nach oben

Erschienen in:

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

4. An Innovation Policy Framework: Bridging the Gap Between Industrial Dynamics and Growth

verfasst von : Pontus Braunerhjelm, Magnus Henrekson

Erschienen in: Essays in Public Sector Entrepreneurship

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Innovation is increasingly considered the key to elevating prosperity and securing sustainable long-term growth. The few last decades have also witnessed a refinement of previous growth models to include investments in education by individuals and R&D by firms. Better educated individuals and increased expenditure on R&D are shown to result in increased innovation and accelerated growth in endogenous growth models. This finding has spurred policy makers, most recently the OECD, the EU commission, and other organizations, to design innovation strategies to meet future growth and welfare challenges. Such strategies have also trickled down to the country level.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Publicly Funded Principal Investigators as Transformative Agents of Public Sector Entrepreneurship

Nächstes Kapitel Radical and Incremental Innovation and the Role of University Scientist

Lerner (2009, p. 12).

As shown by Almeida and Kogut (1997) and Almeida (1999), small firms also innovate in relatively unexplored fields of technology. See also Rothwell and Zegveld (1982), Baumol (2004), and Ortega-Argilés et al. (2009).

Ample evidence from previous research also suggests that small and new firms provide most of the new jobs and terminate fewer employees than large firms in downturns and that a positive correlation exists between entrepreneurship/small firms and growth (e.g., Braunerhjelm et al. 2010; Thurik and Tessensohn 2012; Haltiwanger et al. 2013).

For a detailed account of the weaknesses in the theory building of endogenous growth models, see Braunerhjelm (2011). See also Antonelli (2007) on the “economics of complexity.”

The neo-Schumpeterian models define entrepreneurs either in a very rudimentary way or in a way in which they have a highly specific role, e.g., discovering the next pharmaceutical blockbuster (Aghion and Howitt 1992; Segerstrom 1991; Grossman and Helpman 1991).

See Aghion et al. (2013) for a survey.

See Orsenigo (2009) for a survey.

The seminal studies are Freeman (1987) and Lundvall (1992). The concept originates in List’s (1841) “national production systems.”

In his survey of the extensive research on SI, Carlsson (2007) shows that the overwhelming majority of studies address invention rather than innovation, and no more than 2–3 % of the studies surveyed discuss entrepreneurship. Less than 3 % of the SI studies address output criteria such as the effect on productivity, rate of growth, rate of innovation, and patenting.

See Gault (2013), Hall (2011), and OECD (2010) for reviews of the literature. Hall’s preferred measure of innovation is TFP growth.

Hung and Whittington (2011) are a partial exception, although their point is somewhat different. Hung and Whittington indicate that SI can become self-reproducing “systems of inertia,” which can sometimes be escaped through institutional entrepreneurship.

See Henrekson and Sanandaji (2014) and the references in Sanandaji (2011).

Recent research has documented that worker knowledge in the STEM fields is particularly important for economic growth. This result also holds for workers without a college degree. See Rothwell (2013) for an overview.

The evidence suggests that, in most cases, it is not advisable for faculty to become entrepreneurs. There are few cases where faculty have transitioned to an entrepreneurial career with great success (Åstebro et al. 2013). Instead, it is often preferable for former students to start firms and for faculty members to assume advisory positions in these firms.

The introduction of new ideas to and the (possible) subsequent development of the original innovations in large-scale businesses generally require two separate competencies (Baumol 2004).

To our knowledge, the idea concerning the importance of complementary competencies to generate growth was first recognized by Gunnar Eliasson (e.g., Eliasson 1996). Henrekson and Johansson (2009) explicitly use this framework to analyze the effects of a wide array of policies on high-growth firms (HGFs).

Three-fourths of all American entrepreneurs receiving VC funding ultimately get a zero rate of return (Hall and Woodward 2010).

Much has been written about the challenges and vagaries facing entrepreneurial firms and the high risks involved. See Gompers and Lerner (2001) for an easily accessible text.

For an in-depth analysis of the effects of incomplete contracts, see Bolton and Dewatripont (2005, Ch. 11).

