Weaker jobs,weaker innovation. Exploring the effects of temporary employment on new products

This work explores the relationship between temporary employment and product innovation focusing on five major European economies (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands) observed between 1998 and 2012. The analysis distinguishes sectors according to their technological characteristics and regimes finding that industries using temporary employment tend to have a weaker product innovation propensity. The negative correlation between temporary employment and innovation turns out to be stronger in those sectors where tacit firm’s specific knowledge is crucial to the development of innovations. These sectors are identified using both the ‘Cumulativeness’ proxy stemming from Peneder’s classification as well as distinguishing between different Schumpeterian regimes – Schumpeter Mark I vs. II – of knowledge accumulation.     

Schumpeterian patterns of innovation and the sources of breakthrough inventions: evidence from a data-set of R&D awards

This paper examines the relationship between Schumpeterian patterns of innovation and the generation of breakthrough inventions. Our data source for breakthrough inventions is the “R&D 100 awards” competition organized each year by the magazine Research & Development. Since 1963, this magazine has been awarding this prize to 100 most technologically significant new products available for sale or licensing in the year preceding the judgment. We use USPTO patent data to measure the relevant dimensions of the technological regime prevailing in each sector and, on this basis, we provide a characterization of each sector in terms of the Schumpeter Mark I/Schumpeter Mark II archetypes. Our main finding is that breakthrough inventions are more likely to emerge in ‘turbulent’ Schumpeter Mark I type of contexts.     

The evolution of corporate entrepreneurship in Swedish industry—was Schumpeter wrong?

This paper analyzes the evolution and role of corporate entrepreneurship in Swedish industry, particularly for the 1945–1980 period, based on data on the 100 economically most important innovations during this period. Privately owned large corporations (Schumpeter Mark II) dominated in launching innovations in almost all industrial sectors and in all subperiods but decreasingly so. 20% of the innovations were launched by new firms (Schumpeter Mark I) but most of these new firms were spun-off and/or acquired by large corporations. State entrepreneurship was marginal. Universities played an important role, although sector-specific. New firms and existing firms had similar growth rates and almost identical and short gestation times to international markets for their innovations. 80% of the corporate innovations were product renewals rather than product diversifications or process innovations. No evidence of an evolution from autonomous over corporate to state entrepreneurship, as hypothesized by Schumpeter, was found. Evolution of a dynamic coexistence of. these forms of entrepreneurship is hypothesized in this paper. The paper finally presents a model, synthesizing Schumpeter Mark I and II, for analyzing technological change and entrepreneurship.     

Schumpeter’s core works revisited

This paper organizes Schumpeter’s core books in three groups: the programmatic duology, the evolutionary economic duology, and the socioeconomic synthesis. By analysing these groups and their interconnections from the viewpoint of modern evolutionary economics, the paper summarises resolved problems and points at remaining challenges. Its analyses are based on distinctions between microevolution and macroevolution, between economic evolution and socioeconomic coevolution, and between Schumpeter’s three major evolutionary models (called Mark?I, Mark?II and Mark?SC).     

Industry innovativeness,firm size,and entrepreneurship: Schumpeter Mark III?

Emphasizing the dynamics in economies and industries, Schumpeter points to entrepreneurs carrying out ‘new combinations’. His work, and in particular the Theory of Economic Development, is often interpreted as praising individual entrepreneurs setting up new firms to contribute to an industry’s innovativeness. This has come to be referred to as the Schumpeter Mark I perspective. Later, however, in his Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Schumpeter has rather suggested that large incumbents are best positioned to contribute to an industry’s innovativeness (Schumpeter Mark II). In this discussion, however, the possibly different effects of structural as opposed to dynamic industry competitiveness is often not taken into account. In addition, the contribution of new and small firms to industry innovativeness are often conflated. Using New Product Announcements as a measure of innovation, we find that industries dominated by small firms prove consistently and significantly more innovative than industries where large firms dominate. Taking account of industries’ structural and dynamic levels of competition, we find that high existing and increasing levels of new firms entering an industry, exercising what Schumpeter called the ‘entrepreneurial function’, actually decrease industry innovativeness. We conclude that the contribution of small firms in terms of industry innovativeness is different from that of large as well as new firms, suggesting a Schumpeter Mark III perspective.     

