nep-knm New Economics Papers
on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Economy
Issue of 2011‒04‒16
five papers chosen by
Laura Stefanescu
European Research Centre of Managerial Studies in Business Administration

  1. Innovation, Technology and Knowledge By Karlsson, Charlie; Johansson, Börje; Norman, Therese
  2. Measurement of consumers? wine?related knowledge By Georges Giraud; Cléo Tebby; Corinne Amblard
  3. Investments in Intangible Assets and Australia’s Productivity Growth — Sectoral Estimates By Barnes, Paula
  4. The effect of national culture on countries’ innovation efficiency By Halkos, George; Tzeremes, Nickolaos
  5. Community Enterprises - An Institutional Innovation By Bruno S. Frey; Roger Lüthi; Margit Osterloh

  1. By: Karlsson, Charlie (Jönköping International Business School); Johansson, Börje (CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, Royal Institute of Technology); Norman, Therese (CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, Royal Institute of Technology)
    Abstract: This paper outlines a set of fundamental changes in the global economy that have altered the nature of the innovation process, brought about global challenges, and stimulated cross border phenomena and network formation responses. These changes has brought about an increase of the demand for knowledge as well as changed the conditions for knowledge production and innovation. Against the background of a changing global economy, the purpose of the paper is to make an overview over the role and drivers of innovation, technology and knowledge. The role of absorptive capacity and knowledge flows between economic agents from different spatial units for economic growth is further emphasized. Furthermore, it is recognized in the paper that national innovative productivity depends upon the national innovation systems. Multinationals play an increasingly central role for the transfer of knowledge between different parts of the world. This paper thoroughly examines the way multinationals contribute to innovation, technology and knowledge dispersion. The distribution of knowledge investments is uneven across the globe and the occurrence of the “European paradox” highlights where Europe has failed in this context.
    Keywords: Innovation; technology; knowledge; globalisation; multinationals; European paradox
    JEL: O33
    Date: 2011–04–07
  2. By: Georges Giraud; Cléo Tebby; Corinne Amblard
    Keywords: Wine, Knowledge-based economy, Consumer clustering
    JEL: D1 M31
    Date: 2011–03–30
  3. By: Barnes, Paula (Productivity Commission)
    Abstract: This Productivity Commission staff working paper (by Paula Barnes) examines sectoral investment in intangible assets in Australia following on from a previous paper on an examination of intangibles assets in the market sector as a whole. It highlights some significant issues relating to the measurement of intangibles and their contribution to productivity, finding that estimates of intangibles at the aggregate level mask considerable sectoral differences. <p>In recent years increased attention has been given to the contribution to economic growth of intangible assets such as knowledge, firm-specific skills and better ways of doing business. But most intangibles are treated as current expenses in official statistics, rather than as assets — despite the fact that they provide services in more than one period. This makes it difficult to examine their role in the economy. It leads to an understatement of investment in the economy and may also affect measures of productivity growth. <p>This paper addresses two questions: does the importance of intangibles as part of total investment vary across sectors?; and does the exclusion of many intangibles from investment measurement affect the measures of sectoral economic growth and productivity? <p>The views expressed in this paper are those of the staff involved and do not necessarily reflect those of the Productivity Commission.
    Keywords: intangible assets; sectoral investment; productivity; assets; human capital; R&D; research and development; brand equity
    JEL: E24 O30 O40
    Date: 2010–07
  4. By: Halkos, George; Tzeremes, Nickolaos
    Abstract: This paper contributes to the link between social and cultural factors with countries innovation performance. By measuring 25 countries’ innovation efficiency with the use of conditional and unconditional DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis) frontiers the paper provides empirical evidence of the effect of culture on countries’ innovation efficiency. Particularly, conditional and unconditional full frontier models are used alongside with bootstrap techniques in order to determine the effect of national culture on countries’ innovation performance. The study illustrates how the recent developments in efficiency analysis and statistical inference can be applied when evaluating such issues. The results reveal that national culture has an impact on countries’ innovation efficiency. Analytically, the results indicate that higher PDI (power distance index), IDV (individualism) and UAI (uncertainty avoidance) values have a negative effect on countries innovation efficiency, whereas masculinity values appear to have a positive effect on countries innovation performance.
    Keywords: National culture; Innovation efficiency; Conditional efficiency; Bootstrap procedures
    JEL: C14 C02 C61 Z13 O14
    Date: 2011–04
  5. By: Bruno S. Frey; Roger Lüthi; Margit Osterloh
    Abstract: Management research has long focused on the theory of the firm, studying for-profit organizations that produce privately owned resources based on central authority and within well-defined boundaries. In recent times, a new kind of enterprise has emerged that we call Community Enterprises. They are barrier free and extend beyond the reach of strong, personal relationships and are characterized by the production of appropriation-free resources and the absence of boundaries. Wikipedia is the most successful example of such a Community Enterprise. Assumptions and principles underneath related fields such as organizational theory, innovation economics, and industrial organization should therefore be critically examined.
    Date: 2011–04

This nep-knm issue is ©2011 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.