IREIN, Fundacion Ramon Areces, Fore de Empresas Innovadoras
THE NEW AGENDA FOR INNOVATION STUDIES AND POLIRY
IMPLICATIONS,...
Blade Runner Economics
 In the case of space, it has anticipated far too
much
 In the case of biotechnology, none of wha...
Blade Runner Economics
 ICTs have changed the economic profile
of our economies and guaranteed two
decades of development...
Is economic growth historically
contingent?
 Robert Gordon (2012): “the rapid
progress made over the past 250 years
could...
Winners and losers
in economic crisis
 When there is a decline in the business
cycle, all companies, industries and
count...
Is the problem adjustment?
Mancur Olson’s view
 The Rise and Decline of Nations
 Nations that did not experience major s...
Who does what?
Company typologies
Business as usual
Let wait until it stops raining
Reduce costs
Including investments
Sea...
Looking for the Next
Technological Paradigm
 What will be the new industries and
business opportunities to generate jobs
...
Innovation
and Economic Downturn
 Structural characteristics of National Systems of
Innovation, demand (Filippetti & Arch...
Are creative destruction and technological
accumulation sensitive to the business
cycle?
 During economic expansion, inno...
Characteristics of
Innovating Firms
Technological
Accumulation
Creative Destruction
Large and dominant firms
explore new o...
Sources of Knowledge
Technological
Accumulation
Creative Destruction
Since “firms know more than
they do” (Pavitt), they c...
Innovation Typology
Technological
Accumulation
Creative Destruction
Most innovations are generating
a continuous flow of
i...
Market Structure
Technological
Accumulation
Creative Destruction
High entry barriers also
because imitation costs are
high...
Forms of Capitalism
Technological
Accumulation
Creative Destruction
More likely to occur in
coordinated market economies
(...
The Innobarometer Survey
Innobarometer 2009 (European Commission) – firm
level survey on more than 5000 firms across Europ...
The effect of the crisis on the innovation
investment across the European countries
Invest in innovation across European
countries after the crisis
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
Switzerland
Denmark
...
The balances of firms investing and disinvesting in
innovation before and after the crisis
Belgium
Bulgaria
Finland
France...
The catching-up of the New Member
States before the crisis
Parvenu
AristocracyDeclining Nobility
Third State
Investment in Innovation related Activities Before,
During and Following on from the Crisis
Dependent variable:
change in ...
Innovation investment during and following on
from the crisis. Cross-Tabulations of dep. variables
Following on from the c...
Innovation expenditure of great innovators
and other firms, 2006 and 2008, UK
n. of
firms
Perce
nt
Share of
innovati
on ex...
Who is winning?
Who is increasing innovation investment in
spite of the crisis?
Firms that compete with innovation (before...
A comparison of ICT and
Molecular ages
The Kondratiev Waves
A contrasting view:
Disruptive Technologies
McKinsey Global Institute
Four criteria:
 Technology is rapidly advancing or
...
McKinsey Global Institute
TOP SIX to 2025
 Mobile Internet
 Automation of Knowledge work
 Internet of things
 Cloud te...
McKinsey Global Institute
Seventh to Twelfth 2025
 Next generation genomics
 Energy storage
 3D printing
 Advanced mat...
Daniele Archibugi - Seminario 'Nuevos enfoques sobre políticas de innovación'
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Daniele Archibugi - Seminario 'Nuevos enfoques sobre políticas de innovación'

80

Published on

Los días 13 y 14 de marzo de 2014, la Fundación Ramón Areces organizó con el Instituto de Estudios de la Innovación (IREIN) y el Foro de Empresas Innovadoras una jornada sobre 'Nuevos enfoques sobre políticas de innovación'. Contó con la intervención de destacados expertos internacionales como Luc Soete, rector de la Universidad de Maastricht; Julia Lane, del American Institutes for Research (AIR) de Estados Unidos; Giovanni Dosi,
del Institute of Economics de la Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna (Italia); Daniele Archibugi, del CNRS y del Birkbeck College de la University of London; John Cantwell, del Rutgers Business School de Rutgers University (Estados Unidos); Jorge Katz, de la Universidad de Chile; Tom Hockaday, del ISIS Innovation de la Universidad de Oxford (Reino Unido), y Johan Schot, del Science and Technology Policy Research de la University of Sussex (Reino Unido).