基于层次分析法的河南科技创新人才创新能力评价研究

科技创新人才作为竞争和科技发展的核心要素,是国家和地区发展的第一战略资源,而科技创新人才的创新能力是影响科技人才作用发挥的根本因素。系统阐述了河南省科技创新人才创新能力的现状,并对比分析了郑州市和其它14个副省级城市在科技人才创新能力方面存在的不足,根据层次分析法,构建了河南省科技创新人才创新能力评价模型。     

Patterns of innovation and intra-industry heterogeneity in Turkey

This study investigates the patterns of innovation in Turkey and its primary aim is to examine the intra-industry heterogeneity in innovative activities. For this purpose double-level factor analysis is performed and the resulting factor scores are used in the subsequent cluster analyses. Four distinct innovation patterns, which may be interpreted as ingredients of different technological regimes, are identified. A taxonomy of innovative firms is also constructed by grouping firms according to their innovation characteristics and, to the authors’ knowledge, this is the first empirical classification study in Turkey. These results indicate that industries differ in terms of innovative activities. However, industries are not dominated by a single technological regime. On the contrary, five technological regimes were observed in almost all sectors. Building upon these facts, it can be speculated that sector-specific conditions determine the extent of intra-industry heterogeneity.     

Measuring the persistence in innovation in Spanish manufacturing firms: empirical evidence using discrete-time duration models

This paper measures the level of persistence in innovation using a large representative sample of Spanish manufacturing firms for the period 1990–2008. We determine survival in innovation activities using discrete-time duration models, which control for some of the existing problems in the continuous-time duration models used in previous studies (namely, unobserved heterogeneity and the proportional hazards assumption). This paper examines the relationship between the firm-specific characteristics of technological regimes and the persistence measured by innovative spells at the firm level. The results show that high technological opportunities, patents, cumulativeness of learning based on previous experience and accumulated R&D, as well as the use of generic knowledge provided by universities enhance persistence in innovative activity.     

Schumpeterian growth,chaos, and the formation of dissipative structures

This paper reformulates several basic ideas introduced by Joseph Schumpeter to examine the correlation between productivity growth and technological change in order to explore why American productivity growth has been sluggish for the past two decades. Convetional growth theory maintains that a primary cause of low productivity growth is inadequate capital formation, which in turn is caused by low private domestic saving. This paper borrows concepts from cybernetics, formal information theory, and chaotic dynamic systems to describe the Schumpeterian process through which innovative “new combinations” of capital goods generate wealth, productivity increases, and income growth, and which in turn cause increased savings. It describes the process through which such fundamental technological changes are diffused by entrepreneurs throughout the economy, and concludes that the fundamental causes of America's relatively weak productivity growth are to be found in policies or practices that inhibit innovation and entrepreneurship.     

Emil Lederer and Joseph Schumpeter on Economic Growth,Technology and Business Cycles

This paper compares Joseph Schumpeter and Emil Lederer with respect to their visions concerning the notions of economic growth, technology and business cycles. Their theoretical investigations in a number of thematic areas seem to converge to similar views. More precisely, both Schumpeter and Lederer regard the capitalist economy as a dynamic system where the introduction of innovations is its distinctive characteristic. In such a system, static analysis based on the concept of equilibrium is useful as an expository device to describe the adjustment mechanisms of the economic system. They also paid attention to the emergence of large oligopolistic firms and considered this development as being interwoven with technological progress. Both economists used similar arguments to emphasize the link between economic development and technological change. In their analyses, Schumpeter and Lederer referred to psychological factors motivating the entrepreneur, in order to explain the forces that set in motion the process of innovation and thus economic development. The concept of technological unemployment is also described in a similar manner by both of them. Regarding the issue of business cycles, Schumpeter and Lederer considered them to be a result of endogenous processes within a capitalist economy. Lederer in his late works, argued in a way analogous to Schumpeter, that economic fluctuations are caused from the disruptions created by innovations, which are introduced discontinuously into the economic system. Conclusively, Schumpeter and Lederer delivered theses which are similar in scope and conclusions probably because they were developed in the same social, political, theoretical and ideological environment and were also well acquainted with each other’s ideas.     

Emil Lederer and Joseph Schumpeter on Economic Growth,Technology and Business Cycles

This paper compares Joseph Schumpeter and Emil Lederer with respect to their visions concerning the notions of economic growth, technology and business cycles. Their theoretical investigations in a number of thematic areas seem to converge to similar views. More precisely, both Schumpeter and Lederer regard the capitalist economy as a dynamic system where the introduction of innovations is its distinctive characteristic. In such a system, static analysis based on the concept of equilibrium is useful as an expository device to describe the adjustment mechanisms of the economic system. They also paid attention to the emergence of large oligopolistic firms and considered this development as being interwoven with technological progress. Both economists used similar arguments to emphasize the link between economic development and technological change. In their analyses, Schumpeter and Lederer referred to psychological factors motivating the entrepreneur, in order to explain the forces that set in motion the process of innovation and thus economic development. The concept of technological unemployment is also described in a similar manner by both of them. Regarding the issue of business cycles, Schumpeter and Lederer considered them to be a result of endogenous processes within a capitalist economy. Lederer in his late works, argued in a way analogous to Schumpeter, that economic fluctuations are caused from the disruptions created by innovations, which are introduced discontinuously into the economic system. Conclusively, Schumpeter and Lederer delivered theses which are similar in scope and conclusions probably because they were developed in the same social, political, theoretical and ideological environment and were also well acquainted with each other’s ideas.     

Determinants of persistence in innovation: evidence from the case study of the ‘Eye Microsurgery’ Complex

This study aims at determining the major factors supporting innovative persistence based on an in-depth analysis of the internal organizational processes of the state-owned medical institution, ‘Eye Microsurgery’ Complex in Moscow. I propose a systemic approach to the study of innovation activities, which incorporates aspects of evolutionary economics, institutional analysis and dynamic capabilities theory. The study explicitly incorporates the changing external environment as a factor shaping innovation dynamics. The findings suggest that at the earliest stage of the firm's development, the interaction between the nature of the technology and the nature of the demand, the presence of prolific innovators and a certain organizational structure that supports learning, effective knowledge production and accumulation are determinant of persistence in innovation. In later periods, the availability of resources (material, financial, specialized human capital), external collaborations, specific production techniques, well-organized technological diffusion, and motivational factors are the elements providing the basis for innovative persistence. Leadership plays a crucial role in supporting innovation and organizational transformation.     

A tale of two countries: Directed technical change,trade and migratory movements

We propose a North-South model that reconciles trade and production strategies, flows of innovators and the path of economic divergence, or convergence, between countries. We explain the mechanisms behind these forces and show how the technological and economic gaps can be reversed if southern countries stop imitating northern goods and, instead, produce complementary goods. Such a strategy of complementarity on production yields the necessary incentives to innovators to engage in research in southern countries, which enhances the catching-up process between countries. It is also shown that migratory movements of unskilled labor between countries are also relevant to understand the dangers and benefits of different trade strategies for economic growth. This paper suggests a positive (negative) correlation between technological innovation in the North (South) and the level of substitutability in production, while under complementarity, technological innovation catches up in the South, therefore fostering the economic catching up process. A positive correlation between inflows of skilled and unskilled labor and substitutability of production between countries is also verified.     

Competition,Rivalry And Innovative Behaviour ∗

This paper is an empirical study of the importance of competition and rivalry in explaining innovative behaviour by software firms. The paper distinguishes between two notions of competition. One in which rivalry occurs due the possession of greater market power, and the other in which rivalry occurs due to diffennces in the abilities of firms. In addition the paper also decomposes changes in the extent of innovation due to the activities of firms that are innovators and due to changes in the probability of innovating. Competition always influences the extent of innovation by changing the propensity of firms to innovate.     

国家创新型县（市）创新效率测度变化及影响因素研究

建设国家创新型县（市）是我国全面实施创新驱动发展战略、推动县域经济创新发展的重要举措。选取全国50个首批国家创新型县（市）作为研究对象,运用DEA模型和Malmquist指数法,对2017-2019年创新型县（市）的科技创新效率进行静态与动态分析,并利用Tobit回归模型分析创新效率影响因素。研究结果显示：2017-2019年我国县域科技创新效率整体表现较好,从各项指标看,创新型县（市）的综合技术效率、纯技术效率、规模效率和全要素生产率不断提升,说明3年来国家创新型县（市）科技创新态势持续向好;创新平台、创新主体、教育经费、创新政策均与县域科技创新水平呈显著正相关性,但经济发展水平对创新型县（市）科技创新效率的影响不大。     

Environmental Policy and the International Diffusion of Cleaner Energy Technologies

