|
on Innovation |
| By: | Tania Babina; Alex Xi He; Sabrina T. Howell; Elisabeth Ruth Perlman; Joseph Staudt |
| Abstract: | U.S. universities, which are important producers of new knowledge, have experienced a shift in research funding away from federal and towards private industry sources. This paper compares the effects of federal and private university research funding, using data from 22 universities that include individual-level payments for everyone employed on all grants for each university year and that are linked to patent and Census data, including IRS W-2 records. We instrument for an individual’s source of funding with government-wide R&D expenditure shocks within a narrow field of study. We find that a higher share of federal funding causes fewer but more general patents, more high-tech entrepreneurship, a higher likelihood of remaining employed in academia, and a lower likelihood of joining an incumbent firm. Increasing the private share of funding has opposite effects for most outcomes. It appears that private funding leads to greater appropriation of intellectual property by incumbent firms. |
| Keywords: | R&D, Science, Universities, Innovation, Entrepreneurship |
| JEL: | O3 G18 G38 I2 |
| Date: | 2021–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cen:wpaper:21-26&r= |
| By: | Colin Wessendorf; Alexander Kopka; Dirk Fornahl |
| Abstract: | The European Commission summarized six young General Purpose Technologies (GPTs) under the label of European Key Enabling Technologies (KETs) in 2009. GPTs are broad, pervasive and widely diffused technologies that enable knowledge creation and economic growth. This study analyzes to what extent the KETs’ structural relevance within their regional knowledge bases leads to regional knowledge creation. Additionally, we analyze whether the structural relevance and the regional knowledge presence in KETs interact with regards to regional knowledge creation. The ‘structure’ of a regional knowledge base describes the relation of all knowledge being present within a given region, while ‘structural relevance’ describes a technology’s impact on the structure. Our analysis focuses on the time period from 1986-2015 and includes Germany’s 141 Labor Market Regions (LMRs) as regional spatial units. Our database consists of patent data from which we map the structure of the regional knowledge bases, by constructing technological spaces based on technology co-occurrences on patents. The structural relevance is operationalized with the help of Social Network Analysis (SNA), by measuring the changes that the removal of KETs causes in the structure of technological spaces. Our findings indicate that KETs enable knowledge creation in different ways. They show that the effects of KETs on regional knowledge creation activities are KET-specific. Furthermore, it proves essential to distinguish between ‘knowledge presence’ and ‘structural knowledge relevance’ when addressing the innovation-spawning function of KETs. Thus, for both further research and for policy-making, it is a fundamental requirement to address KET-driven knowledge creation in particular KET-specific ways. |
| Keywords: | General purpose technologies, GPT, key enabling technologies, KET, regional innovation, regional knowledge base, knowledge space, technological space, technological integration, German regions |
| JEL: | O31 O33 R11 R58 |
| Date: | 2021–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:egu:wpaper:2127&r= |
| By: | Christopher Esposito; ; |
| Abstract: | Over the 20th century, the geography of breakthrough innovation in the United States – defined as the spatial distribution of the production of patents that are both novel and impactful – underwent three broad changes. At the start of the 20th century, breakthrough innovation was concentrated in populous and knowledge-diverse metropolitan areas. By the 1930s, breakthroughs were created less frequently across the entire country and so their invention had a less distinct geography. The substantial creation of breakthroughs resumed in the 1960s and was once their invention was concentrated in large and knowledge metropolitan areas. However, during the latter part of the century the invention of breakthroughs also frequently involved long-distance collaborations between inventors. In this paper, I document these historical changes to the geography of breakthrough innovation and propose a model to explain why they occurred. The model suggests that the geography of breakthroughs is established by four factors: (1) the prevailing knowledge intensity of breakthrough inventions, (2) the distance- based frictions incurred by technologies used for collaboration, (3) the distance-based frictions incurred by the technologies used for knowledge-sourcing, and (4) the disruptiveness of the regime of technological change. I generate support for the model, and conclude the paper by discussing lessons that the 20th century’s geography of breakthrough innovation provide for anticipating possible futures for the geography of innovation in the 21st century, including in the years beyond COVID-19. |
| Date: | 2021–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:egu:wpaper:2126&r= |
| By: | Wittmann, Florian; Hufnagl, Miriam; Roth, Florian; Yorulmaz, Merve; Lindner, Ralf |
