|
on Innovation |
| By: | Freilich, Janet; Meurer, Michael; Schankerman, Mark (Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management); Schuett, Florian (Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management) |
| Date: | 2024 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tiu:tiutis:542fd552-53b8-47b0-8acf-4b1953cb824e |
| By: | Preißner, Stephanie; Raasch, Christina; Schweisfurth, Tim |
| Abstract: | This study investigates the sources of disruptive innovation. The disruptive innovation literature suggests that these do not originate from existing customers, in contrast to what is predicted by the user innovation literature. We compile a unique content-analytical dataset based on 60 innovations identified as disruptive by the disruptive innovation literature. Using multinomial and binomial regression, we find that 43% of the sample disruptive innovations were originally developed by users. Disruptive innovations are more likely to originate from users (producers) if the environment has high turbulence in customer preferences (technology). Disruptive innovations that involve high functional (technological) novelty tend to be developed by users (producers). Users are also more likely to be the source of disruptive process innovations and to innovate in environments with weaker appropriability. Our article forges new links between the disruptive and the user innovation literatures, and offers guidance to managers on the likely source of disruptive threats. |
| Keywords: | appropriability regime, disruptive innovation, environmental turbulence, functional novelty, radical innovation, user innovation |
| Date: | 2023 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:ifwkie:293964 |
| By: | Gustavo Herminio Salati Marcondes de Moraes (School of Applied Sciences, University of Campinas, UNICAMP, Brazil.); Dirk Meissner (National Research University Higher School of Economics); Bruno Fischer (School of Applied Sciences, University of Campinas, UNICAMP, Brazil.) |
| Keywords: | innovation, ecosystems, sustainability, regional development, sustainable development, society |
| JEL: | O31 O32 O33 O36 Q16 |
| Date: | 2024 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hig:wpaper:127sti2024 |
| By: | Anckaert, Paul-Emmanuel; Uhlbach, Wolf-Hendrik (Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management) |
| Date: | 2024 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tiu:tiutis:aa9ac9d1-4531-43a1-bbb3-213419eb4217 |
| By: | Mr. Daniel Garcia-Macia; Alexandre Sollaci |
| Abstract: | When and how should governments use industrial policy to direct innovation to specific sectors? This paper develops a framework to analyze the costs and benefits of industrial policies for innovation. The framework is based on a model of endogenous innovation with a sectoral network of knowledge spillovers (Liu and Ma 2023), extended to capture implementation frictions and alternative policy goals. Simulations show that implementing sector-specific fiscal support is only preferable to sector-neutral support under restrictive conditions—when externalities are well measured (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions), domestic knowledge spillovers of targeted sectors are high (typically in larger economies), and administrative capacity is strong (including to avoid misallocation to politically connected sectors). If any of these conditions are not fully met, welfare impacts of industrial policy quickly become negative. The optimal allocation of support entails greater subsidies to greener sectors, but other factors such as cross-sector knowledge spillovers matter. For a sample of technologically advanced economies, existing industrial policies seem to be directing innovation to broadly the right sectors, but to an excessive degree in most economies, including China and the United States. |
| Keywords: | Industrial policy; innovation; knowledge spillovers; climate policy; AI |
| Date: | 2024–08–16 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:imf:imfwpa:2024/176 |
| By: | Irina Dezhina (Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy) |
| Abstract: | In 2023, the agenda of science and innovation sector focused on solving tasks in order to ensure technological sovereignty through the creation of own development lines - from R&D to the production of new technological items. In line with this agenda, the existing programs to support scientific organizations and universities, as well as the Russian Science Foundation competitions, were adjusted. The Russian Academy of Sciences dealt with the issues of reorganization of expert work in the country, expansion of its influence in this area, and managed to strengthen mutually beneficial partnership with NRC “Kurchatov Institute†, which during the year affiliated 13 institutes previously under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation. There were no significant developments in the innovation sector. Moreover, private sector expenditures on R&D have generally decreased. However, industry experts2 noted an increase in the interest of certain technology companies in investing in R&D due to the withdrawal of foreign technology suppliers from the Russian market |
| Keywords: | Russian economy, R&D, science, technology |
| JEL: | I2 I28 O3 O31 O32 |
| Date: | 2024 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:gai:ppaper:ppaper-2024-1329 |
| By: | Meissner, Leonie P. |
| Abstract: | To achieve net-zero emissions by mid-century, the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through negative emission technologies (NETs) will play an integral part. With renewable energy technologies (RETs), there has already been the introduction and expansion of a clean technology that faced similar obstacles as NETs—high up-front costs, limited competitiveness, and low public perception. This article compares NET policy proposals with the lessons learned from RET support. For NETs, the use of R&D support for innovation is unequivocal due to its nascency, yet the demand-pull instrument differs whether NETs are used as an alternative mitigation strategy, as a bridging technology or as a last resort. As an alternative mitigation method, a market-based approach by integrating NETs into emission trading systems is applicable because the use of NETs has no additional environmental benefit compared to abatement. Using NETs as a bridging technology requires restricting the demand for NETs to control the volume, and possibly type of NETs. This can be achieved via mandates or auctions. As a last resort, the removal via NETs requires heavy state involvement as emission removal constitutes a pure public good. This warrants public procurement or even state-led NET operation. |
| Keywords: | Carbon dioxide removal, renewable energy, environmental innovation, technology diffusion, pbulic policy |
| Date: | 2024 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:ifwkie:300921 |
| By: | Leonardo Mazzoni; Massimo Riccaboni; Erik Stam; ; |
| Abstract: | The quality of entrepreneurial ecosystems not only enables local startups, but also affects the attraction and supply of non-local founders. We conceptualize entrepreneurial ecosystems as open systems with inflows and outflows of entrepreneurial talent. Beyond individual agency, these talent flows are driven by the quality of the origin and destination entrepreneurial ecosystems. We use network analysis and gravity models to study the interregional flows of founders of non-local startups within Italy, and find empirical evidence for creation, attraction and supply mechanisms of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurial ecosystems provide a supportive environment for the creation of local startups, but also attract non-local (potential) founders. In addition, we reveal an escalator mechanism: (prospective) entrepreneurs tend to move from good to better entrepreneurial ecosystems. |
| Keywords: | entrepreneurial ecosystems; innovative startups; talent flows; non-local founders; complex systems; gravity models |
| Date: | 2024–08 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:egu:wpaper:2426 |