nep-knm New Economics Papers
on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Economy
Issue of 2008‒12‒07
ten papers chosen by
Laura Stefanescu
European Research Centre of Managerial Studies in Business Administration

  1. The Impact of Firm’s R&D Strategy on Profit and Productivity By Johansson, Börje; Lööf, Hans
  2. Pricing Knowledge and Funding Research of New Technology Sectors in a Growth Model By CHANTREL, Etienne; GRIMAUD, André; TOURNEMAINE, Frédéric
  3. Venture Capitalists, Asymmetric Information, and Ownership in the Innovation Process By Fabrizi, Simona; Lippert, Steffen; Norbäck, Peh; Persson, Lars
  4. What drives innovative output in emerging clusters? Evidence from the wine industry By Elisa Giuliani
  5. Learning and sharing in a Chinese high-technology cluster: A study of inter-firm and intra-firm knowledge flows between R&D employees By Matias Ramirez; Xibao Li
  6. What drives innovation? Causes of and consequences for nanotechnologies By Ingrid Ott; Christian Papilloud; Torben Zülsdorf
  7. What hampers innovation? Evidence from the UK CIS4 By Pablo D'Este; Simona Iammarino; Maria Savona; Nick von Tunzelmann
  8. Innovative Work Behaviour: Measurement and Validation By Jeroen de Jong; Deanne Den Hartog
  9. The governance of University knowledge transfer By Aldo Geuna; Alessandro Muscio
  10. Collaboration networks as carriers of knowledge spillovers: Evidence from EU27 regions By Jarno Hoekman; Koen Frenken; Frank van Oort

