Adoption of ICT: ICT Innovation Voucher Programmes By Paola Valbonesi; Federico Biagi
  19. Finance and Innovative Investment in Environmental Technology: The Case of Sweden By Lööf, Hans; Martinsson, Gustav; Mohammadi, Ali
  20. Les business angels, révélateurs, plus que moteurs, de l’engagement des entreprises dans l’innovation By Nadine Levratto; Maarouf Ramadan; Luc Tessier
  21. Subsidizing research programs with "if" and "when" uncertainty in the face of severe informational constraints By Besanko, David; Tong, Jian; Wu, Jianjun
  22. Micro Moments Database for Cross-Country Analysis of ICT, Innovation, and Economic Outcomes By Eric Bartelsman; Eva Hagsten; Michael Polder
  23. Skills and entrepreneurship: Are return migrants 'Jacks-of-all-trades'? By Mahé, Clothilde
  24. Is Modern Technology Responsible for Jobless Recoveries? By Georg Graetz; Guy Michaels
  25. Extended framework for the analysis of innovative Smart City business models By Agudo-Peregrina, Ángel F.; Navío-Marco, Julio

  1. By: Anna Cabigiosu (Dept. of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venice); Diego Campagnolo (Dept. of Economics and Management, University of Padova)
    Abstract: Collaborative innovation literature shows that collaborating with clients enhances the innovation performance of firms particularly as regard the development of highly new products. In this setting, are highly new products the innovation category that drives the most firmÕs performance? This is a relevant research question in the innovation literature since it warns about the risks and limits of highly new products but has not considered the firmÕs performance implications of different categories of innovations developed by collaborating with clients. In this paper we consider different categories of innovation, product and process innovations new to the industry and new to the firm respectively, and develop original hypotheses about their implications over firmÕs performance. We develop and test our hypotheses on a sample of 99 Italian KIBS firms. We focus on KIBS firms since they are used to customize their services and collaborate with clients during the development of new services. Results support the idea that highly innovative product innovations are more strongly associated with a KIBS firmÕs growth, while weakly innovative process innovations are more strongly associated with a KIBS firmÕs productivity, but only in small firms. Theoretical and managerial implications for collaborative innovations settings are drawn.
    Keywords: collaborative innovation, innovation categories, firmÕs performance, KIBS
    JEL: O32 O33
    Date: 2016–11
  2. By: Andreas Panagopoulos (Department of Economics, University of Crete, Greece); In-Uck Park
    Abstract: The term “patent paradox” refers to the increased use of patents, despite being perceived as having limited stand-alone value as incentives to innovate (Hall et al., 2012). This phenomenon can be attributed to the array of roles patents may play. One role particularly relevant in this context is their use as bargaining chips by firms who employ many patents bundled into patent portfolios to gain a better hand in licensing negotiations, especially in industries where technology is cumulative (Hall and Ziedonis, 2001). As argued by Lanjouw and Schankerman (2004), patent portfolios endow such uses because patents confer “enforcement spillovers” that allow firms to exploit economies of scale, making it less costly to protect a patent when it is part of a bundle, in which case small firms like startups, that hold few patents, are at a disadvantage. In fact, for startup firms patents may even be a “liability” as they can invite infringement allegations from dominant firms with a portfolio of patents. Fear of evoking such highly costly legal disputes is known to force startups to redirect their research (Lerner, 1995) and may well have contributed to the tendency of startups to prefer trade secrecy over patenting as found in some studies, e.g., Graham et al. (2009). In a world of dominant firms and patent portfolios, is there a role for patents as incentives to innovate for tech-startups, or should these innovative firms, which play an outsized role in US net job creation (Hathaway, 2013), prefer secrecy instead? This is an important question because patents, unlike trade secrets, promote welfare enhancing diffusion and knowledge spillovers. The use of patents as leverage in licensing negotiations stems from ownership contentions that arise due to the inherent difficulty (especially in cumulative innovation) of confining bordering technologies. Due to such contentions, when licensing or trading a patent whose ownership is potentially disputed by the prospective licensee, a startup may not be able to reap the full value of its patented technology because the negotiations take place in the shadow of infringement litigation (Shapiro, 2003). Nevertheless, we argue that trade secrecy may not be the best resort. Instead, we show that overt ownership of technology through patenting, together with appropriate channels for ownership trading, can work better to incentivize startups’ innovation activities. Specifically, we present an equilibrium analysis of a dynamic model that clarifies when and how patents may outperform trade secrets in promoting startup innovations. In the process, we also provide some policy implications. Our main thesis is that when trading a patent its owner is potentially selling more than a monopoly right. Specifically, insofar as patents’ enforcing capacity spills over as mentioned above, when a patent is added to a patent portfolio it enhances the portfolio’s muscle in enforcing the rights of any