Technology transfer is an important channel of technological change and sustainable development for countries with less innovative ability than technological leaders. This paper studies whether domestic environmental policies affect the inward technology transfer of cleaner innovation from abroad. We focus specifically on the power sector, for its important role in the decarbonization process, by looking at zero-carbon (renewable) and carbon-saving (efficient fossil) technologies for energy production. Using data on cross-country patent applications, we provide evidence that environmental policy contributes to attracting foreign cleaner technology options to OECD markets but not to non-OECD markets. We show that this is due to the nature of the implemented policy instruments. Market-based approaches positively impact technology transfer to both OECD and non-OECD economies, while non-market based approaches have at best only a weak effect in OECD countries. Domestic environmental policies may provide too weak a signal for foreign innovators in countries off the technological frontier. This calls for a strengthening of policy incentives for technology transfer in light of pressing climate change objectives.     

Financing of innovation: national development banks in newly industrialized countries of East Asia

Abstract

Contemporary literature on innovation tends to overlook the issue of financing, whereas financial history suggests that banks have been essential to financing of new industries. Emerging literature ondevelopment banking, although inspiring, remains focused on financing policies. The article aims to rearticulate a coevolutionary nature of industrial and financial interests, following the works of Schumpeter and Minsky, by looking at the 4 cases of national development banks, tasked with long-term financing of industries, from newly industrialized countries of East Asia—South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Malaysia. The study suggests that innovation in finance, as well as organizational innovation in financial institutions, represent essential elements of financing of innovative activities. Further, organizational innovation in financial institutions, such as development banks, might signify a disposition to face uncertainty, which characterizes economic and technological unknowns inherent in financing of innovation.     

创新、企业家活动配置与长期经济增长

本文继承并扩展了熊彼特关于企业家精神的思想,把企业家活动的配置引入内生技术创新模式。在本文中,企业家活动的配置决定了一个经济的R&D投入水平,技术水平和经济增长率。不同经济活动的报酬结构决定了企业家活动的配置,而且报酬结构是内生的,并且存在历史依赖性。本文的突破包括两个方面:一是把企业家活动的配置引入宏观的分析中,考察了企业家活动的配置对宏观总量的影响;二是把企业家活动的配置对经济活动影响的一般性分析引入创新活动分析中,考察了企业家活动的配置、相对报酬结构与技术创新水平之间的动态关系。本文的政策含义是,要提高经济中R&D投入水平,进而提高技术创新水平以及经济增长率,就必须通过政治、经济、法律和文化制度创新,营造激励创新的报酬结构,促使企业家更多地从事生产性的创新活动,经济才能打破低水平均衡陷阱,趋向较发达的均衡。本文对我国实施自主创新的国家战略具有重要的政策含义。     

Technological regimes and demand structure in the evolution of the pharmaceutical industry

This paper examines how the nature of the technological regime governing innovative activities and the structure of demand interact in determining market structure, with specific reference to the pharmaceutical industry. The key question concerns the observation that—despite high degrees of R&D and marketing-intensity—concentration has been consistently low during the whole evolution of the industry. Standard explanations of this phenomenon refer to the random nature of the innovative process, the patterns of imitation, and the fragmented nature of the market into multiple, independent submarkets. We delve deeper into this issue by using an improved version of our previous “history-friendly” model of the evolution of pharmaceuticals. Thus, we explore the way in which changes in the technological regime and/or in the structure of demand may generate or not substantially higher degrees of concentration. The main results are that, while technological regimes remain fundamental determinants of the patterns of innovation, the demand structure plays a crucial role in preventing the emergence of concentration through a partially endogenous process of discovery of new submarkets. However, it is not simply market fragmentation as such that produces this result, but rather the entity of the “prize” that innovators can gain relative to the overall size of the market. Further, the model shows that emerging industry leaders are innovative early entrants in large submarkets.     

新创企业创新逻辑、创新行为与创新绩效：任务与制度环境视角

建构了新创企业创新逻辑与创新绩效以创新环境为调节机制的理论框架,该模型从创新行为入手阐释创新逻辑与绩效之间的关系：制度逻辑体现新创企业提高合法性的诉求,技术逻辑体现新创企业提高技术竞争力的诉求,社会关系行为和技术创新行为能帮助企业增强合法性与技术竞争力。此外,当创新环境呈现出不同特征时,创新逻辑与创新行为对创新绩效的影响作用有所差别。该模型可以解释并预测新创企业面对不同环境时的不同回应及效果,也说明新创企业需要基于一定的逻辑调整自身行为以匹配动态环境,并进一步开展创新活动。