  1. By: Johansson, Börje (CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, Royal Institute of Technology); Lööf, Hans (CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, Royal Institute of Technology)
    Abstract: This paper investigates how a firm’s R&D strategy influences the firm performance as measured by productivity and profitability. A formal production model is introduced to define and interpret alternative ways of measuring the impact of R&D. Studying 1,767 randomly selected firms from the Swedish manufacturing sector, the main findings are: (i) firms which apply persistent R&D perform better than firms with occasional as well as no R&D, (ii) occasional R&D is associated with lower performance than no R&D, and (iii) in quantile regressions the positive effect from R&D persistency is lacking for low productivity firms (lowest quartile) indicating a non-linear response. Moreover, the analysis recognises the different roles of ordinary and knowledge labour in production when specifying alternative performance measures and when identifying knowledge labour as a firm’s R&D capacity, which has a highly significant impact on firm performance. Introducing a formal production model in order to define and interpret alternative ways of measuring the impact of R&D, we apply simple ordinary OLS and quantile regressions on the economic model for analyzing the importance for a particular R&D strategy on firms’ productivity and profitability. To the best of our knowledge, we believe that the main findings of the analysis make contributions to the R&D literature.
    Keywords: R&D; productivity; profit; innovation; production analysis
    JEL: L19 O33
    Date: 2008–12–03
  2. By: CHANTREL, Etienne; GRIMAUD, André; TOURNEMAINE, Frédéric
    Date: 2008–04
  3. By: Fabrizi, Simona (Massey University Auckland); Lippert, Steffen (Massey University Auckland); Norbäck, Peh (Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN)); Persson, Lars (Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN))
    Abstract: In this paper we construct a model in which entrepreneurial innovations are sold into oligopolistic industries and where adverse selection problems between entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and incumbents are present. We show that as exacerbated development by better-informed venture-backed rms is used as a signal to enhance the sale price of developed innovations, venture capitalists must be sufciently more ecient in selecting innovative projects than incumbents in order to exist in equilibrium. Otherwise, incumbents undertake early preemptive, acquisitions to prevent the venture-backed rms' signaling-driven investment, despite the risk of buying a bad innovation. We nally show at what point the presence of active venture capitalists increases the incentives for entrepreneurial innovations.
    Keywords: Venture Capitalists; Innovation; Entrepreneurs; Signaling; Development;
    JEL: C70 D21 D82 G24 L20 M13 O30
    Date: 2008–11–06
  4. By: Elisa Giuliani (DEA Facoltà di Economia, University of Pisa & SPRU, University of Sussex)
    Keywords: Industrial clusters, innovative output, firm knowledge base, network closure, structural holes, external openness, wine
    JEL: M0 O32 O33 Z13
    Date: 2008–07–17
  5. By: Matias Ramirez (SPRU, University of Sussex); Xibao Li (School of Economics & Management, Tsinghua University)
    Keywords: learning, China, knowledge work, knowledge transfer
    JEL: D83 J24
    Date: 2008–01–09
  6. By: Ingrid Ott; Christian Papilloud; Torben Zülsdorf
    Abstract: Nanotechnologies are expected to be the dominant general purpose technology of the next decades. Their market potential is immense and especially demand side arguments will have far reaching consequences for innovations. They may occur as increased miniaturization or via building completely new products, processes or services. Innovations in the field of nanotechnologies do not only affect productivity in downstream sectors but these feed back to nanotechnologies thereby inducing circles of continuing innovation. Demand for nanocomponents mainly arises by firms while private demand is assigned to final products, processes or services that are augmented by nanotechnologies. Due to the technology’s controversial character, the consumer’s attitude towards risk and technology affects private demand and this may either spur or hamper innovation. The paper aims to unravel how these complex interdependencies and feedback mechanisms affect overall innovation that is induced by nanotechnologies and how this on its part affects further improvements of nanotechnologies
    Keywords: general purpose technologies,, controversial technologies,, determinants of innovation
    JEL: O33 Z13
    Date: 2008–10
  7. By: Pablo D'Este (SPRU, University of Sussex & School of Management, Cranfield University); Simona Iammarino (SPRU, University of Sussex); Maria Savona (SPRU, University of Sussex & Faculty of Economics & Social Sciences,University of Science & Technology Lille); Nick von Tunzelmann (SPRU, University of Sussex)
    Keywords: barriers to innovation, innovative firms, non-innovators
    JEL: O31 O32 O33
    Date: 2008–01–02
  8. By: Jeroen de Jong; Deanne Den Hartog
    Abstract: Although both scientists and practitioners emphasize the importance of innovative work behavior (IWB) of individual employees for organizational success, the measurement of employees' IWB is still in evolution. Here, we present two multi-source studies that aimed to develop and validate a measure of IWB. Four related dimensions of IWB are distinguished: opportunity exploration, idea generation, championing and application. We derived a tenitem measure of these IWB dimensions from a pilot survey among matched dyads of 81 professionals in a research institute and their supervisors. Next, a survey among a matching sample of 703 knowledge workers and their supervisors from 94 different firms was done. We used confirmatory factor analyses to examine convergent and discriminant validity, and hierarchical multilevel regression to test hypothesized relationships of IWB with participative leadership, external work contacts and innovative output (proposed as an initial nomological network). Results demonstrate strong convergent validity of the IWB measure as all four dimensions contribute to an overall measure of IWB. Support for discriminant validity is weaker as correlations between some dimensions are relatively high. Finally, IWB is positively related with participative leadership, external work contacts and innovative output, providing first evidence for nomological validity.
    Date: 2008–11–25
  9. By: Aldo Geuna (SPRU, University of Sussex & Department of Economics S. Cognetti de Martiis, University of Turin); Alessandro Muscio (GRIF, Università Luiss Guido Carli)
    Keywords: European Universities, Knowledge Transfer, Governance, Intellectual Property, Knowledge Transfer Organization
    JEL: I23 O3
    Date: 2008–01–09
  10. By: Jarno Hoekman (Urban & Regional research centre Utrecht (URU), Utrecht University - The Netherlands); Koen Frenken (Urban & Regional research centre Utrecht (URU), Utrecht University - The Netherlands); Frank van Oort (Netherlands Institute for Spatial Research (RPB)- The Netherlands)
    Abstract: The geography of innovation traditionally concentrates on localised knowledge spillovers, yet neglects collaboration networks as a means to access knowledge outside the region. Using publication and patent data for 1316 regions in the EU27 plus Norway and Switzerland, we find that both localised knowledge spillovers and the knowledge spillovers stemming from collaboration affect the innovative performance of regions. The results provide support for EU policies aimed at creating European collaboration networks.
    Keywords: Knowledge Production Function, Spillovers, Collaboration, Networks, European Research Area, Publication, Patent, Public Good
    JEL: C21 O30 O33 O52 R11
    Date: 2008–09

This nep-knm issue is ©2008 by Laura Stefanescu. 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.