nep-ino New Economics Papers
on Innovation
Issue of 2021‒11‒22
seven papers chosen by
Uwe Cantner
University of Jena

  1. The Intellectual Assets in Europe By Costantiello, Alberto; Laureti, Lucio; Leogrande, Angelo
  2. Identification of “Valuable” Technologies via Patent Statistics in India: An Analysis Based on Renewal Information By Mohd Shadab Danish; Pritam Ranjan; Ruchi Sharma
  3. Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: a comment on transformative innovation policy By Jan Fagerberg
  4. The direction of technical change in AI and the trajectory effects of government funding By Martina Iori; Arianna Martinelli; Andrea Mina
  5. A project-level approach to green open innovation By Lorena D'Agostino
  6. Designs for Corporate Venture Capital: Emergence of a Hybrid Structural Orientation By Burgelman, Robert A.; Sridharan, Amit; Savini, Giancarlo
  7. Challenges for University - Industry Collaboration - a Stakeholder View By Ulrike Michel-Schneider

  1. By: Costantiello, Alberto; Laureti, Lucio; Leogrande, Angelo
    Abstract: In this article we investigate the determinants of the Intellectual Assets in Europe. We use data from the European Innovation Scoreboard of the European Commission in the period 2000-2019 for 36 countries. Data are analyzed using Panel with Fixed Effects, Random Effects, WLS, Pooled OLS, Dynamic Panel at 1 Stage. Results show that the presence of Intellectual Assets in Europe is positively associated with “Enterprise Births”, “Top R&D Spending Enterprises per 10 mln Population”, “Employment Share Manufacturing”, “Share High and Medium high-tech Manufacturing”, “Attractive Research Systems”, “Finance and Support”, “Innovators”, “Sales Impact” and is negatively associated to “Government Procurement of Advanced Technology Products” and “Share Knowledge-Intensive Services”
    Keywords: Innovation, Innovation, and Invention: Processes and Incentives; Management of Technological Innovation and R&D; Diffusion Processes; Open Innovation.
    JEL: O30 O31 O32 O33 O34
    Date: 2021–11–04
  2. By: Mohd Shadab Danish (BASE University, Bengaluru); Pritam Ranjan (IIM Indore); Ruchi Sharma (IIM Indore)
    Abstract: This study assesses the degree to which the patent attributes can capture the value of patents across discrete and complex innovations. We use the patents applied between 1995 to 2002 and granted on or before December 2018 from the Indian Patent Office. Here the patent renewal information is utilized as a proxy for the patent value. We have used generalized logistic regression model for the impact assessment analysis. The results reveal that the technology classification (i.e., discrete versus complex innovations) play an important role in patent value assessment, and some technologies are significantly different than the others even within the two broader classifications. Moreover, the non-resident patents in India are more likely to have a higher value than the resident patents. The significance pattern among the technological fields suggests that the patenting laws need to be revisited to enhance the efficiency.
    Keywords: Patent value, Discrete innovation, Complex innovation, Patent reform, Renewal information Classification-O31,O32,O34
    Date: 2021
  3. By: Jan Fagerberg (Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo)
    Abstract: The topics addressed in this paper concern the (much-needed) transition to sustainability and what role (innovation) policy can play in speeding up such changes. In their Discussion Paper Schot and Steinmueller (this issue) argue that the existing theorizing and knowledge bases within the field of innovation studies are “unfit” for this task and that a totally new approach is required. This paper takes issue with this claim. Policy advice, it is argued, needs to be anchored in the accumulated research on the issue at hand, in this case, innovation. The paper therefore starts by distilling some important insights on innovation from the accumulated research on this topic and, with this in mind, considers various policy approaches that have been suggested for influencing innovation and sustainability transitions. Finally, the lessons for the development and implementation of transformative innovation policy are considered. It is concluded that the existing theorizing and knowledge base in innovation studies may be of great relevance when designing policies for dealing with climate change and sustainability transitions.
    Date: 2021–11
  4. By: Martina Iori; Arianna Martinelli; Andrea Mina
    Abstract: Government funding of innovation can have a significant impact not only on the rate of technical change, but also on its direction. In this paper, we examine the role that government grants and government departments played in the development of artificial intelligence (AI), an emergent general purpose technology with the potential to revolutionize many aspects of the economy and society. We analyze all AI patents filed at the US Patent and Trademark Office and develop network measures that capture each patent's influence on all possible sequences of follow-on innovation. By identifying the effect of patents on technological trajectories, we are able to account for the long-term cumulative impact of new knowledge that is not captured by standard patent citation measures. We show that patents funded by government grants, but above all patents filed by federal agencies and state departments, profoundly influenced the development of AI. These long-term effects were especially significant in early phases, and weakened over time as private incentives took over. These results are robust to alternative specifications and controlling for endogeneity.