Published in: Science
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
80
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Daniele Archibugi - Seminario 'Nuevos enfoques sobre políticas de innovación'"

  1. 1. IREIN, Fundacion Ramon Areces, Fore de Empresas Innovadoras THE NEW AGENDA FOR INNOVATION STUDIES AND POLIRY IMPLICATIONS, Madrid, 13-14 March 2014 Convenor: Professor José Molero Which Innovations and which Innovators will bring us out of the crisis? 13-14 March 2014 Daniele Archibugi Italian National Research Council, Rome Birkbeck College, University of London
  2. 2. Blade Runner Economics  In the case of space, it has anticipated far too much  In the case of biotechnology, none of what was described has happened (although many things are possible)  In the case of ICTs, Blade Runner has under- estimated the pace of technological change (no Internet, no email)  One core message: business life is associated to technological opportunities  Integration among different technologies (Schumpeterian clusters) is crucial to shape techo- economic paradigms
  3. 3. Blade Runner Economics  ICTs have changed the economic profile of our economies and guaranteed two decades of development  Some argue that ICTs have exhausted thier potential. Or, more precisely, that are not any longer the driving force of growth  End of the speculative bubble or of technological opportunities?  And, above all, what next?
  4. 4. Is economic growth historically contingent?  Robert Gordon (2012): “the rapid progress made over the past 250 years could well turn out to be a unique episode in human history”  Christopher Freeman (1984): The potential for economic growth is associated to generation and diffusion of knowledge to economic and society through innovation
  5. 5. Winners and losers in economic crisis  When there is a decline in the business cycle, all companies, industries and countries tend to be affected  But some companies, industries and countries are more affected than others  The hierarchy of companies, industries and countries may emerge transformed from a crisis
  6. 6. Is the problem adjustment? Mancur Olson’s view  The Rise and Decline of Nations  Nations that did not experience major shocks (such as loosing wars or having military invasions) experience a lower rate of economic growth  Social rigidity as a major obstacle to growth  Opposite cases: the UK and Japan 1945-1980  What is the link? According to Olson, incumbents charge higher prices since new entrants are not allowed
  7. 7. Who does what? Company typologies Business as usual Let wait until it stops raining Reduce costs Including investments Search for new opportunities New markets and new products which could generate sales and profits
  8. 8. Looking for the Next Technological Paradigm  What will be the new industries and business opportunities to generate jobs and profits?  If the technological opportunities are already there, who is going to invest in order to develop and deliver them to the market?
  9. 9. Innovation and Economic Downturn  Structural characteristics of National Systems of Innovation, demand (Filippetti & Archibugi, 2011)  The effect of the financial crisis on the convergence in innovation in the European Union (Archibugi & Filippetti, 2011)  Archibugi & Filippetti, Innovation and Economic Crisis, Routledge, 2011  The impact of the economic crisis on innovation: Evidence from (Archibugi, Filippetti & Frenz)  Economic crisis and innovation: is destruction prevailing over a (Archibugi, Filippetti & Frenz)
  10. 10. Are creative destruction and technological accumulation sensitive to the business cycle?  During economic expansion, innovative firms lead technological change also by increasing their investment in innovation (supporting technological accumulation)  Economic crises generate turbulence and some new entrants are willing to spend more to innovate, also in blue sky explorations (creative destruction)
  11. 11. Characteristics of Innovating Firms Technological Accumulation Creative Destruction Large and dominant firms explore new opportunities through R&D labs and design to preserve their market shares. These firms exploit their financial resources and the already existing organizational structure Small firms anticipate and deliver to the market significant innovations. Through only a very few of these firms will be successful, the winners may create the impetus for entire new industries. Economic turbulence may also help to contest market shares to incumbent firms Schumpeter, 1942; Pavitt et al., 1989 Schumpeter, 1911; Freeman et al., 1982; Dosi, 1982; Perez, 2002
  12. 12. Sources of Knowledge Technological Accumulation Creative Destruction Since “firms know more than they do” (Pavitt), they can try to explore their competences also in other product lines The early identification of new markets and new technological opportunities is crucial. Collaboration among different subjects can be very important to identify and explore knowledge. Serendipity plays also an important role Schumpeter, 1942; Pavitt et al., 1989; Granstrand et al., 1997; Antonelli, 1997 Freeman et al., 1982; Christensen & Rosenbloom, 1995
  13. 13. Innovation Typology Technological Accumulation Creative Destruction Most innovations are generating a continuous flow of incremental product and process innovations. Organizational routines dominate the generation of innovations A few radical innovations generating new industries, often in integration with knowledge already explored for different purposes. New forms of economic organizations also help to reinforce the generation of innovations Schumpeter, 1942; Pavitt et al., 1989; Methé et al., 1996; Cefis & Orsenigo, 2001 Schumpeter, 1911; Freeman et al., 1982; Dosi, 1982; Perez, 2002
