nep-ino New Economics Papers
on Innovation
Issue of 2018‒12‒03
thirteen papers chosen by
Uwe Cantner
University of Jena

  1. Innovation policies in the digital age By Dominique Guellec; Caroline Paunov
  2. New Technologies, Global Value Chains, and the Developing Economies By Dani Rodrik
  3. Mobilising European Structural and Investment Funds and Horizon 2020 in support of innovation in less developed regions By Dimitrios Pontikakis; Mathieu Doussineau; Nicholas Harrap; Mark Boden
  4. Innovation and Productivity in the Food vs. the High-Tech Manufacturing Sector By Frick, F.; Jantke, C.; Sauer, J.
  5. Industrial Products and Shift in Value chain ? Perspectives behind innovation policy By Sayan Banerjee
  6. An analytical framework to assess the governance of universities and their involvement in Smart specialisation strategies By Eskarne Arregui-Pabollet; Mathieu Doussineau; Markus Dettenhofer
  7. Patent Pools, Vertical Integration, and Downstream Competition By Markus Reisinger; Emanuele Tarantino
  8. Drawing funding and financing scenarios for effective implementation of Smart Specialisation Strategies By Mathieu Doussineau; Eskarne Arregui-Pabollet; Nicholas Harrap; Fernando Merida
  9. A dynamic model of recycling with endogenous technological breakthrough By Gilles Lafforgue; Luc Rouge
  10. Higher Education Instruments and Smart Specialisation Innovative Industrial Doctorates and Higher Technical Institutes in Puglia By Elisabetta Marinelli; Alessio Cavicchi; Annamaria Fiore; Gigliola Paviotti; Elisa Gerussi; Simona Iammarino
  11. Making ideas work for society: University cooperation in knowledge transfer By Ritzen, Jo
  12. Spinoffs, parents, and institutions: Evidence from the Italian motorcycle industry By Andrea Morrison
  13. Smart Specialisation at work: Assessing investment priorities By Carlo Gianelle; Fabrizio Guzzo; Krzysztof Mieszkowski

  1. By: Dominique Guellec (OECD); Caroline Paunov (OECD)
    Abstract: This paper looks at how digitalisation is transforming innovation, and the consequent need for innovation policies to adapt. The paper shows that the digital transformation affects the economics of information and knowledge, in particular pricing and allocation. The reduced costs of producing and handling information and knowledge and the increased fluidity change innovation dynamics. Data have become a core input for innovation. Other changes include more opportunities for versioning; an acceleration in innovation, more experimentation and collaboration; servitisation; and higher risk associated with these general purpose technologies. The digital transformation also has economy-wide effects in terms of business dynamics, market structures and distribution. In view of this transformation, changes to innovation policy are required in the digital age. Innovation policies need to address data access issues; become more agile; promote open science, data sharing and co-operation among innovators; and review competition for innovation and intellectual property policy frameworks.
    Keywords: acceleration of innovation, digital innovation, digital technologies, economics of knowledge and information, innovation policy, market structures, servitisation
    JEL: L20 O31 O33
    Date: 2018–11–13
  2. By: Dani Rodrik
    Abstract: Many of the exports of developing countries are channeled through global value chains (GVCs), which also act as conduits for new technologies. However, new capabilities and productive employment remain limited so far to a tiny sliver of globally integrated firms. GVCs and new technologies exhibit features that limit the upside and may even undermine developing countries’ economic performance. In particular, new technologies present a double whammy to low-income countries. First, they are generally biased towards skills and other capabilities. This bias reduces the comparative advantage of developing countries in traditionally labor-intensive manufacturing (and other) activities, and decreases their gains from trade. Second, GVCs make it harder for low-income countries to use their labor cost advantage to offset their technological disadvantage, by reducing their ability to substitute unskilled labor for other production inputs. These are two independent shocks that compound each other. The evidence to date, on the employment and trade fronts, is that the disadvantages may have more than offset the advantages.