    Keywords: R&D; Technical change; Government subsidies; Technology policy; General purpose technology.
    Date: 2021–11–16
  5. By: Lorena D'Agostino (University of Milano-Bicocca)
    Abstract: Innovation is a crucial dimension for the transition to a greener Europe, a process that has accelerated notably in the latest years. An open mode has been applied to those innovation that mitigate the impact of economic activities on the natural environment, which is green open innovation (GOI). This is approach is mainly driven by the importance of stakeholders and the specificity of environmental fields, which call for a greater role of the external collaboration in green innovation. Although the interest of management scholars and practitioners in GOI has increased enormously, the empirical GOI literature has overlooked a project-level approach. Firms may have heterogenous openness across different projects depending on the characteristics of the projects or the strategic objective of the firm. This paper contributes to GOI literature by investigating whether green projects are more open than non-green projects in terms of breadth and depth of knowledge sources. Based on a dataset of projects funded by Seventh European research framework, the results confirm the greater openness of environmental-related research projects. These results corroborate the necessity for managers to apply an open mode to green innovation, especially in highly competitive calls such as the European Union framework program.
    Keywords: green open innovation; eco-innovation; sustainability; EU framework programs; FP7; projects; breadth; depth; openness.
    JEL: M20 O32 Q56
    Date: 2021–10
  6. By: Burgelman, Robert A. (Stanford Graduate School of Business); Sridharan, Amit (First Rays Venture Partners); Savini, Giancarlo (Honeywell)
    Abstract: Combining qualitative survey and in-depth field research, we present a new typology of corporate venture capital (CVC) designs that highlights a hybrid CVC structural orientation to advance understanding of the process of integrating externally generated innovation with the company’s internal innovation efforts. Based on our field study of JetBlue Technology Ventures, the paper provides insights into the interlocking multi-level managerial activities that relate hybrid CVC initiatives to the corporation’s mainstream operations. These insights also serve to compare how the hybrid CVC design enables effective interaction with the company’s internal innovation process to create enduring corporate strategic value with that of the other CVC designs.
    Date: 2021–05
  7. By: Ulrike Michel-Schneider (Czech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Civil Engineering)
    Abstract: Purpose - The innovation strategies of the European Union and its member states have been well established over time and their implementation is being supported through government funding and legislative policies. This includes the promotion of strategic University-Industry Collaboration (UIC) involving its heterogeneous stakeholder groups. The purpose of this paper is to provide a shareholder analysis in form of defining the UIC activities, UIC shareholders and their interests and power in such collaboration while addressing the major challenges.Methodology ? A comprehensive thematic literature review of scientific research, as well as institutionally conducted research (primarily by European Union organisations) has been performed.Findings ? The review lays out the interest and power of the individual stakeholders while members of Academia, Industry and Government being the most influential ones. The primary challenges for Academia and Industry remain access to funding, however, also the tackling of contrary mindsets and mission as well as overcoming organisational and cultural differences create serious barriers to a successful cooperation.Practical Implication: Preparing a shareholder analysis in the area of UIC and deriving with a thorough understanding of the shareholders motivation and power of UIC involvement will help prioritizing and managing the stakeholders, as well as help leading a successful cooperation. Originality/value: This study is meaningful in that it serves as a practical overview in considering the interests and challenges in form of a stakeholder analysis of a UIC setting. It may serve as a guide for stakeholders interested in formalizing UICs to understand the weight, importance and motivation of their immediate collaborators, when preparing a formal UIC partnership.
    Keywords: Stakeholder Analysis, University-Industry Cooperation, Innovation Strategy
    JEL: O00 O30 O33
    Date: 2021–10

This nep-ino issue is ©2021 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.