  14. 14. Market Structure Technological Accumulation Creative Destruction High entry barriers also because imitation costs are high and intellectual property rights are well protected. Oligopolistic competition dominates Low entry barriers in new industries. High turbolence, which in turn leads to increase competition Technological discontinuities help to create new markets and new opportunities Schumpeter, 1942; Galbraith, 1952; Chandler, 1977 Schumpeter, 1911; Freeman et al., 1982; Dosi, 1984; Perez, 2002
  15. 15. Forms of Capitalism Technological Accumulation Creative Destruction More likely to occur in coordinated market economies (such as Japan and Germany), where the various public and private institutions are more likely to work together continuously More likely to occur in liberal market economies (such as the United States and the United Kingdom) for their capacity to shift resources from industries with low opportunities to industries with higher opportunities
  16. 16. The Innobarometer Survey Innobarometer 2009 (European Commission) – firm level survey on more than 5000 firms across Europe – April 2009 Question no. 1: “Compared to 2006, has the amount spent by your firm on all innovation activities in 2008 increased, decreased, or stayed approximately the same?” Question no. 2: “In the last six months [November 2008 to April 2009] has your company taken one of the following actions [increased, decreased or maintain the innovation spending] as a direct result of the economic downturn?” Question no. 3: “Compared to 2008, do you expect your company to increase, decrease or maintain the total amount of its innovation expenditure in 2009?”
  17. 17. The effect of the crisis on the innovation investment across the European countries
  18. 18. Invest in innovation across European countries after the crisis -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 Switzerland Denmark Netherlands Finland Austria Luxemburg Spain Belgium UnitedKin. Portugal Ireland Estonia Italy Germany Hungary Czechrep. Norway EU27 Slovenia Sweden Latvia France Slovakia Bulgaria Poland Romania Greece Lithuania Differencebetweenthefirms’investmentsbalance inthemediumandshort-term
  19. 19. The balances of firms investing and disinvesting in innovation before and after the crisis Belgium Bulgaria Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxemburg Poland Portugal Slovakia Spain Switzerland Austria Czech rep. Denmark Estonia Ireland Netherlands Norway Romania Sweden United Kingdom EU27 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Firms innovation investments balance 2006-2008 (% firms increasing - % firms decreasing) Firmsinnovationinvestmentsbalance2009(%firms increasing-%firmsdecreasing) Innovation investments balance = 0 in 2009
  20. 20. The catching-up of the New Member States before the crisis Parvenu AristocracyDeclining Nobility Third State
  21. 21. Investment in Innovation related Activities Before, During and Following on from the Crisis Dependent variable: change in innovation related investment Before the crisis During the crisis Following on from the beginning of the crisis (T1) (T2) (T3) N° % N° % N° % Increase 1,985 38 453 9 659 13 Decrease 472 9 1,231 24 1,560 30 Maintain 2,207 42 2,961 57 2,452 47 Innovation active firms 4,664 89 4,645 90 4,671 90 No innovation activities 328 6 457 9 343 7 Missing observations 242 5 132 3 220 4 Number of observations 5,234 100 5,234 100 5,234 100
  22. 22. Innovation investment during and following on from the crisis. Cross-Tabulations of dep. variables Following on from the crisis (T3) Increase Decrease Maintain Total During the crisis (T2) Increase Frequencies 192 73 159 424 Column percentages 32 5 7 10 Decrease Frequencies 61 812 256 1,129 Column percentages 10 57 11 26 Maintain Frequencies 350 544 1,832 2,726 Column percentages 58 38 82 64 Total Frequencies 603 1,429 2,247 4,279 Column percentages 100 100 100 100 Chi2 (4)=1,400; p<0.01
  23. 23. Innovation expenditure of great innovators and other firms, 2006 and 2008, UK n. of firms Perce nt Share of innovati on exp. 2006 Share of innovati on exp. 2008 Average innovati on exp. 2006 in £000s Averag e innovat ion exp. 2008 in £000s Change in average innovatio n exp. 2006- 2008 All other firms 2,161 87 0.79 0.63 563 413 -0.27 Great innovators 324 13 0.21 0.37 981 1,599 0.63 Total 2,485 100 1.00 1.00 618 568 -0.08
  24. 24. Who is winning? Who is increasing innovation investment in spite of the crisis? Firms that compete with innovation (before, during and after the crisis). If these firms do not innovate they are out of the market. New firms (created after 2001) after, but not during the crisis Firms with internal R&D Departments (before, but also after the crisis) Technological opportunities are coupled by market oppportunities (which innovations will we have in the future?) The crisis is making the global landscape more important
  25. 25. A comparison of ICT and Molecular ages The Kondratiev Waves
  26. 26. A contrasting view: Disruptive Technologies McKinsey Global Institute Four criteria:  Technology is rapidly advancing or experiencing breakthroughs  The potential scope of impact is broad  Significant economic value could be affected  Economic impact is potentially disruptive
  27. 27. McKinsey Global Institute TOP SIX to 2025  Mobile Internet  Automation of Knowledge work  Internet of things  Cloud technology  Advanced robotics  Autonomous vehicles Combined, they account for about 90% of future business opportunities
  28. 28. McKinsey Global Institute Seventh to Twelfth 2025  Next generation genomics  Energy storage  3D printing  Advanced materials  Advanced oil and gas exploration  Renewable energy

×