    Keywords: GVCs, economic development, international trade
    JEL: O33 O40
    Date: 2018
  3. By: Dimitrios Pontikakis (European Commission - JRC); Mathieu Doussineau (European Commission - JRC); Nicholas Harrap (European Commission - JRC); Mark Boden (European Commission - JRC)
    Abstract: How can EU policies support the development of innovation capabilities in less developed regions? This note examines the mobilisation of the EU’s two major innovation support instruments: the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) and Horizon 2020 (H2020). Using data from Eurostat and European Commission administrative data on ESIF and H2020 funding, we observe a number of salient patterns: While newer member states benefit from higher research and innovation allocations from ESIF, participation in H2020 remains a formidable challenge. Across Europe we find that H2020 participation is closely associated with a number of proxies of the development of national and regional innovation systems. With few exceptions (most notably Slovenia and the Czech Republic) newer member states are characterised by lower overall R&D intensity, their research and innovation systems are less internationalised and most R&D is performed by public research institutions rather than businesses. Based on a review of literature on the determinants of participation in the H2020 (and its predecessor Framework Programmes), the history of today's advanced innovation systems and a consideration of the objectives of, modes of intervention of and possible complementarities between ESIF and H2020 we single out international collaboration and business innovation capabilities as important instrumental objectives for development-minded policy.
    Keywords: Synergies, Horizon 2020, ESIF, Innovation
    Date: 2018–11
  4. By: Frick, F.; Jantke, C.; Sauer, J.
    Abstract: The food sector is considered a mature and a research and development (R&D) extensive industry. Nevertheless, also food companies face numerous challenges and cannot abstain from innovation activity if they want to keep their competitive stance. We examine the impact of innovation on labor productivity in European food companies in comparison to results for firms operating in high-tech sectors. The central motivation of our study is that the observed low R&D intensity in the food sector should be mirrored in different productivity effects of innovation when compared to the high-tech sector. We use microdata from the European Union s Community Innovation Survey (CIS) and apply an endogeneity-robust multi-stage model that has been applied by various recent studies. Our results point out major differences between the examined subsectors. While we find strong positive effects of innovation on labor productivity for food firms, we find insignificant effects in the high-tech sector. This suggests that the returns to innovation might be best evaluated separately by sector rather than for the manufacturing sector as a whole. Acknowledgement :
    Keywords: Labor and Human Capital
    Date: 2018–07
  5. By: Sayan Banerjee (Chandragupt Institute of Management Patna)
    Abstract: To get to a final industrial product the consequent value chain always involves changes from left ? the basic raw materials to the right- the final product .Not getting into the technological nitty gritty this paper is an humble attempt to understand this shift in value chain of an industrial product with aspects like export portfolio and national innovation systems of different countries. This paper has tried to build up the narrative of ( Ling & Tang ,2009) by revisiting their perspectives with aspects like innovation systems and export portfolio .On this basis an attempt has been made to conceptualise a pertinent innovation policy of different category of countries based on economic and other factors. The aim of this paper is to help in the process of understanding of optimum innovation policies through various assorted aspects which can be interlinked with various innovation activities of a country.
    Keywords: National Innovation System, theory of competitive advantage,theory of comparative advantage
    JEL: M16
    Date: 2018–11
  6. By: Eskarne Arregui-Pabollet (European Commission - JRC); Mathieu Doussineau (European Commission - JRC); Markus Dettenhofer (CEITEC- Central European Institute of Technology)
    Abstract: The renewed EU agenda for higher education (European Commission, 2017) has emphasized that higher education institutions are not contributing as much as they should to innovation in their regions and countries. The engagement of universities in S3 has shown to be particularly important in countries and regions with weaker regional innovation systems and sub-critical public institutional capacity. The ability of universities to bring together education, research and innovation, places them as particularly important stakeholders to contribute to the research and innovation system. Nevertheless, becoming more engaged in regional innovation policies and S3 requires an important strategic vision and institutional change by HEIs to be able to engage in co-creation dynamics with quadruple helix actors. Moreover, the ability of universities to adjust their working agenda could require some change in their common practices. How they can manage this, mandates a governance framework which can allow for agility from institutes steeped in tradition. The issue of governance is complex, multi-dimensional, and often involves changes in policy, behaviour and outreach for a successful implementation of set objectives. Institutional governance in general and for universities in particular, implies setting in motion or overseeing various institutional processes and regulatory provisions to allow for the planned targets and outcomes to be achieved. The current policy brief proposes an analytical framework for university governance allowing the comparison and benchmarking of governance systems across EU member states, which could serve as guidance for university managers and policy makers to design the institutional incentives and funding programmes for increased engagement in S3. This analytical framework is experimented through a survey involving 74 European universities, the analysis of country annual reports of the Research and innovation observatory (RIO) and the knowledge generated in S2E project covering particularly EU13 countries and the higher education for Smart specialisation initiative (HESS). The main results and limits are commented and discussed with some recommendations.
