nep-tid New Economics Papers
on Technology and Industrial Dynamics
Issue of 2009‒01‒31
seven papers chosen by
Rui Baptista
Technical University of Lisbon

  1. Competition, innovation and distance to frontier. By Bruno Amable; Lilas Demmou; Ivan Ledezma
  2. Out of Equilibrium Profit and Innovation By Cristiano Antonelli; Giuseppe Scellato
  3. R&D Investment, Exporting, and Productivity Dynamics By Bee Yan Aw; Mark J. Roberts; Daniel Yi Xu
  4. Property Rights and Invention By Katharine Rockett
  5. Research universities and regional high-tech firm start-ups and exit By De Silva, Dakshina G.; McComb, Robert P.
  6. Outlining the distinguishing characteristics of an evolutionary theory of innovation By Tommy Clausen
  7. The European Microsoft case at the crossroads of competition policy and innovation By Larouche, P.

  1. By: Bruno Amable (Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne); Lilas Demmou (Ministère des Fiances - DGTPE); Ivan Ledezma (Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne)
    Abstract: According to a recent literature, the positive effect of competition is supposed to be growing with the proximity to the technological frontier. Using a variety of indicators, the paper tests the effect of competition and regulation on innovative activity measured by patenting. The sample consists of a panel of 15 industries for 17 OECD countries over the period 1979-2003. Results show no evidence of a positive effect of competition growing with the proximity to the frontier. Two main configurations emerge. First, regulation has a positive effect whatever the distance to the frontier and the magnitude of its impact is higher the closer the industry is to the frontier. Second, the effect of regulation is negative far from the frontier and becomes positive (or non significant) when the technology gap decreases. These results contradict the belief in the innovation-boosting effect of product market deregulation such as taken into account in the Lisbon Strategy.
    Keywords: Innovation, competition, distance to frontier.
    JEL: O30 L16
    Date: 2008–07
  2. By: Cristiano Antonelli; Giuseppe Scellato
    Date: 2009–01–15
  3. By: Bee Yan Aw; Mark J. Roberts; Daniel Yi Xu
    Abstract: A positive correlation between productivity and export market participation has been well documented in producer micro data. Recent empirical studies and theoretical analyses have emphasized that this may reflect the producer's other investment activities, particularly investments in R&D or new technology, that both raise productivity and increase the payoff to exporting. In this paper we develop a dynamic structural model of a producer's decision to invest in R&D and participate in the export market. The investment decisions depend on the expected future profitability and the fixed and sunk costs incurred with each activity. We estimate the model using plant-level data from the Taiwanese electronics industry and find a complex set of interactions between R&D, exporting, and productivity. The self- selection of high productivity plants is the dominant channel driving participation in the export market and R&D investment. Both R&D and exporting have a positive direct effect on the plant's future productivity which reinforces the selection effect. When modeled as discrete decisions, the productivity effect of R&D is larger, but, because of its higher cost, is undertaken by fewer plants than exporting. The impact of each activity on the net returns to the other are quantitatively unimportant. In model simulations, the endogenous choice of R&D and exporting generates average productivity that is 22.0 percent higher after 10 years than an environment where productivity evolution is not affected by plant investments.
    JEL: F14 O31 O33
    Date: 2009–01
  4. By: Katharine Rockett
    Abstract: We survey the economics literature on optimal patent design. We first outline the patent right and the basic economic effects of the patent on innovation. Models that use frictions instead of patents to generate rewards to innovation and models of trade secrecy are considered briefly. The patent design papers are divided into those that model a single innovation, those dealing with cumulative innovation, and more recent papers focussing on complementary innovations. Disclosure issues are presented in a separate section. Finally, enforcement of patents and the interactions between patents and competition policy are considered.
    Date: 2009–01–21
  5. By: De Silva, Dakshina G.; McComb, Robert P.
    Abstract: If localized knowledge spillovers are present in the university setting, higher rates of both start-ups and/or survival than in the broader economy would be observed in areas that are geographically proximate to the university. Using a fully-disclosed Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages for Texas for the years 1999:3-2006:2, this paper analyzes start-ups and exit rates for high-tech firms in Texas. We find that there is evidence that the presence of a research institution will affect the likelihood of technology start-ups. However, results suggest that geographic proximity to knowledge centers does not reduce hazard rates.
    Keywords: Entry and Survival; R & D; Regional; Urban; and Rural Analyses.
    JEL: R53 O18 R12
    Date: 2009–01–26
  6. By: Tommy Clausen (Nordland Research Institute, Bodø)
    Abstract: This paper discusses notions of theory in relation to evolutionary understandings of innovation. It starts by empirically demonstrating the relevance of evolutionary perspectives – broadly defined – for understanding the “basics of what’s going on” in the economic sphere when it comes to innovation. It continues to argue and show that appreciative evolutionary understandings of innovation are connected to the Darwinian processes of variation, selection and retention in the theoretical “high range”. Multilevel theorizing, where researchers move between different levels and degrees of abstraction is therefore a key feature of an evolutionary theory of innovation. The paper ends by identifying puzzles and research challenges that evolutionary reasoning with respect to innovation need to address.
    Keywords: Innovation, evolutionary theory.
    Date: 2009–01
  7. By: Larouche, P. (Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economics Center)
    Date: 2008

This nep-tid issue is ©2009 by Rui Baptista. 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.