given patent in the bundle. Such additional leverage correspondingly increases the portfolio’s ability to favourably barter a future technology transfer agreement against potential infringers. Thus, a transfer of patent rights does not only convey monopoly profits on the technology embodied in the patents’ claims (as trade secrets do), but also extra surplus from the patents’ capacity to affect future technology transfer negotiations. Therefore, when an innovator transfers a patent, even though its transfer price may not be able to capture the full monopoly profits (because of the risk of infringement), it may merit a markup reflecting the prospect of such extra future surplus. When a sequence of startups are expected to patent and transfer their technology to an incumbent, gradually increasing its future bargaining power, the dynamic feedback effects on this markup can be large enough so that the patent’s transfer price exceeds the value of a trade secret. In short, since patent portfolios do not only engender the threat
    Keywords: Patents, trade secrets, startups, takeovers
    JEL: L22 L10 D43
    Date: 2016–09–24
  3. By: Andreas Panagopoulos (Department of Economics, University of Crete, Greece); Kyriakos Drivas
    Abstract: Patents, or literae patentae (open grants) as originally known, are public documents that disclose the particulars of an innovation. In terms of a territorial metaphor, one can think of patents as property deeds that demarcate a technological territory. Such demarcation allows for frictionless tech-transfer because licensor and licensee have at hand a chart of the technology. When too many patents accumulate, as is the present case of affairs, the technology’s borders can become foggy because numerous neighbouring patentees may own overlapping technologies. So what was once a technology with a clearly attached value to it becomes an uncertain asset, in which case tech-transfer is plagued by higher transaction costs as only courts can demarcate the innovation’s borders. Effectively what was assumed as an open grant can become a quasi literac clausae (close grant) until such demarcation takes place. How to avoid such conversion has stirred up a policy debate on how to evade patent overpopulation; see Correa (2014). Since policy makers must have an appreciation of the usefulness of patents as R&D incentives before contemplating policy exercises, and considering that the only evidence comes from surveys, we revisit the issue. Survey data are limited to the extent that agents are revealing their true priors and only their actions can act as revelation mechanisms. In this paper we use a quasi-natural experiment that reveals their priors at the point of filing a patent. The quasi-natural experiment we use involves the introduction of the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement in the US. Before TRIPS the USPTO granted patents for 17 years from the grant date of the patent. By implementing TRIPS the USPTO changed its practice, granting patents with a patent length equal to 20 years since the original patent filing date. In order to facilitate this change, the USPTO (unexpectedly) allowed applicants who filed prior to June 8th 1995 a patent length that was equal to the maximum of the two regimes. Since on average a patent spends at least three years in prosecution at the USPTO, applicants that filed before the deadline were given a possible small extension of patent length. If a patent embodies an industrial application (as patents are obliged to by law – in the US the patentability requirement is for utility), and its per-period value can be mundanely calculated, then any opportunity of extending one’s monopoly tenure must be seized. If the patent is filed for reasons unrelated to the certitude of the embodied technology, its uses must be harder to blueprint prior to being issued, and its value uncertain. Assuming otherwise can only imply that the golden stamp of the patent document can attach an a priori certified value to a set of irrelevant technical claims; a free lunch no doubt.1 Thus, in the latter case, the present value of a possible tenure extension (of a few weeks/months) must be harder to pinpoint in advance. An innovator who is constrained in terms of her patent filing volume (and must prioritise her patenting) should be inclined to file the patents considered as more valuable first. Having to choose between a patent whose value is hard to pinpoint in advance and one of known technical quality, she should rationally opt for the latter. Ergo, the introduction of TRIPS, by inadvertently offering a possible extension of patent term created a metric of patent self-valuation. The metric is simple: patents encompassing valuable technologies must be given priority and filed before the deadline. In view of this metric, we acquire information for all utility patents that were filed around June 8th 1995 for the following technology fields: Chemicals, Computers & Communications, Drugs & Medical, Electrical & Electronics, and Mechanicals. Our data is both at the industry level and the firm level, and it includes continuing applications that were filed prior to the deadline; these are applications that were originally filed prior to the unexpected regime change. The data indicates that Drugs & Medical patents, and Chemical patents, were significantly more likely to be filed before the deadline than patents in any other field. This result, which does not change at the firm level and when accounting for continuations, accords with survey evidence that finds patents as being more valuable (as incentives to innovate) to the pharmaceutical and chemical industry; see Cohen, Nelson and Walsh (2000).