Debt financing is problematic in this case, since firms have neither assets that can be used as collateral nor a positive cash flow. Asymmetric information and the tendency among entrepreneurs to overestimate the future prospects of their start-ups also contribute to the difficulties of obtaining bank financing.

See Lerner (2009) and Sandström et al. (2014) for a survey of the literature.

Research on the welfare effects of regulations or institutions originated in Pigou’s (1938) work on “public interest theory.” The basic idea is that unregulated markets will give rise to market failures that require the imposition of regulations. Subsequent research has questioned these insights (Coase 1960). In particular, public choice theory has emphasized the negative effects of vested interests, rent seeking, and regulatory capture (Tullock 1969; Stigler 1971; Peltzman 1976).

See Rodrik et al. (2004) and Levine (2005).

This section draws on Henrekson and Rosenberg (2001, section 1).

For an example, see Jacobsson et al. (2001) who document the slow response of the Swedish university system to the sharp increase in demand for training in electrical/electronic engineering and computer science in the 1970s and 1980s.

See, e.g., the discussion in OECD (1998).

See, e.g., Long (1982) and Pestieau and Possen (1991) for a discussion of tax evasion and choice of occupation. Robson and Wren (1999) conclude that the average tax rate affects evasion behavior.

A Swedish study estimates that the self-employed underreport their income by 30 % (Engström and Holmlund 2009).

A recent discussion of this effect is provided by Cullen and Gordon (2007). In practice, no tax system has full loss offset.

Certain assets are exempted from taxation in many countries, such as corporate wealth or pension savings, and the imputed value used as the basis for assessments is often based on arbitrary accounting rules. These rules may encourage (such as the corporate wealth exemption) or discourage (such as the pension savings exemption) investments in entrepreneurial activities. See Rosen (2005) for an overview.

These types of highly complicated estimates have been made for many countries using the methodology developed by King and Fullerton (1984).

Jorgenson and Landau (1993).

Rydqvist et al. (2014).

Henrekson and Johansson (2009).

See also Djankov et al. (2002), Desai et al. (2003), and Shleifer et al. (2008).

One exception is Cassiman et al. (2011) who show that participation in joint ventures is more conducive to innovation than labor mobility.

See Evans and Leighton (1989), Geroski (1989), Blundell et al. (1999), Nickell (1996), Hurst and Lusardi (2004), Djankov et al. (2007), Fiori et al. (2007), Gentry and Hubbard (2000), Nicoletti and Scarpetta (2003), Arnold et al. (2008), Ciccone and Papaioannou (2006), and Ardagna and Lusardi (2010).

These effects are quantified by Ardagna and Lusardi (2009). For example, the positive network effects are reduced by more than two-thirds.

See, e.g., Zucker et al. (1998) and Andersson et al. (2004).

See, e.g., Fujita et al. (1999) and Henderson and Thisse (2004).

See, e.g., Martin and Ottaviano (2001) and Agrawal et al. (2008).

Cited from www.whitehouse.gov/issues/economy/innovation (accessed November 1, 2014).

Cited from http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm?pg=why (accessed November 1, 2014).

See Henrekson and Sanandaji (2016).

Acemoglu, D., & Johnson, S. (2012). Why nations fail. New York: Oxford University Press.

Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Braunerhjelm, P., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15–30.CrossRef

Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014a). National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476–494.CrossRef

Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014b). Global entrepreneurship and development index 2014. Washington, DC: Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute.

Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60(2), 323–351.CrossRef

Aghion, P., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., Howitt, P., & Prantl, S. (2006). The effects of entry on incumbent innovation and productivity. Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(1), 20–32.

Aghion, P., & Griffith, R. (2005). Competition and growth: Reconciling theory and evidence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Aghion, P., Akcigit, U., & Howitt, P. (2013). What do we learn from Schumpeterian growth theory? (CESIS Working Paper No. 298). Stockholm: CESIS—Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH).

Agrawal, A., Kapur, D., & McHail, J. (2008). How do spatial and social proximity influence knowledge flows? Evidence from patent data. Journal of Urban Economics, 64(2), 258–269.CrossRef

Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. (1997). The exploration of technological diversity and the geographic localization of innovation. Small Business Economics, 9(1), 21–31.

