nep-ino New Economics Papers
on Innovation
Issue of 2022‒10‒31
seven papers chosen by
Uwe Cantner
University of Jena

  1. Collaborative knowledge exchange promotes innovation By Tomoya Mori; Jonathan Newton; Shosei Sakaguchi
  2. Dynamics of First-Time Patenting Firms By Nilsen, Øivind Anti; Raknerud, Arvid
  3. To Be or Not to Be: The Entrepreneur in Neo-Schumpeterian Growth Theory By Henrekson, Magnus; Johansson, Dan; Karlsson, Johan
  4. Evaluating Transformation – what can we learn from the literature? By Wise, Emily; Arnold, Erik
  5. The Opportunity Driven Entrepreneurship in the Context of Innovation Systems in Europe in the Period 2010-2019 By Leogrande, Angelo; Costantiello, Alberto; Laureti, Lucio
  6. An Elementary Model of VC Financing and Growth By Jeremy Greenwood; Pengfei Han; Hiroshi Inokuma; Juan M. Sanchez
  7. Raising EU productivity through innovation By Reinhilde Veugelers; Frederic Warzynski

  1. By: Tomoya Mori; Jonathan Newton; Shosei Sakaguchi
    Abstract: Considering collaborative innovation in patent development, we provide micro-level evidence of knowledge spillovers. Knowledge embodied in a patent is proxied by word pairs appearing in its abstract, while novelty is measured by the frequency with which these word pairs have appeared in past patents. Inventors are assumed to possess the knowledge associated with patents in which they have previously participated. We find that collaboration by inventors with more mutually differentiated knowledge sets is likely to result in patents with higher novelty.
    Date: 2022–10
  2. By: Nilsen, Øivind Anti (Norwegian School of Economics); Raknerud, Arvid (Statistics Norway)
    Abstract: This paper investigates firm dynamics in the period before, during, and after an event consisting of a first published patent application. The analysis is based on patent data from the Norwegian Industrial Property Office merged with data from several business registers covering a period of almost 20 years. We apply an event study design and use matching to control for confounding factors. The first patent application by a young firm is associated with significant growth in employment, output, assets and public research funding. Moreover, our results indicate that economic activity starts to increase at least three years ahead of the first patent application. However, we find no evidence of additional firm growth after patent approval for successful applicants. Our findings indicate that the existence of a properly functioning patenting system supports innovation activities, especially early in the life cycle of firms.
    Keywords: patenting, firm performance, panel data, event study design
    JEL: C33 D22 O34
    Date: 2022–08
  3. By: Henrekson, Magnus (Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN)); Johansson, Dan (Örebro University School of Business); Karlsson, Johan (Centre for Family Entrepreneurship and Ownership (CeFEO))
    Abstract: Based on a review of 700+ peer-reviewed articles since 1990, identified using text mining methodology and supervised machine learning, we analyze how neo-Schumpeterian growth theorists relate to the entrepreneur-centered view of Schumpeter (1934) and the entrepreneurless framework of Schumpeter (1942). The literature leans heavily towards Schumpeter (1942); innovation returns are modeled as following an ex ante known probability distribution. By assuming that innovation outcomes are (probabilistically) deterministic, the entrepreneur becomes redundant. Abstracting from genuine uncertainty implies that central issues regarding the economic function of the entrepreneur are overlooked, such as the roles of proprietary resources, skills, and profits.
    Keywords: Creative destruction; Economic growth; Entrepreneur; Innovation; Judgment; Knightian uncertainty
    JEL: B40 O10 O30
    Date: 2022–10–01
  4. By: Wise, Emily (CIRCLE, Lund University); Arnold, Erik (University of Manchester)
    Abstract: The last decade’s rise of the so-called “third frame” (or third generation) of Transformative Innovation Policies (TIP) has shifted focus of research and innovation investments from economic growth and competitiveness to also tackling societal challenges and generating broader environmental and societal impact. The evolution in rationale and aims for policy action also implies a need to adapt and evolve evaluative strategies and practices. As policymakers begin to develop new transformative innovation programmes, a key question arises as to how monitoring, evaluation and learning practices (currently framed around 1st and 2nd generation innovation policies) can be adapted in order to meet 3rd generation innovation policy needs? In shaping a response, one can learn from both theory and practice. This brief (produced within the GReaTr initiative ) aims to provide a synthesis of what recent academic research tells us about evaluating transformation, leveraging a set of 11 seminal articles (and other complementary literature) to answer four questions: For whom and why? What to evaluate? How to evaluate? What unit of analysis? The synthesis points to a relative consensus in the academic literature on the main purposes and uses, the recommended principles and approaches, as well as possibilities for delineating and dealing with multiple scopes and units of analysis in evaluating transformation – yet highlights different conceptual framings of system change. The summary provides inputs to planning an evaluative strategy for TIP and highlights the need to consider new questions related to approaches to reporting across funding agencies, and more active roles for funding and policymaking agencies in dialogues about strategic direction and prioritisation of investments.
    Keywords: Innovation policy; Evaluation; System evaluation; Transformation; Socio-technical transitions
    JEL: O32 O38
    Date: 2022–10–04
  5. By: Leogrande, Angelo; Costantiello, Alberto; Laureti, Lucio
    Abstract: In this article we have estimated the value of “Opportunity Driven Entrepreneurship” in Europe. We use data from European Innovation Scoreboard-EIS of the European Commission for 36 countries in the period 2010-2019. We use Panel Data with Fixed Effects, Panel Data with Random Effects, WLS, Pooled OLS, and Dynamic Panel. Our results show that “Opportunity Driven Entrepreneurship” is positively associated, among others, to “Innovation Friendly Environment” and “Turnover Share Large Enterprises”, while it is negatively associated, among others, to “Sales Impacts” and “R&D Expenditure Business Sectors”.
    Keywords: Innovation, and Invention: Processes and Incentives; Management of Technological Innovation and R&D; Diffusion Processes; Open Innovation
    JEL: O30 O31 O32 O33 O34
    Date: 2022–09–26
  6. By: Jeremy Greenwood; Pengfei Han; Hiroshi Inokuma; Juan M. Sanchez
    Abstract: This article uses an endogenous growth model to study how the improvements in financing for innovative start-ups brought by venture capital (VC) affect firm innovation and growth. Partial equilibrium results show how lending contracts change as financing efficiency improves, while general equilibrium results demonstrate that better screening and development of projects by VC investors leads to higher aggregate productivity growth.
    Keywords: endogenous growth; financial development; innovation; IPO; screening; research and development; startups; venture capital
    JEL: E13 E22 G24 L26 O16 O31 O40
    Date: 2022–08–03
  7. By: Reinhilde Veugelers; Frederic Warzynski
    Abstract: A better overview of which firms are most likely to adopt digital technologies and to innovate, and to turn these investments into productivity growth
    Date: 2022–06

This nep-ino issue is ©2022 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.