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).

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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?

10. 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)

11. 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)

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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?”

18. The effect of the crisis on the innovation
investment across the European countries

19. 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

20. 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

21. The catching-up of the New Member
States before the crisis
Parvenu
AristocracyDeclining Nobility
Third State

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. A comparison of ICT and
Molecular ages
The Kondratiev Waves

27. 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

28. 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

29. McKinsey Global Institute
Seventh to Twelfth 2025
 Next generation genomics
 Energy storage
 3D printing
 Advanced materials
 Advanced oil and gas exploration
 Renewable energy