| Abstract: | The promise of mission-oriented innovation policies (MOIP) to address some of the grand societal challenges as a cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary approach to innova-tion policy with increased directionality has raised high hopes. However, the complexity attached to MOIP constitutes a challenge, both for policy-makers and innovation schol-ars. Seeking to enhance our understanding of MOIP and the diverse policy choices and challenges involved, we propose a conceptualization of missions as multiple, intercon-nected translation processes that span from a societal challenge as the starting point to impacts as the ultimate translational stage. We argue that adopting a process-oriented perspective is well-suited to account for the interdependencies and complex feedback dynamics among the different stages during the realization of MOIP. The proposed framework aims to support the development of frameworks for impact assessment, but also yields relevant insights for policy-makers implementing MOIP. |
| Date: | 2021 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:fisidp:71&r= |
| By: | Cindy Cunningham; Lucia Foster; Cheryl Grim; John Haltiwanger; Sabrina Wulff Pabilonia; Jay Stewart; Zoltan Wolf |
| Abstract: | Within-industry productivity dispersion is pervasive and exhibits substantial variation across countries, industries, and time. We build on prior research that explores the hypothesis that periods of innovation are initially associated with a surge in business start-ups, followed by increased experimentation that leads to rising dispersion potentially with declining aggregate productivity growth, and then a shakeout process that results in higher productivity growth and declining productivity dispersion. Using novel detailed industry-level data on total factor productivity and labor productivity dispersion from the Dispersion Statistics on Productivity along with novel measures of entry rates from the Business Dynamics Statistics and productivity growth data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for U.S. manufacturing industries, we find support for this hypothesis, especially for the high-tech industries. |
| Keywords: | dispersion; entry; innovation; productivity; manufacturing; high-tech industries |
| JEL: | O3 O4 |
| Date: | 2021–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cen:wpaper:21-21&r= |
| By: | Céline Merlin-Brogniart (CLERSÉ - Centre Lillois d’Études et de Recherches Sociologiques et Économiques - UMR 8019 - Université de Lille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Lars Fuglsang (Roskilde University); Ada Scupola (Roskilde University); Anne Hansen (Roskilde University); Rolf Rønning (The Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences); Siv Magnussen (The Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences); Alberto Peralta (UAH - Universidad de Alcalá - University of Alcalá); Miklós Rosta (Corvinus University of Budapest); Márton Katona (Corvinus University of Budapest); Éva Révész (Corvinus University of Budapest) |
| Abstract: | In the context of the modernization of public management in Europe, the attention paid to social entrepreneurs for innovation is increasingly important. This paper reveals that these actors significantly contribute to the development of collaborative governance aimed at improving social innovation related to public service through their role as initiator, boundary spanner or network leader. However, the public sector actors involved in the governance also have a significant role to play in enabling these innovations to emerge. This paper analyzes the forms and processes of innovation taken by this multi-actors collaborative governance. It is based on the study of 25 case studies associated with five countries of the European Union. |
| Date: | 2021–01–21 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-03333560&r= |
| By: | Céline Merlin-Brogniart (CLERSÉ - Centre Lillois d’Études et de Recherches Sociologiques et Économiques - UMR 8019 - Université de Lille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Christine Liefooghe (TVES - Territoires, Villes, Environnement & Société - ULR 4477 - ULCO - Université du Littoral Côte d'Opale - Université de Lille); Miklós Rosta (Corvinus University of Budapest); Márton Katona (Corvinus University of Budapest) |
| Abstract: | In the context of social innovation, collaborative governance and in particular innovation networks has gained importance. This paper focuses on the potential for scaling up according to the institutional arrangements and context of different countries. A grid for analyzing the degree of state control of citizens' and local initiatives is proposed in order to study the different forms and intensity of scaling up. |
| Date: | 2021–01–21 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-03333566&r= |
| By: | Ron Boschma; ; |
| Abstract: | A key objective of Smart Specialization Strategies (S3) is to stimulate related diversification in European regions, rather than unrelated diversification. This chapter will outline the pros and cons of S3 with a prime focus on either related or unrelated diversification. We argue it depends on the specific regional situation which type of S3 to pursue. While there are good reasons to promote related diversification in general, regions may become over-specialized or trapped in a low-complex economy that might warrant a S3 focus on unrelated diversification. |
| Keywords: | Smart specialization, related diversification, unrelated diversification, regional diversification, complexity |
| JEL: | O25 O38 R11 |
| Date: | 2021–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:egu:wpaper:2128&r= |