    Keywords: patent portfolios, patent renewals, R&D incentives, technology transfer policy, TRIPS
    JEL: L10 M10 O34
    Date: 2016–09–24
  4. By: Pekkala Kerr, Sari; Kerr, William R.
    Abstract: We study the prevalence and traits of global collaborative patents for U.S. public companies, where the inventor team is located both within and outside of the United States. Collaborative patents are frequently observed when a corporation is entering into a new foreign region for innovative work, especially in settings where intellectual property protection is weak. We also connect collaborative patents to the ethnic composition of the firm s U.S. inventors and cross-border mobility of inventors within the firm. The inventor team composition has important consequences for how the new knowledge is exploited within and outside of the firm.
    JEL: O32 F02 F22 F23 F60 J15 O19 O3 O33 O34
    Date: 2017–01–13
  5. By: Tartaruga, Iván G. Peyré; Cazarotto, Rosmari Terezinha; Martins, Clitia Helena Backx; Fukui, Ana
    Abstract: In the context of a knowledge-based economy, in the last 50 years, countries and international organisms have systematized many indicators to evaluate inventive and innovative capacity, mainly related to science. But these indicators have almost exclusively focused on the supply side of invention and innovation, in which attention is given to people (entrepreneurs), organizations practicing research and development (R&D) and innovative companies and virtually none to the end users, like consumers or organizations not connected to R&D/innovation. Aiming at facing this insufficiency, this paper proposes new models to analyze innovation through indicators that show the relationship between the realms of science, technology and innovation and society as a whole. These sociocultural indicators represent the set of propensities to innovate in a given social group. Therefore, from the confluence of investigations in the field of Public Understanding of Science and Innovation Studies, five indicators of the propensity to innovate were chosen: efficiency, creativity, trust in science and technology, uncertainty tolerance and cooperation.
    Keywords: innovation; science; society; Innovation Studies; Public Understanding of Science
    JEL: O31 O39
    Date: 2016–09
  6. By: Wixe, Sofia (Centre for Entrepreneurship and Spatial Economics (CEnSE), Jönköping International Business School, Sweden); Nilsson, Pia (Centre for Entrepreneurship and Spatial Economics (CEnSE), Jönköping International Business School, Swede); Naldi, Lucia (Centre for Family Enterprise and Ownership (CeFEO ), Jönköping International Business School, Sweden); Westlund, Hans (Centre for Entrepreneurship and Spatial Economics (CEnSE), Jönköping International Business School, & KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden)
    Abstract: This paper applies unique survey data on innovation and external interaction of small food producers in Sweden. The overall purpose is to test if firms that are more engaged in external interaction are more innovative. To disentangle innovativeness beyond new goods and services, innovation is measured as new processes, new markets, new suppliers, new ways of organization, and new distributors. Findings point to a positive relationship between firm innovation and external interaction, both in terms of collaboration, external knowledge and support from regional actors. In particular, collaboration regarding transports and sales is shown to enhance most types of innovation. Product and process innovation benefit from external knowledge from extra-regional firms as well as regional support from the largest firm. Findings suggest that current innovation policies can improve their efficiency by increasing their flexibility to enable tailor-made innovation policies at the local level.