    Date: 2018–11
  7. By: Markus Reisinger; Emanuele Tarantino
    Abstract: Patent pools are commonly used to license technologies to manufacturers. Whereas previous studies focused on manufacturers active in independent markets, we analyze pools licensing to competing manufacturers, allowing for multiple licensors and non-linear tariffs. We find that the impact of pools on welfare depends on the industry structure: Whereas they are procompetitive when no manufacturer is integrated with a licensor, the presence of vertically integrated manufacturers triggers a novel trade-off between horizontal and vertical price coordination. Specifically, pools are anticompetitive if the share of integrated firms is large, procompetitive otherwise. We then formulate information-free policies to screen anticompetitive pools.
    Keywords: patent pools and horizontal pricing agreements, complementary patents, vertical integration and restraints, antitrust policy
    JEL: K11 L41 L42 O34
    Date: 2018–11
  8. By: Mathieu Doussineau (European Commission - JRC); Eskarne Arregui-Pabollet (European Commission - JRC); Nicholas Harrap (European Commission - JRC); Fernando Merida (European Commission - JRC)
    Abstract: Leveraging greater impact from the array of research and innovation funds in the EU is driving efforts to combine such funds and develop synergies at the policy and strategy levels. However, one of the first challenges for policy makers and stakeholders intervening in the support to R&I is to obtain a full picture of all current and planned funding and financing instruments. This report uses the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) framework to characterise the different funding that is available. The major bottlenecks in the innovation process that can arise through the lack of appropriate funding are discussed along with the background and the utility and criticisms of the TRL. The use of TRL to characterise and map research and innovation in the EU provides a useful framework. However, there is a need to broaden the scope of TRL to include commercialisation of new products and services and scale-up business capacities. Furthermore, it is limited by its technology focus, while innovation can embrace many aspects beyond the purely technological. This work has also highlighted many issues that can affect the optimal combination of funds. There is a need for cross-cutting knowledge of the different funds rather than there being ''silo-thinking'' where a person only considers the area in which they directly work and not interrelated areas in other domains. Hand in hand with this is a better understanding of how beneficiaries decided between funding options and the support they may require. This support can include clearer information communicated with regards to the funds and also the financial instruments that are available, such as those implemented by the European Investment bank. Finally, an improved alignment of the rules of participation of the various funds is needed, both between the different funds at the EU level but also with national funding.
    Keywords: EU funding, financing instruments, synergies, Research, innovation, TRL, Smart specialisation strategies, Horizon 2020, ESIF
    Date: 2018–11
  9. By: Gilles Lafforgue (Toulouse Business School); Luc Rouge (Toulouse Business School)
    Abstract: We present a general equilibrium growth model in which the use of a non renewable resource yields waste. Recycling waste produces materials of poor quality. These materials can be reused for production only once a dedicated R&D activity has made their quality reach a certain minimum threshold. The economy then switches to a fully recycling regime. We refer to this switch as the technological breakthrough. We analyze the optimal trajectories of the economy and interpret the Ramsey-Keynes and Hotelling conditions in this specific context. We characterize the determinants of the date of the breakthrough, which is endogenous, as well as the discontinuity in the variables' paths that is induced by this breakthrough. We show, in particular, that the availability of a recycling technology leads to an over-exploitation of the resource and possibly to lower levels of consumption before the breakthrough. We also find that the breakthrough can have a negative impact on utility over a finite period.
    Keywords: Recycling, Non-renewable resource, Technical change, Growth,
    JEL: C61 O44 Q32 Q53
    Date: 2018–10
  10. By: Elisabetta Marinelli (European Commission – JRC); Alessio Cavicchi (Universita di Macerata); Annamaria Fiore (ARTI Puglia); Gigliola Paviotti (Universita di Macerata); Elisa Gerussi (European Commission – JRC Seville); Simona Iammarino (London School of Economics and Political Sciences)
    Abstract: Universities have been mainly included in the S3 debate as creators or vectors of knowledge, their higher education mission has been somewhat overlooked. For this reason, in March 2016, the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission has started a project on the role of Higher Education in Smart Specialisation (HESS). This document reports the action-research activities conducted under the HESS project in the region of Puglia (IT). The authors explored two instruments at the opposite end of the higher education spectrum: Istituti Tecnici Superiori (ITSs), i.e. Higher Technical Institutes, a form of technology-based vocational education and training. Innovative Industrial Doctorates (IIDs). These new instruments have not been explicitly taken into account during the development and early implementation of the strategy; however, it has become increasingly important to reflect on the process of human capital creation for S3. The two instruments appear suited to this reflection as they implement curricula designed in collaboration with the local private sector and with an explicit focus on technological development and employability. The report explores the challenges and opportunities ITSs and IIDs pose, as a first step to understand their potential contribution to Smart Specialisation.
