|
on Technology and Industrial Dynamics |
| By: | Jacques Mairesse; Pierre Mohnen |
| Abstract: | After presenting the history, the evolution and the content of innovation surveys, we discuss the characteristics of the data they contain and the challenge they pose to the analyst and the econometrician. We document the two uses that have been made of these data: the construction of scoreboards for monitoring innovation and the scholarly analysis of various issue related to innovation. In particular we review the questions examined and the results obtained regarding the determinants, the effects, the complementarities, and the dynamics of innovation. We conclude by suggesting ways to improve the data collection and their econometric analysis. |
| JEL: | C35 C81 O30 O50 |
| Date: | 2010–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:15857&r=tid |
| By: | Erzo G.J. Luttmer |
| Abstract: | The Pareto-like tail of the size distribution of firms can arise from random growth of productivity or stochastic accumulation of capital. If the shocks that give rise to firm growth are perfectly correlated within a firm, then the growth rates of small and large firms are equally volatile, contrary to what is found in the data. If firm growth is the result of many independent shocks within a firm, it can take hundreds of years for a few large firms to emerge. This paper describes an economy with both types of shocks that can account for the thick-tailed firm size distribution, high entry and exit rates, and the relatively young age of large firms. The economy is one in which aggregate growth is driven by the creation of new products by both new and incumbent firms. Some new firms have better ideas than others and choose to implement those ideas at a more rapid pace. Eventually, such firms slow down when the quality of their ideas reverts to the mean. As in the data, average growth rates in a cross section of firms will appear to be independent of firm size, for all but the smallest firms. |
| Date: | 2010 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:fip:fedmsr:440&r=tid |
| By: | Michael Schwartz; Francois Peglow; Michael Fritsch; Jutta Günther |
| Abstract: | Systemic innovation theory emphasizes that innovations are the result of an interdependent exchange process between different organizations. This is reflected in the current paradigm in European innovation policy, which aims at the support of collaborative R&D and innovation projects bringing together science and industry. Building on a large data set using project-level evidence on 406 subsidized R&D cooperation projects, the present paper provides detailed insights on the relationship between the innovative success of R&D cooperation projects and project characteristics. Patent applications and publications are used as measures for direct outcomes of R&D projects. We also differentiate between academic-industry projects and pure inter-firm projects. Main results of negative binomial regressions are that large-firm involvement is positively related to pa-tent applications, but not to publications. Conversely, university involvement has positive effects on project outcomes in terms of publications but not in terms of patent applications. In general, projects’ funding is an important predictor of innovative success of R&D cooperation projects. No significant results are found for spatial proximity among cooperation partners and for the engagement of an applied research institute. Results are discussed with respect to the design of R&D cooperation support schemes. |
| Keywords: | R&D Cooperation; Innovation; Academic-Industry-Linkages; Innovation Policy |
| JEL: | O31 O32 O38 |
| Date: | 2010–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:iwh:dispap:7-10&r=tid |
| By: | Bruno van Pottelsberghe |
| Abstract: | In this Policy Brief, Bruegel Senior Fellow Bruno van Pottelsberghe makes the argument in favour of a single EU patent system. The author explains that the absence of a one-stop-shop for EU-wide patents hampers innovation and will pose serious challenges to small and medium-sized companies in the face of global competition. This paper analyses how a uniform patent system can sustain long-term competitiveness and boost growth and thereby achieve EU2020 targets. It makes policy recommendations in four key areas of a single patent system - language, complexity, affordability and governance. |
| Date: | 2010–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:bre:polbrf:413&r=tid |