    Keywords: Innovation; collaboration; food industry; rural regions
    JEL: L25 L66 O31 R12
    Date: 2017–01–16
  7. By: Andreas Panagopoulos (Department of Economics, University of Crete, Greece); Christos Pitelis; Panos Desyllas
    Abstract: In its August 8th 2015 leader, the Economist magazine questions the evidence for patent protection and proposes innovative alternative ways to foster innovation, including new forms of public sector regulation. Our aim is to suggest a market-based alternative and complement to regulation that leverages the joint benefits to companies that choose to cooperate and compete (co-opete), as opposed to the two extremes of direct competition, or collusion. We draw on the idea of market co-creation by companies in ‘advanced’ and emerging countries, using the pharmaceutical industry as our focus of examination. Over the last two decades, emerging country pharmaceutical companies operate in an increasingly challenging competitive environment (Ghauri and Santangelo, 2012; Angeli, 2013). This new environment is, in part, the result of a series of international trade agreements that have strengthened the Intellectual Property (IP) regime worldwide. These agreements include the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, the subsequent Anti- Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), and the more recent Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. They are based on the view that global IP protection will foster trade opportunities across the world and also facilitate technology transfer from advanced to emerging countries (Blakeney, 2013; Yang, 2012). This new IP regime is affecting competitive dynamics, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry where patents confer robust protection and are essential for the commercialization of innovations (James et al., 2013). In the past, emerging country pharmaceutical firms (EPFs) relied extensively on reverse engineering of patented compounds to produce “generic” versions of branded drugs at a fraction of the costs faced by the original innovators (McKinsey Report, 2013). However, the result of TRIPS (and the subsequent agreements) has been to place restrictions on the space for the production of generic drugs (Shaffer and Brenner, 2009). Thus, EPFs had to fundamentally rethink their “closed” business models, which were oriented towards reverse engineering and low-cost manufacturing (Angeli, 2013). Pharmaceutical firms in emerging countries, such as India, have adopted different strategies to adjust to the new environment. Some firms try to leverage their location advantages at home, such as relationships with hospital and doctors, but also frugal innovation-type strategies (Anand and Kale, 2006; Greenhalgh, 2013). Others attempt to upgrade their production and marketing capabilities to offer ‘branded generics’. And others contest the IP rights of advanced country multinational companies. In 2005, for instance, several Indian generics producers successfully challenged Novartis’ attempt to obtain patent protection for an updated version of its drug Gleevec (for chronic myeloid leukemia) in India (Shadlen and Guennif, 2011). Direct competition, however, between EPFs and “advanced” country multinational enterprises (AMNEs) may not be the most desirable competitive outcome for either groups of firms. Instead, some form of cooperation can prove preferable to both parties when EPFs can leverage complementary assets and capabilities to extend and co-create market space. For instance, in 2009, Dr. Reddy’s Labs established a partnership with GlaxoSmithKline plc to develop and market drugs in fast growing therapeutic segments (e.g. cardiovascular, diabetes, oncology, gastroenterology) across several emerging markets. Products were manufactured by Dr. Reddy’s and were licensed and supplied to GlaxoSmithKline in various emerging markets, while revenues shared between the two partners. In other products and markets the two firms continued to compete.
    Keywords: cross-border co-opetition, market co-creation, complementary assets, intellectual property rights, MNEs, pharmaceuticals
    JEL: K11
    Date: 2016–09–24
  8. By: Laura Maragna (Delegation of the European Union to Brazil)
    Abstract: The 2015 series of RIO Country Reports analyse and assess the policy and the national research and innovation system developments in relation to national policy priorities and the EU policy agenda with special focus on ERA and Innovation Union. The executive summaries of these reports put forward the main challenges of the research and innovation systems.
    Keywords: R&I system, R&I policy, ERA, Innovation Union, Semester analysis, Brazil
    Date: 2016–12
  9. By: Chryssoula Pentheroudakis; Justus A. Baron (Northwestern University; Pritzker School of Law; Searle Center on Law, Regulation and Economic Growth)
    Abstract: The prospect of licensing patents that are essential to standards on an industry-wide scale is a major incentive for companies to invest in standardization activities. Most standard development organizations (SDOs) have defined intellectual property rights (IPR) policies whereby SDO members must commit to licensing their standard-essential patents (SEPs) on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. This study aims to provide a consistent framework for both the interpretation of FRAND commitments and the definition of FRAND royalties. Our methodology is built on the analysis of landmark and significant decisions taken by courts and competition authorities in Europe and worldwide. The purpose of the comparative analysis is to provide a comprehensive overview of how FRAND licensing terms have been defined in the evolving case law, while testing the economic soundness of the concepts and methodologies applied by courts and antitrust authorities.
    Keywords: patents, innovation, standardisation, standard essential patents, FRAND licensing
    Date: 2016–12
  10. By: Bruhn, Miriam; McKenzie, David J.
    Abstract: We use regression discontinuity to measure the impact of funding from Poland's In-Tech program on innovation activities carried out by consortia of firms and research entities. A detailed follow-up survey of applicants enables us to measure a wider variety of outcomes than typically used in the literature. We find the grants increase the probability of a project being completed by almost 60 percentage points, lead to more science-industry collaboration, and increase the probability of patents and publications related to the proposed project. We also find early effects on commercialization of products related to the proposed project.
