nep-knm New Economics Papers
on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Economy
Issue of 2016‒07‒30
four papers chosen by
Laura Ştefănescu
Centrul European de Studii Manageriale în Administrarea Afacerilor

  1. Innovation policy instruments at firm level, Review of India fs policy with respect to R&D tax incentives and Intellectual Property Rights By Mani Sunil
  2. Using the Salop Circle to Study Scale Effects in Schumpeterian Growth Models: Why Inter-sectoral Knowledge Diffusion Matters By Gray, Elie; Grimaud, André
  3. Strategic Entrepreneurship and Knowledge Spillovers: Spatial and Aspatial Perspectives By Tavassoli, Sam; Bengtsson, Lars; Karlsson, Charlie
  4. Counterfactual Impact Evaluation of Public Funding of Innovation, Investment and R&D By Daniele Bondonio; Federico Biagi; Juraj StanÄ ík

  1. By: Mani Sunil (National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, Centre for Development Studies, and Centre for Development Studies, Trivandrum, Kerala, India)
    Abstract: Right through her independence, India has been trying to achieve economic growth with technological self-reliance. In order to achieve this goal, the country has been adopting a mix of industrial and innovation policies. During the period up to and including the early 1990s, the state attempted to give shape to this goal by intervening directly by generating a whole host of industrial technologies through state-owned undertakings and other public research institutes. During the period since the 1990s, coinciding with the economic liberalization policies the state has replaced this with incentivizing the innovation system of the country. This is because the state wants the private sector enterprises to be at the core of the innovation system. Key to incentivizing the private sector was two specific policies, namely the R&D tax policy and the policy on Intellectual Property Rights. The paper undertakes a critical review of the very recent changes to these two policy instruments.
    Date: 2016–07
  2. By: Gray, Elie; Grimaud, André
    Abstract: This paper analyzes the link between the fact that fully endogenous growth models exhibit (or not) the non-desirable scale effects property and assumptions regarding the intensity of knowledge diffusion. In that respect, we extend a standard Schumpeterian growth model by introducing explicitly knowledge diffusion over a Salop (1979) circle: a continuum of sectors simultaneously sending and receiving knowledge is located over the circle. The link between knowledge diffusion and scale effects stems from the fact that the more diffusion spreads with the size of the economy, the larger the pools of knowledge used by each sector’s R&D activity are, the higher the marginal productivity of labor in R&D is, and eventually the higher the growth rate is. The paper tackles the apparent following paradox. Knowledge diffusion seems to lead to scale effects; however, the former is empirically desirable while the latter is not. Our first basic result is that a sufficient condition to have a scale-invariant fully endogenous growth model is to assume no inter-sectoral knowledge diffusion. However, this assumption is not empirically reasonable. We overcome the aforementioned paradox by showing that the absence of diffusion is not a necessary condition to suppress scale effects. More precisely, we determine sets of reasonable assumptions on knowledge diffusion under which one can obtain fully endogenous growth models complying with most undeniable empirical facts - namely the absence of significant scale effects, the impact of public policies on the growth rate, and somehow realistic interactions among sectors R&D activities (including the occurrence of GPTs).
    Keywords: Schumpeterian growth theory / Scale effects / Inter-sectoral knowledge diffusion / Knowledge spillovers / Non rivalry
    JEL: O30 O31 O33 O40 O41
    Date: 2016–07
  3. By: Tavassoli, Sam (CIRCLE, Lund University); Bengtsson, Lars (LTH, Lund University); Karlsson, Charlie (CESIS, KTH)
    Abstract: The literature in the Strategic Entrepreneurship (SE) is increasingly embracing the concept and implications of knowledge spillovers. In this paper, we add to the theoretical repertoire on SE and knowledge spillovers by investigating the types of knowledge spillovers and what they imply for various dimensions of SE. On the one hand, we distinguish between spatial and aspatial knowledge spillovers. On the other hand, we distinguish between three dimensions of SE, i.e. inputs, resource orchestration, and output. Finally, we conceptually link the various types of knowledge spillovers and dimensions of SE and discuss the implications. Doing so, we argue that spatial knowledge spillovers (inter-firm) has received the major attention in previous research in increasing the amount of ‘inputs’ dimension of SE, while the aspatial knowledge (either inter-regional or intra-firm) has been relatively neglected not only for ‘inputs’, but also for ‘resource orchestration’ dimension. At the end, the paper provides suggestions for future research.
    Keywords: Strategic entrepreneurship; knowledge spillovers; spatial; aspatial
    JEL: D21 D80 L10 L26
    Date: 2016–07–06
  4. By: Daniele Bondonio (Universita'del Piemonte Orientale); Federico Biagi (European Commission - JRC); Juraj StanÄ ík (European Commission - JRC)
    Abstract: This report uses data from Efige and from Bureau Van Dijk’s Amadeus and Orbis to estimate the effect of funding from the EU and national programmes on firms’ employment, sales, added value, productivity and innovativeness. It also looks at the impact of subsidies to investment and R&D (irrespective of the source of funding) on the same variables. In the first part of the report we use only the Efige dataset (covering the years 2007- 2009) and we look at (contemporaneous) correlation between public support (from national and EU sources) and product and process innovation. Our results indicate that national and EU funding are equally important in stimulating product innovation. However, EU funding has a higher correlation with process innovation. We also find a positive correlation between public support to private R&D and product innovation (but no significant correlation between the former and process innovation). On the other hand, public support to private investment (including ICT capital) is positively associated with process innovation but not with product innovation. In the second part of the report we perform a proper counterfactual analysis, where we merge the Efige dataset with the Bureau Van Dijk’s Amadeus (years 2001-2012) and Orbis (2006-2012) databases. This allows us to test whether firms funded between years 2007 and 2009 have a significantly different economic performance (measured in terms of employment, sales, and value added) in the years 2009-2012, while controlling for firms characteristics measured prior to 2007 (i.e. in the pre-treatment period). Our results indicate that receiving public support from national funds generates positive increments in employment, sales and added value, compared to the counterfactual status of the absence of public intervention. We do not find evidence that EU funds have additional impacts on employment, sales or value added (relative to firms receiving only national funding or no funding). This result is most likely due to the small sample size of firms receiving EU funds, which does not allow us to precisely estimate the impact of EU funding alone or in conjunction with national funding. It is also likely to depend upon the features of EU funding, which is geared towards research that produces results over a longer time horizon than the one observable in our data. We also find that generic support to firm-level investment projects has positive impacts on employment and added value. However, no statistically significant impacts are estimated for subsidies which support R&D expenditures exclusively (possibly due to the nature of R&D support policies, which often require more time to yield noticeable impacts on general firm-level performance).
    Keywords: Counterfactual impact evaluation; public funding; innovation; Framework programme
    Date: 2016–07

This nep-knm issue is ©2016 by Laura Ştefănescu. 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.