Almeida, P. (1999). Small firms and economic growth. In Z. J. Acs, B. Carlsson, & A. R. Thurik (Eds.), Small business in the modern economy. Oxford: Blackwell.

Andersen, T. M., & Svarer, M. (2007). Flexicurity: Labour market performance in Denmark. CESifo Economic Studies, 53(3), 389–429.CrossRef

Andersson, M., Braunerhjelm, P., & Thulin, P. (2012). Entrepreneurs, creative destruction and production: Entry by type, sector and sequence. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 1(2), 125–146.

Andersson, M., & Thulin, P. (2008). Globalisering, arbetskraftens rörlighet och produktivitet (Research report 23, Globalization Council). Stockholm: Ministry of Education.

Andersson, R., Quigley, J., & Wilhelmsson, M. (2004). University decentralization as regional policy: The Swedish experiment. Journal of Economic Geography, 4(4), 371–388.CrossRef

Antonelli, C. (2007). The path dependent complexity of localized technological change: Ingredients, governance and processes. London: Routledge.

Ardagna, S., & Lusardi, A. (2009). Heterogeneity in the effect of regulation on entrepreneurship and entry size (NBER Working Paper No. 15510). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

Ardagna, S., & Lusardi, A. (2010). Explaining international differences in entrepreneurship: The role of individual characteristics and regulatory constraints. In J. Lerner & A. Schoar (Eds.), International differences in entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Arnold, J., Nicoletti, G., & Scarpetta, S. (2011). Regulation, resource reallocation and productivity growth. In H. Strauss (Ed.), Productivity and growth in Europe: Long-term trends, current challenges and the role of economic dynamism (EIB Papers, Vol. 11(1), pp. 90–115). Luxemburg: European Investment Bank.

Arnold, J., Nicoletti, G., & Scarpetta, S. (2008). Regulation, allocative efficiency and productivity in OECD countries: Industry and firm-level evidence (OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 616). Paris: OECD.

Åstebro, T., Braunerhjelm, P., & Broström, A. (2013). Does academic entrepreneurship pay? Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(1), 281–311.CrossRef

Autor, D. H., Kerr, W. R., & Kugler, A. D. (2007). Do employment protections reduce productivity? Evidence from U.S. states (NBER Working Paper No. 12860). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

Bain, J. (1956). Barriers to new competition, their character and consequences in manufacturing industries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRef

Barro, R. J. (1999). Human capital and growth in cross-country regressions. Swedish Economic Policy Review, 6(2), 237–277.

Bartelsman, E., Haltiwanger, J., & Scarpetta, S. (2004). Microeconomic evidence of creative destruction in industrial and developing countries. World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper No. 3464.

Bassanini, A., Nunziata, L., & Venn, D. (2009). Job protection legislation and productivity growth in OECD countries. Economic Policy, 24(58), 349–402.

Baumol, W. J. (2002). The free-market innovation machine. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRef

Baumol, W. J. (2004). Entrepreneurial enterprises, large established firms and other components of the free-market growth machine. Small Business Economics, 23(1), 9–23.CrossRef

Baumol, W. J. (2010). The microtheory of innovative entrepreneurship. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Béchard, J.-P., & Grégoire, D. (2005). Entrepreneurship education research revisited: The case of higher education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(1), 22–43.CrossRef

Berry, S., & Pakes, A. (2003). Empirical models of entry and market structure. In R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (Eds.), Handbook of industrial organization. Amsterdam: North Holland.

Bessen, J., & Maskin, E. (2009). Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation. RAND Journal of Economics, 40(4), 611–635.CrossRef

Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Van Reenen, J. (1999). Market share, market value and innovation in a panel of British manufacturing firms. Review of Economic Studies, 66(3), 529–544.CrossRef

Bolton, P., & Dewatripont, M. (2005). Contract theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bosma, N. S., & Harding, R. (2007). Global entrepreneurship monitor: GEM 2006 summary results. Babson Park, MA: Babson College.