    Keywords: Smart Specialisation, Innovation, Vocational Training, Higher Education, Universities, Puglia, Apulia
    Date: 2018–10
  11. By: Ritzen, Jo (UNU-MERIT)
    Abstract: Sustainable economic growth is more brought about by ideas, knowledge and human capital than by physical capital, like machines, buildings or land. Universities are one of the sources of ideas and of human capital. We focus on the third function of universities, next to education and research, in particular on knowledge transfer. Knowledge transfer is highly visible in agglomerations like Silicon Valley. Many countries nowadays have strategies to step up knowledge transfer as a source of sustainable economic growth. Knowledge is recognised to have its strongest potential impact close to the place where it is generated. This makes a university attractive to the region in which it is located. The university contributes to sustainable economic growth not only through the expenditures associated with the running of the university, but perhaps more by the knowledge transfer. This involves amongst others partnerships with business. Knowledge transfer does not come by itself. It requires action and strategy on the part of the university, the region and local public or private actors (businesses and public organisations). It appears that US and UK top-universities are more prominent not only in realising cooperation with business, but also among each other.
    Keywords: Knowledge transfer, innovation, public-private collaboration, university-business cooperation, triple helix
    JEL: I21 I25 O31 O32 O33 O34
    Date: 2018–11–09
  12. By: Andrea Morrison
    Abstract: In this paper we study the impact of spinoff generation events on the performance of parent organizations. Using data from the Italian motorcycle industry (1893-1993), we find that parents have higher survival chances after a spinoff generation event, confirming results from previous studies about other manufacturing industries. We also show that these enhanced survival patterns differ across time and space, and we link these effects to institutional differences: spinoff generation did not determine any survival advantage for parent firms in the Fascist era and in the Turin cluster, while it had an additional positive effect in the Motorvalley cluster. The paper contributes to the literature on spinoff generation and employee mobility and adds to the debate on the role of institutions in evolutionary economic geography, by showing the importance of contextual factors for the performance of parent firms.
    Keywords: Spinoffs, Employee entrepreneurship, Parents, Institutions, Evolutionary economic geography
    JEL: B52 L26 O18 R11
    Date: 2018–11
  13. By: Carlo Gianelle (European Commission - JRC); Fabrizio Guzzo (European Commission - JRC); Krzysztof Mieszkowski (European Commission - JRC)
    Abstract: This paper provides a methodology to assess how national and regional authorities define their research and innovation investment priorities for smart specialisation. It then tests the methodology empirically, based on a significant sample of research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation from Italy and Poland. The paper helps to fill a gap in the emerging literature on smart specialisation regarding the definition of investment priority areas, while providing useful analytical elements to orient policy impact evaluation exercises. We found that research and innovation priorities in Italy and Poland are defined in line with a multi-level, tree-like structure whose higher hierarchical level usually contains a few broad dimensions, and whose branches cover several specific activities. When considered individually, most of those activities represent suitable smart specialisation priorities. Yet, some of the examined strategies contain priorities that do not fully reflect the smart specialisation logic. Several strategies encompass tens or even hundreds of activities. It is beyond the scope of the present study to evaluate the appropriateness of a certain set of investment priorities in relation to the characteristics of a region or country. However, our analysis raises an important question about the capacity of the strategy management bodies to effectively support the development of huge sets of activities each of which potentially requires specific competences and dedicated administrative and technical resources. Also, large sets of priorities may de facto circumvent the smart specialisation principle of selective intervention, as the strategies ultimately cover broad economic areas.
    Keywords: Regional innovation policy; smart specialisation; investment priorities; selective intervention
    JEL: O25 O30 R12 R58
    Date: 2018–11

This nep-ino issue is ©2018 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.