    Keywords: innovation; R&D; regression discontinuity design; science-industry collaboration
    JEL: H25 O31 O38
    Date: 2017–01
  11. By: Erkan Erdil (Middle East Technical University); Teoman Pamukçu (Middle East Technical University); Gülsah Gülen Çiftçi (Middle East Technical University)
    Abstract: The 2015 series of RIO Country Reports analyse and assess the policy and the national research and innovation system developments in relation to national policy priorities and the EU policy agenda with special focus on ERA and Innovation Union. The executive summaries of these reports put forward the main challenges of the research and innovation systems.
    Keywords: R&I system, R&I policy, ERA
    Date: 2016–12
  12. By: Gobillon, Laurent; Wolff, François-Charles
    Abstract: In this paper, we investigate the effect on quality, quantity and prices of an innovative fishing gear introduced for a subsample of vessels on a single wholesale fish market in France. Estimations are conducted using transaction data over the 2009-2011 period during which the innovation was introduced. Using a difference-in-differences approach around the discontinuity, we find that for the treated the innovation has a large effect on quality (29.2 percentage points) and prices (23.2 percentage points). A shift in caught fish species is observed and new targeted species are fished very intensively. We also quantify the treatment effect on the treated market from aggregate market data using factor models and a synthetic control approach. We find a sizable effect of the innovation on market quality which is consistent with non-treated vessels adapting their fishing practices to remain competitive. The innovation has no effect on market quantities and prices.
    Keywords: difference in differences; discontinuity; factor models; fish; innovation; product prices; product quality; synthetic controls
    JEL: L11 Q22
    Date: 2017–01
  13. By: Katerina Sideri; Andreas Panagopoulos (Department of Economics, University of Crete, Greece)
    Abstract: The introduction of the entrepreneurial university and the accompanying drive for science to acquire commercial relevance has created tensions (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; Slaughter and Rhoades, 2000; Ferne, 1995; Bennich-Bjorkman, 1997). One reason is that faculty scientists are nowadays expected to think as entrepreneurs (Lockett and Wright, 2005), and many feel uneasy with both their participation in the commercialization process and the role of University Technology Commercialization Offices (TCO) (Martinelli et al., 2008, Louis et al., 1989). Considering that the main resource for the creation of entrepreneurial universities is human capital (Guerrero and Urbano, 2012), the way faculty scientists view their role and their respective goodwill toward entrepreneurship and the TCO, must be considered when building an entrepreneurial environment (Krueger et al., 2000). Looking into faculty's perceptions is important because they encompass attitudes and values shaping informal rules of interaction in organisations (North, 1990; Vanaelst et al., 2006). The few studies analysing entrepreneurship among faculty scientists indicate that scientists have raised concerns about the role of markets in influencing academic freedom (Baldini, 2008; Davis et al., 2011), especially in terms of autonomy in self-selecting a research agenda and the respective method of dissemination (Jacobsen et al., 2001, Davis et al., 2011). Their concerns relate to the ways the pressure to patent can skew research priorities at the expense of fundamental research, and shift the attention of faculty away from activities best suited to their skills (Nelson, 2001), forcing universities to behave more like firms. Others fear that university patenting may restrict communication with colleagues (Blumenthal et al., 1996; Martinelli, et al., 2008), increase secrecy (Blumenthal et al., 1986), the withholding of data (Campbell et al., 2000), and inevitably limit the dissemination of knowledge (Calderini and Franzoni, 2004; Lee, 2000). This article builds on these insights and offers qualitative evidence about a related category of reasons for the hostile attitude towards commercialization of academic research: lack of a common mindset between TCO's and research faculty. It frequently escapes attention that the prerequisite for arranging a commercial deal is the existence of shared understandings and orientation towards common goals between the TCO, faculty and industry, so that a TCO assesses potential opportunities and sets up well defined legal relationships between the university and a commercial firm (Kaghan and Lounsbury, 2006). These shared understandings play an important role since faculty scientists are effectively gate keepers that control the informal flow of knowledge that is indispensable to the translation of academic research to products with commercial value (Agrawal and Henderson, 2002; Agrawal, 2006; Thursby et al., 2001; Thursby and Thursby, 2002). It follows that faculty's views of the merits of commercialisation and their role in the process can hinder or even sabotage technology transfer. Dispersing myths and addressing suspicion and deep misunderstandings held by communities of practice, such as the community of faculty researchers, is of paramount importance in order to develop a sense of comfort and build trust among faculty and the TCO.