Bosma, N. S., & Levie, J. (Eds.). (2010). Global entrepreneurship monitor 2009 executive report. Babson Park, MA: Babson College.

Braunerhjelm, P. (Ed.). (2010). En innovationsstrategi för Sverige. Swedish Economic Forum Report 2010. Stockholm: Entreprenörskapsforum.

Braunerhjelm, P. (2011). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic: Growth interdependencies, irregularities and regularities. In D. B. Audretsch, O. Falck, & S. Heblich (Eds.), Handbook of innovation and entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Braunerhjelm, P. (2012). Innovation and growth. In M. Andersson, B. Johansson, & H. Lööf (Eds.), Innovation and growth: From R&D strategies of innovating firms to economy-wide technological change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Braunerhjelm, P., Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2010). The missing link: Knowledge diffusion and entrepreneurship in endogenous growth. Small Business Economics, 34(2), 105–125.CrossRef

Braunerhjelm, P., Ding, D., & Thulin, P. (2014). Does labor mobility foster innovation? The case of Sweden. Mimeo, presented at the Schumpeter Conference, Jena.

Caballero, R. J. (2007). Specificity and the macroeconomics of restructuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Caballero, R. J., & Hammour, M. (2000). Creative destruction and development: Institutions, crises and restructuring (NBER Working Paper No. 7849). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

Carlsson, B. (2007). Innovation systems: A survey of the literature from a Schumpeterian perspective. In H. Hanusch & A. Pyka (Eds.), Elgar companion to neo-Schumpeterian economics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Carlsson, B., Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Braunerhjelm, P. (2009). Knowledge creation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: A historical review. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1193–1229.CrossRef

Carree, M., & Thurik, A. R. (2010). The impact of entrepreneurship on economic growth. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research. New York: Springer.

Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R., & Arts, S. (2011). Tracing the effect of links between science and industry: The role of researcher interaction and mobility between firms and research organizations. IESE Working Paper. Navarra: IESE Business School.

Chetty, R., & Saez, E. (2005). Dividend taxes and corporate behavior: Evidence from the 2003 dividend tax cut. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(3), 791–833.

Ciccone, A., & Papaioannou, E. (2006). Red tape and delayed entry (CEPR Discussion Paper 5996). London: Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR).

Coase, R. H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3(October), 1–44.CrossRef

Cullen, J. B., & Gordon, R. H. (2007). Taxes and entrepreneurial risk-taking: Theory and evidence in the U.S. Journal of Public Economics, 91(7–8), 1479–1505.CrossRef

Cumming, D. (2005). Agency costs, institutions, learning, and taxation in venture capital contracting. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(5), 573–622.CrossRef

Da Rin, M., Nicodano, G., & Sembenelli, A. (2006). Public policy and the creation of active venture capital markets. Journal of Public Economics, 90(8), 1699–1723.CrossRef

Davis, S. J., & Henrekson, M. (1999). Explaining national differences in the size and industry distribution of employment. Small Business Economics, 12(1), 59–83.CrossRef

De Soto, H. (2000). The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the west and fails everywhere else. New York: Basic Books.

Delgado, M., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2014). Clusters, convergence, and economic performance. Research Policy, 43(10), 1785–1799.CrossRef

Denison, E. F. (1968). Measuring the economic contribution of education and the ‘residual’ to economic growth. In J. Bowman (Ed.), Readings in the economics of education. Paris: UNESCO.

Desai, M., Gompers, P., & Lerner, J. (2003). Institutions, capital constraints and entrepreneurial firm dynamics: Evidence from Europe (NBER Working Paper No. 10165). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

Djankov, S., La Porta, R., Lopes de Silanes, F., & Schleifer, A. (2002). The regulation of entry. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(1), 1–37.CrossRef

Djankov, S., McLiesh, C., & Shleifer, A. (2007). Private credit in 129 countries. Journal of Financial Economics, 84(2), 299–329.CrossRef

Domar, E. D., & Musgrave, R. A. (1944). Proportional income taxation and risk-taking. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 48(3), 388–422.CrossRef

Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11(3), 147–162.

Edquist, C. (2011). Design of innovation policy through diagnostic analysis: Identification of systemic problems (or failures). Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(6), 1–29.CrossRef

Ejermo, O. (2009). Regional innovation measured by patent data—Does quality matter? Industry and Innovation, 16(2), 141–165.CrossRef

Eliasson, G. (1996). Firm objectives, controls and organization: The use of information and the transfer of knowledge within the firm. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Engström, P., & Holmlund, B. (2009). Tax evasion and self-employment in a high-tax country: Evidence from Sweden. Applied Economics, 41(19), 2419–2430.

Evans, D. S., & Leighton, L. S. (1989). Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship. American Economic Review, 79(3), 519–535.

Feldman, M. (1994). The geography of innovations. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Feldman, M., Hadjimichael, T., Kemeny, T., & Lanahan, L. (2015). The logic of economic development: A definition and model for investment. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, in press.

Feldman, M. P., & Audretsch, D. B. (1999). Innovation in cities: Science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition. European Economic Review, 43(2), 409–429.CrossRef

Fenn, G., Liang, N., & Prowse, S. (1995). The economics of the private equity market. Washington, DC: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Fiori, G., Nicoletti, G., Scarpetta, S., & Schiantarelli, F. (2007). Employment outcomes and the interactions between product and labor market deregulation: Are they substitutes or complements? (Working Paper No. 663). Boston: Boston College.

Fonseca, R., Lopez-Garcia, P., & Pissarides, C. A. (2001). Entrepreneurship, start-up costs and employment. European Economic Review, 45(4–6), 692–705.CrossRef

Fonseca, R., Michaud, P.-C., & Sopraseuth, T. (2007). Entrepreneurship, wealth, liquidity constraints and start-up costs. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 28(4), 637–674.

Freeman, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.

Freeman, R. B., Swedenborg, B., & Topel, R. (2010). Introduction. In R. B. Freeman, B. Swedenborg, & R. Topel (Eds.), Reforming the welfare state: Recovery and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef

Fujita, M., Krugman, P. R., & Venables, A. J. (1999). The spatial economy: Cities, regions and international trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gault, F. (2013). Innovation indicators and measurement: An overview. In F. Gault (Ed.), Handbook of innovation indicators and measurement (pp. 3–37). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Gentry, W. M., & Hubbard, R. G. (2000). Tax policy and entrepreneurial entry. American Economic Review, 90(2), 283–287.CrossRef

Geroski, P. (1989). Entry, innovation and productivity growth. Review of Economics and Statistics, 71(4), 572–578.CrossRef

Gertler, M. S. (2004). Manufacturing culture: The institutional geography of industrial practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gilbert, R. J., & Newbery, D. M. G. (1982). Preemptive patenting and the persistence of monopoly. American Economic Review, 72(3), 514–526.

Gilson, R. J., & Schizer, D. M. (2003). Understanding venture capital structure: A tax explanation for convertible preferred stock. Harvard Law Review, 116(3), 874–916.CrossRef

Glaeser, E. L., & Kerr, W. R. (2009). Local industrial conditions and entrepreneurship: How much of the spatial distribution can we explain? Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 18(3), 623–633.CrossRef

Glaeser, E. L., & Maré, D. C. (2001). Cities and skills. Journal of Labor Economics, 19(2), 316–342.CrossRef

Glaeser, E. L., & Gottlieb, J. D. (2009). The wealth of cities: Agglomeration and spatial equilibrium in the United States (NBER Working Paper No. 14806). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

Gompers, P. A., & Lerner, J. (2001). The money of invention: How venture capital creates new wealth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Gordon, R. J. (2004). Why was Europe left at the station when America’s productivity locomotive departed? (NBER Working Paper No. 10661). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

Gross, D. M., & Ryan, M. (2008). FDI location and size: Does employment protection legislation matter? Regional Science and Urban Economics, 38(6), 590–605.CrossRef

Grossman, G., & Helpman, E. (1991). Quality ladders in the theory of growth. Review of Economic Studies, 58(1), 43–61.CrossRef

Halabisky, D., Dreessen, E., & Parsley, C. (2006). Growth in firms in Canada, 1985–1999. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 19(3), 255–268.CrossRef

Hall, B. H. (2011). Using productivity growth as an innovation indicator. Report for the High Level Panel on Measuring Innovation. Brussels: DG Research, European Commission.