    Keywords: technology, non-profit, university, patent
    JEL: K20 I20 O34
    Date: 2016–09–24
  14. By: Tartaruga, Iván G. Peyré
    Abstract: The technological innovation processes play an important role as a constitutive element of territorial development, a concept that intends to bring together the economic dimension (economic development), the social dimension (social development), the environmental dimension (sustainable development) and the territorial imbalances (territorial cohesion). Moreover, these processes are decisive in the context of economic and social changes faced by the world and Latin America, as the capacity of scientific and technological appropriation of regions and countries is crucial. In this context, this article has as its main objective to propose and to evaluate some strategies of territorial development based on the integration between economic and technological development and social inclusion for Latin America, showing the possibilities for their success and their limits and obstacles. The text suggests discussing also the merits and utility of two other concepts: social innovation and inclusive innovation.
    Keywords: social innovation; inclusive innovation; territorial development
    JEL: O33 O35 O38
    Date: 2016–05
  15. By: Curatola, Giuliano; Donadelli, Michael; Grüning, Patrick
    Abstract: The international diffusion of technology plays a key role in stimulating global growth and explaining co-movements of international equity returns. Existing empirical evidence suggests that countries are heterogeneous in their attitude toward innovation: Some countries rely more on technology adoption while other countries rely more on internal technology production. European countries that rely more on adoption are also typically characterized by lower fiscal policy exibility and higher labor market rigidity. We develop a two-country model - where both countries rely on R&D and adoption - to study the short-run and long-run effects of aggregate technology and adoption probability shocks on economic growth in the presence of the aforementioned asymmetries. Our framework suggests that an increase in the ability to adopt technology from abroad stimulates economic growth in the country that benefits from higher adoption rates but the beneficial effects also spread to the foreign country. Moreover, it helps explaining the differences in macro quantities and equity returns observed in the international data.
    Keywords: technology adoption,R&D investment,asymmetric tax regimes,asset prices
    JEL: E3 F3 F4 G12
    Date: 2017
  16. By: Pekkala Kerr, Sari; Kerr, William R.
    Abstract: We examine immigrant entrepreneurship and the survival and growth of immigrant-founded businesses over time relative to native-founded companies. Our work quantities immigrant contributions to new firm creation in a wide variety of fields and using multiple definitions. While significant research effort has gone into understanding the economic impact of immigration into the United States, comprehensive data for quantifying immigrant entrepreneurship are difficult to assemble. We combine several restricted-access U.S. Census Bureau data sets to create a unique longitudinal data platform that covers 1992-2008 and many states. We describe differences in the types of businesses initially formed by immigrants and their medium-term growth patterns. We also consider the relationship of these outcomes to the immigrants’ age at arrival to the United States.
    JEL: F22 J15 J44 J61 L26 M13 O31 O32 O33
    Date: 2016–12–21
  17. By: Piva, Mariacristina (Universita’ Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Piacenza, Italy); Tani, Massimiliano (UNSW Canberra, Australia, and IZA, Bonn); Vivarelli, Marco (UNU-MERIT, IZA, Bonn, and Universita’ Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Piacenza, Italy)
    Abstract: The aim of this paper is to investigate the productivity impact of business visits, relative to traditional drivers of productivity enhancement, namely capital formation and R&D. To carry out the analysis, we combine unique and novel data on business visits sourced from the U.S. National Business Travel Association with OECD data on R&D and capital formation. The resulting unbalanced panel covers on average 16 sectors per year in 10 countries during the period 1998-2011 (2,262 observations). Our results suggest that mobility through business visits is an effective mechanism to improve productivity. The estimated effect is about half as large as investing in R&D, supporting viewing business visits as a form of long-term investment rather than pure consumption expenditure. In a nutshell, our outcomes support the need to recognise the private and social value of business mobility.
    Keywords: Business visits, labour mobility, knowledge, R&D, productivity
    JEL: O32 O33 O34 J24 D83
    Date: 2017–01–12
  18. By: Paola Valbonesi (Universita'di Padova); Federico Biagi (European Commission - JRC)
    Abstract: This report discusses analyses ICT Innovation vouchers and provides insights on how such instruments can be used to support small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in developing and adopting information communication technology (ICT) and digital innovation in order to enhance their competitiveness and growth. This report suggests that the effectiveness of ICT innovation voucher programmes are affected by the granting government’s choices, which should be grounded on a preliminary analysis of SMEs’ needs in the region/area considered. In particular, referring to the SMEs’ ICT-based innovation and digital needs, it would be useful to map the actual ‘level’ of ICT adoption and diffusion among local firms (SMEs in particular) in order to gain a better understanding of the ICT services and applications that could improve firms’ competitiveness and growth, especially by stimulating product, process, organisational and marketing innovation. By defining the firms’ needs and the goals of the programme, this preliminary analysis can also highlight the specific competences required from actors – the “Knowledge Service Providers†(KSPs) - supplying and developing the ICT applications supported by the ICT innovation voucher programme. The report also discusses vouchers implementation, and it examines best practices. Indicators for additionality (i.e. input, output and behavioural) and their information needs are also illustrated. Moreover, in the aim to evaluate the vouchers’ impact, we also discuss how to perform a counterfactual analysis for an ICT innovation voucher programme.
    Keywords: Innovation vouchers, ICT
    JEL: O31 O38
    Date: 2016–12
  19. By: Lööf, Hans (CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, Royal Institute of Technology); Martinsson, Gustav (CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, Royal Institute of Technology); Mohammadi, Ali (CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, Royal Institute of Technology)
    Abstract: This report discusses how financing difficulties can affect private sector innovation investments in environmental technology applied to the Swedish setting. Innovative investments are often intangible, the outcomes are highly uncertain, and information asymmetries between entrepreneurs and outside investors are potentially severe. These factors make external finance costly and drive investment in environmental technology below its socially desirable level. Recent evidence from the literature on financing and innovation suggests that financing constraints on innovation are likely economically significant. Therefore, policies and financial developments that affect the availability of finance can have important effects on economy wide rates of environmental technology innovation.
    Keywords: Clean technology; Innovation Investments; Financial constraints; Spillovers; Sustainable growth
    JEL: O32 O33 Q55 Q56 Q58
    Date: 2017–01–16
  20. By: Nadine Levratto; Maarouf Ramadan; Luc Tessier
    Abstract: Whereas the funding of the first years of the life cycle of companies is presented as a key condition for their survival and growth, the attention given to business angels (BA noted below) by academics have been growing steadily during the past years. This article proposes to discuss the extent, which they contribute to innovation from a unique database of 432 French companies financed by one of the members of the network France Angels (French Federation of Business Angels networks) during the period 2004-2011. We compare it to a test group constituted of 2,160 similar companies. We specify an econometric model specifying the determinants of innovation approximated by the share of non-financial intangible assets in total assets explained by the presence or absence of a BA and control variables. The use of the estimation method using a Fixed Effects Vector Decomposition method shows the positive effect of BA on innovation. Elements of explanation of these results are provided from a qualitative survey of BA members of France Angels and from a subset of companies extracted from the population of 432 ones backed by BA. They illustrate how the specific behavior of BA at the time of selection of companies and their attitude during the accompaniment period explains these different trajectories.
    Keywords: Business Angels, Innovation, Entrepreneurship, Start-up, France.
    JEL: G11 G32 M13
    Date: 2016
  21. By: Besanko, David; Tong, Jian; Wu, Jianjun
    Abstract: We study government optimal subsidy policies for research programs in the face of servere information asymmetry---when firms have private information about the likelihood of project viability but the government cannot form a unique prior belief about this likelihood. The paper makes two contributions. First, we show that the way in which R&D is subsidized matters. Under both monopoly R&D (i.e., a single firm conducts R&D in isolation) and R&D competition, different types of subsidies (e.g., earmarked, unrestricted subsidies, and pure matching subsidies) have significantly different effects on firms' R&D investment incentives. Second, we show that a simple subsidy scheme works even when the government is unable to form a unique prior belief about the firm's private information on project viability. If the shadow cost of public funds is zero, under monopoly R&D, there exists a pure matching subsidy that induces the firm to follow the first-best R&D policy irrespective of its prior beliefs about the viability of the project, meaning it is a (belief-free) ex post equilibrium policy; under R&D competition, the first-best outcome can also be achieved through a simple combination of a matching subsidy and an unrestricted subsidy. If the shadow cost of public funds is positive, an ex post equilibrium in general does not exist either under monopoly or competition. We then consider two alternative policy decision criteria that are appropriate for belief-free games: rationalizability and max-min criteria. We argue that the max-min criteria is preferable in our context, and by way of doing so establish that the set of max-min subsidy policies under either monopoly or competitive R&D consists entirely of simple pure matching subsidies. We further establish that allowing firms to form an R&D consortium reduces the matching rate for the highest max-min subsidy, suggesting that cooperative R&D has the potential to economize on the shadow costs of public funding of subsidies.
    Date: 2016–07–13
  22. By: Eric Bartelsman (VU University Amsterdam and Tinbergen Institute, The Netherlands and IZA Bonn); Eva Hagsten (University of Iceland, Iceland); Michael Polder (Statistics Netherlands, The Netherlands)
    Abstract: This paper provides technical documentation to a database built up from firm-level sources titled Micro moments database(MMD) that is made available for researchers through Eurostat. The MMD is an internationally harmonized research database of statistical moments collected from linked longitudinal firm-level data in a large selection of EU national statistical offices. The underlying sources for the database are business registers, firm-level surveys on production, usage of Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) and innovative activities, as well as recorded information on trade and worker education, all linked at the firm level. The unit of observation in the MMD represents groups of firms within industries and allows research that bridges micro and macro analysis. The paper delineates the type of research questions that uniquely can be addressed with the MMD, and the advantages and disadvantages of using MMD for questions where alternative datasets are available. The paper next presents the methodology underlying construction of the MMD and provides documentation of the rich set of features. Finally, the paper provides descriptive statistics that highlight the unique character of the data and reviews some of the cross-country analytical work already conducted using the MMD.
    Keywords: Innovation, ICT, Productivity, Intangible Investment, linked firm-level datasets
    JEL: D2 E2 F1 J2 L2 O3
    Date: 2017–01–13
  23. By: Mahé, Clothilde (UNU-MERIT)
    Abstract: This paper examines whether and how return migrants may be more likely to be entrepreneurs. With reference to Lazear's Jack-of-all-trades hypothesis, we posit that return migrants may be more likely to choose self-employment as a result of the diverse work experience they gain as migrants. Using the 2012 Egyptian Labour Market Panel Survey, seemingly unrelated regression model estimates show that return migration increases the propensity to be self-employed, controlling for the possession of savings. This is found to be due to a Jack-of-all-trades effect, whereby migration helps accumulating more occupations and jobs. Sector-specific rather than multi-sector experience may also benefit entrepreneurship, as it was found that the more industries an emigrant worked in, the less the probability of self-employment upon return. Self-employed might thus need a generalist, balanced mix of occupational skills, within a relatively narrow set of industries. These findings hold for non-agricultural activities.
    Keywords: International migration, Return migration, Entrepreneurship, Human capital, North Africa, Egypt
    JEL: F22 J24 L26 O12 O15
    Date: 2016–12–16
  24. By: Georg Graetz; Guy Michaels
    Abstract: Since the early 1990s, recoveries from recessions in the US have been plagued by weak employment growth. One possible explanation for these "jobless" recoveries is rooted in technological change: middle-skill jobs, often involving routine tasks, are lost during recessions, and the displaced workers take time to transition into other jobs (Jaimovich and Siu, 2014). But technological replacement of middle-skill workers is not unique to the US—it also takes place in other developed countries (Goos, Manning, and Salomons, 2014). So if jobless recoveries in the US are due to technology, we might expect to also see them elsewhere in the developed world. We test this possibility using data on recoveries from 71 recessions in 28 industries and 17 countries from 1970-2011. We find that though GDP recovered more slowly after recent recessions, employment did not. Industries that used more routine tasks, and those more exposed to robotization, did not recently experience slower employment recoveries. Finally, middle-skill employment did not recover more slowly after recent recessions, and this pattern was no different in routine-intensive industries. Taken together, this evidence suggests that technology is not causing jobless recoveries in developed countries outside the US.
    Keywords: job polarization, jobless recoveries, routine-biased technological change, robots
    JEL: E32 J23 O33
    Date: 2017–01
  25. By: Agudo-Peregrina, Ángel F.; Navío-Marco, Julio
    Abstract: Besides the promising forecasts for Smart City market, many projects haven't taken off due to financial restrictions, unsustainable business models or too technological visions instead of citizen orientation. The need for innovative business models in the context of Smart City motivates this study, that first reviews the Smart City business model literature, and then proposes a framework to study several companies within each sector of a broad definition of the Smart City. The results of the analysis show that there is a need to build a holistic framework to analyze all business models included in the Smart City. They also suggest that policy makers should extend their vision of the Smart City, and include a large group of innovative businesses that, using disruptive technologies, are creating deep impacts on citizens' lives.
    Keywords: smart city,business model,innovation,services
    Date: 2016

This nep-ino issue is ©2017 by Uwe Cantner. 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.