Hall, R. E., & Woodward, S. E. (2010). The burden of the nondiversifiable risk of entrepreneurship. American Economic Review, 100(3), 1163–1194.CrossRef

Haltiwanger, J., Jarmin, R. S., & Miranda, C. (2013). Who creates jobs? Small versus large versus young. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(2), 347–361.CrossRef

Henderson, J. V., & Thisse, J. F. (Eds.). (2004). Handbooks of regional and urban economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Henrekson, M., & Johansson, D. (2009). Competencies and institutions fostering high-growth firms. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 1–82.CrossRef

Henrekson, M., & Rosenberg, N. (2001). Designing efficient institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: Lessons from the U.S. and Sweden. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(3), 207–231.CrossRef

Henrekson, M., & Sanandaji, T. (2014). Small business activity does not measure entrepreneurship. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(5), 1760–1765.CrossRef

Henrekson, M., & Sanandaji, T. (2016). Owner-level taxes and business activity. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, forthcoming.

Holcombe, R. G. (2003). The origins of entrepreneurial opportunities. Review of Austrian Economics, 16(1), 25–43.CrossRef

Hoti, S., McAleer, M., & Slottje, D. (2006). Intellectual property litigation in the USA. Journal of Economic Surveys, 20(4), 715–729.CrossRef

Howitt, P. (2007). Innovation, competition and growth: A Schumpeterian perspective on Canada’s economy. C.D. Howe Institute Commentary 246, Toronto.

Huizinga, H., Laeven, L., & Nicodeme, G. (2008). Capital structure and international debt shifting. Journal of Financial Economics, 88(1), 80–118.CrossRef

Hung, S.-C., & Whittington, R. (2011). Agency in national innovation systems: Institutional entrepreneurship and the professionalization of Taiwanese IT. Research Policy, 40(4), 526–538.CrossRef

Hurst, E., & Lusardi, A. (2004). Liquidity constraints, household wealth and entrepreneurship. Journal of Political Economy, 112(2), 319–347.CrossRef

Inklaar, R., Timmer, M. P., & van Ark, B. (2008). Market services productivity across Europe and the US. Economic Policy, 23(53), 139–194.CrossRef

Jacobsson, S., Sjöberg, C., & Wahlström, M. (2001). Alternative specifications of the institutional constraint to economic growth—Or why is there a shortage of computer and electronic engineers and scientists in Sweden? Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 13(2), 179–193.CrossRef

Javorcik, B. S., Özden, Ç., Spatareanu, M., & Neagu, C. (2006). Migrant networks and foreign direct investment (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4654). Washington, DC: World Bank

Jones, C. I. (1995). R&D-based models of economic growth. Journal of Political Economy, 103(4), 759–784.CrossRef

Jones, C. I. (2011). Intermediate goods and weak links in the theory of economic development. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 3(2), 1–28.

Jorgenson, D. W., & Landau, R. (Eds.). (1993). Tax reform and the cost of capital: An international comparison. Washington, DC: Brookings.

Kaiser, U., Kongsted, H. C., & Rønde, T. (2011). Labor mobility, social network effects, and innovative activity (IZA Discussion Paper No. 5654). Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

Kim, J., & Marschke, G. (2005). Labor mobility of scientists, technological diffusion, and the firm’s patenting decision. RAND Journal of Economics, 36(2), 298–317.

King, M. A., & Fullerton, D. (1984). The taxation of income from capital: A comparative study of the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and West Germany. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef

Klapper, L., & Love, I. (2011). Entrepreneurship and development: The role of information asymmetries. World Bank Economic Review, 25(3), 448–455.CrossRef

Klienknecht, A. (1989). Firm size and innovation. Small Business Economics, 1(3), 215–222.CrossRef

Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Kugler, A., & Pica, G. (2008). Effects of employment protection on worker and job flows: Evidence from the 1990 Italian reform. Labour Economics, 15(1), 78–95.CrossRef

Kuratko, D. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 29(5), 577–597.

Laffont, J.-J., & Tirole, J. (1993). A theory of incentives and regulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lazear, E. P. (2005). Entrepreneurship. Journal of Labor Economics, 23(4), 649–680.CrossRef

Lerner, J. (2009). Boulevard of broken dreams: Why public efforts to boost entrepreneurship and venture capital have failed—And what to do about it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRef

Levine, R. (2005). Finance and growth: Theory and evidence. In P. Aghion & S. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of economic growth. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

List, F. (1841). Das nationale system der politischen ökonomie. Basel: Kyklos [English translation: (1841), The national systems of political economy, London: Longmans, Green and Co.].

Long, J. E. (1982). Income taxation and the allocation of market labour. Journal of Labor Research, 3(3), 259–276.CrossRef

Lööf, H., & Nabavi, P. (2012). Increasing return to smart cities. Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation. Stockholm: CESIS—Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH).

Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London, UK: Pinter.

Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. (1996). The dynamics and evolution of industries. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5(1), 51–87.CrossRef

Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. (2000). Knowledge, innovation activities and industrial evolution. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(2), 289–313.CrossRef

Martin, J. P., & Scarpetta, S. (2012). Setting it right: Employment protection, labour reallocation and productivity. De Economist, 160(2), 89–116.CrossRef

Martin, P., & Ottaviano, G. (2001). Growth and agglomeration. International Economic Review, 42(4), 947–968.CrossRef

Micco, A., & Pagés, C. (2006). The economic effects of employment protection: Evidence from international industry-level data (IZA Discussion Paper No. 2433). Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

Michaelas, N., Chittenden, F., & Poutziouris, P. (1999). Financial policy and capital structure choice in UK SMEs: Empirical evidence from company panel data. Small Business Economics, 12(2), 113–130.CrossRef

Misher, N. (1984, July). Tax consequences of exercising an incentive stock option with stock of the granting corporation. The Tax Executive, 357–363.

Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nickell, S. J. (1996). Competition and corporate performance. Journal of Political Economy, 104(4), 724–746.CrossRef

Nicoletti, G., & Scarpetta, S. (2003). Regulation, productivity and growth: OECD evidence. Economic Policy, 18, 11–72.CrossRef

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

OECD (1998). Fostering entrepreneurship. Paris: OECD.CrossRef

OECD (2010). The OECD innovation strategy: Getting a head start on tomorrow. Paris: OECD.

Orsenigo, L. (2009). Clusters and clustering in biotechnology: Stylised facts, issues and theories. In P. Braunerhjelm & M. P. Feldman (Eds.), Cluster genesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ortega-Argilés, R., Vivarelli, M., & Voight, P. (2009). R&D in SMEs: A paradox? Small Business Economics, 33(1), 3–11.CrossRef

Paci, R., & Usai, S. (1999). Externalities, knowledge spillovers and the spatial distribution of innovation. GeoJournal, 49(4), 381–390.CrossRef

Peltzman, S. (1976). Toward a more general theory of regulation. Journal of Law and Economics, 19(2), 211–240.CrossRef

Pestieau, P., & Possen, U. M. (1991). Tax evasion and occupational choice. Journal of Public Economics, 45(1), 105–125.CrossRef

Pigou, A. C. (1938). The economics of welfare (4th ed.). London: Macmillan.

Porter, M. (1998). On competition. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Poschke, M. (2010). The regulation of entry and aggregate productivity. Economic Journal, 120(549), 1175–1200.CrossRef

Poschke, M. (2013). Who becomes an entrepreneur? Labor market prospects and occupational choice. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 37(3), 693–710.CrossRef

Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.CrossRef

Puga, D. (2010). The magnitude and causes of agglomeration economies. Journal of Regional Science, 50(1), 203–219.CrossRef

Robson, M. T., & Wren, C. (1999). Marginal and average tax rates and the incentive for self-employment. Southern Economic Journal, 65(4), 757–773.

Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A., & Trebbi, F. (2004). Institutions rule: The primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development. Journal of Economic Growth, 9(2), 131–165.CrossRef

Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002–1038.CrossRef

Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), S71–S102.CrossRef

Rosen, H. S. (2005). Entrepreneurship and taxation: Empirical evidence. In V. Kanniainen & C. Keuschnigg (Eds.), Venture capital, entrepreneurship and public policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Rosenberg, N. (2000). American universities as endogenous institutions. Ch. 3 in Schumpeter and the endogeneity of technology: Some American perspectives. London: Routledge.CrossRef

Rosenthal, S. S., & Strange, W. C. (2008). The attenuation of human capital spillovers. Journal of Urban Economics, 64(2), 373–389.CrossRef

Rothwell, J. (2013). The hidden STEM economy: The Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings. Washington, DC: Brookings.

Rothwell, R., & Zegveld, W. (1982). Innovation and the small and medium-sized firm. London: Pinter.

Rydqvist, K., Spizman, J., & Strebulaev, I. (2014). Government policy and ownership of equity securities. Journal of Financial Economics, 111(1), 70–85.CrossRef

Sanandaji, T. (2011). Essays in entrepreneurship policy (PhD Dissertation in Public Policy). Chicago: Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago.

Sandström, C., Wennberg, K., Wallin, M., & Zherlygina, Y. (2014). Public policy for academic entrepreneurship: A review and critical discussion. Mimeo, Royal Institute of Technology and Stockholm School of Economics

Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Scarpetta, S., & Tressel, T. (2004). Boosting productivity via innovation and adoption of new technologies: Any role for labor market institutions? (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 29144). Washington, DC: World Bank.

Scherer, F. M. (1965). Firm size, market structure, opportunity and the output of patented innovations. American Economic Review, 55(5), 1097–1125.

Schmidt, R. H., & Spindler, G. (2002). Path dependence, corporate governance and complementarity. International Finance, 5(3), 311–333.CrossRef

Segerstrom, P. (1991). Innovation, imitation and economic growth. Journal of Political Economy, 99(4), 807–827.CrossRef

Shleifer, A., Lopes-de-Silanes, F., & La Porta, R. (2008). Economic consequences of legal origins. Journal of Economic Literature, 46(2), 285–332.CrossRef

Sinn, H. W. (1996). Social insurance, incentives and risk taking. International Tax and Public Finance, 3(3), 259–280.CrossRef

Solow, R. M. (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3), 312–320.

Song, J., Almeida, P., & Wu, G. (2003). Learning–by–hiring: When is mobility more likely to facilitate interfirm knowledge transfer? Management Science, 49(4), 351–365.CrossRef

Stigler, G. J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2(1), 3–21.CrossRef

Thurik, A. R., & Tessensohn, T. (2012). The relationship between different kinds of nascent entrepreneurship and the business cycle. In P. Braunerhjelm (Ed.), Entrepreneurship norms and the business cycle. Stockholm: Swedish Entrepreneurship Forum.

Tullock, G. (1969). A simple algebraic logrolling model. American Economic Review, 60(3), 419–426.

Wennekers, S., & Thurik, A. R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 13(1), 27–55.CrossRef

Winter, S. G. (1964). Economic ‘natural selection’ and the theory of the firm (LEM Chapters Series). Yale Economic Essays, 225–272.

Winter, S. G. (1984). Schumpeterian competition in alternative technological regimes. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 5(3–4), 287–320.CrossRef

Wolfe, D. A., & Gertler, M. S. (2006). Local antecedents and trigger events: Policy implications of path dependence for cluster formation. In P. Braunerhjelm & M. Feldman (Eds.), Cluster genesis: Technology-based industrial development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88(1), 290–306.

Titel: An Innovation Policy Framework: Bridging the Gap Between Industrial Dynamics and Growth
verfasst von: Pontus Braunerhjelm
Magnus Henrekson
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Essays in Public Sector Entrepreneurship
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-26676-3

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-26677-0

Copyright-Jahr: 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26677-0_4

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner