The Creative Response: Knowledge and Innovation

Cristiano Antonelli; Alessandra Colombelli

doi:10.1017/9781108987547

Series: Elements in Business Strategy

The Creative Response

Knowledge and Innovation

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 March 2023

Cristiano Antonelli and

Alessandra Colombelli

Show author details

Cristiano Antonelli: Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Torino, Italy
Alessandra Colombelli: Affiliation:
Politecnico di Torino

Summary

This Element combines the advances of the economics of knowledge and innovation implementing the Schumpeterian notion of creative response to understand the determinants and the effects of the rate and direction of technological and organizational change and its variance across time and space, firms, and industries. The notion of creative response provides an inclusive framework that enables to highlight the crucial role of knowledge in assessing the rate and direction of technological change and to clarify that no innovation is possible without the generation of new knowledge, while the generation of new knowledge augments the chances of innovation but does not automatically yield the introduction of innovation. Firms thus are faced with several strategic decisions to make the creative response possible. The Element elaborates on the analytical core of the notion of creative response and articulates its implications for economic policy and strategic management.

Element contents

Summary
References

Get access

Keywords

creative response innovation function knowledge generation function technology production function technological change

Information

Type: Element
Information: Series: Elements in Business Strategy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108987547 [Opens in a new window]

Online ISBN: 9781108987547

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication: 16 March 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Element purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Acemoglu, D. K. (2002). Directed technological change. Review of Economic Studies, 69(4), 781–810.Google Scholar

Acemoglu, D. K. (2003). Labor- and capital-augmenting technical change. Journal of European Economic Association, 1(1), 1–37.Google Scholar

Acemoglu, D. K. (2015). Localised and biased technologies: Atkinson and Stiglitz’s new view – Induced innovations and directed technological change. Economic Journal, 125(583), 443–463.Google Scholar

Acosta, M., Coronado, D., León, D., Martínez, Á. (2009). Production of university technological knowledge in European regions: Evidence from patent data. Regional Studies, 43(9), 1167–1181.Google Scholar

Acs, Z. J., Armington, C. (2006). Entrepreneurship, Geography and American Economic Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E. (2013). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 757–774.Google Scholar

Adams, J. D. (1990). Fundamental stocks of knowledge and productivity growth. European Journal of Political Economy, 98(4), 673–702.Google Scholar

Aghion, P., Howitt, P. W. (1997). Endogenous Growth Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Aghion, P., Jaravel, X. (2015). Knowledge spillovers, innovation and growth. Economic Journal, 125(583), 533–573.Google Scholar

Akcigit, U., Liu, Q. (2016). The role of information in innovation and competition. Journal of the European Economic Association, 14(4), 828–870.Google Scholar

Akerloff, G. A. (1984). Gift exchange and efficiency-wage theory: Four views. American Economic Review, 74(2), 79–83.Google Scholar

Akerloff, G. A., Yellen, J. Y. (eds.) (1986). Efficiency Wages Models and the Labor Market. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ambos, T., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., d’Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1424–1447.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C. (1995). The Economics of Localized Technological Change and Industrial Dynamics. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C. (2008). Pecuniary knowledge externalities: The convergence of directed technological change and the emergence of innovation systems. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(5), 1049–1070.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C. (ed.) (2011). Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C. (2013). Knowledge governance: Pecuniary knowledge externalities and total factor productivity growth. Economic Development Quarterly, 27(1), 62–70.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C. (2016). Technological congruence and the economic complexity of technological change. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 38(C), 15–24.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C. (2017a). Endogenous innovation: The creative response. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 26(8), 689–718.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C. (2017b). Endogenous Innovation: The Economics of an Emergent System Property. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C. (2018a). Knowledge exhaustibility and Schumpeterian growth. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(3), 779–791.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C. (2018b). Knowledge properties and economic policy: A new look. Science and Public Policy, 45(2), 151–158.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C. (2018c). The Evolutionary Complexity of Endogenous Innovation: The Engines of the Creative Response. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C. (2019a). Knowledge as an economic good: Exhaustibility versus appropriability? Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(3), 647–658. https://doi.org.10.1007/s10961-018–9665–5 Google Scholar

Antonelli, C. (2019b). The Knowledge Growth Regime: A Schumpeterian Approach. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C. (2022a). The limited transferability of knowledge. In Audretsch, D., Link, A., Lehman, E. (eds.), Handbook of Technology Transfer, pp. 11–24. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C. (ed.) (2022b). Encyclopedia on the Economics of Knowledge and Innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C., Colombelli, A. (2015a). External and internal knowledge in the knowledge-generation function. Industry and Innovation, 22(4), 273–298.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C., Colombelli, A. (2015b). The knowledge cost function. International Journal of Production Economics, 168(C), 290–302.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C., Colombelli, A. (2017). The locus of knowledge externalities and the cost of knowledge. Regional Studies, 51(8), 1151–1164.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C., Crespi, F., Mongeau Ospina, C., Scellato, G. (2017). Knowledge composition, Jacobs externalities and innovation performance in European regions. Regional Studies, 51(11), 1708–1720.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C., Crespi, F., Quatraro, F. (2022). Knowledge complexity and the mechanisms of knowledge generation and exploitation: The European evidence. Research Policy, 51(8), 104081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104081 Google Scholar

Antonelli, C., David, P. A. (eds.) (2016). The Economics of Knowledge and Knowledge Driven Economy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C., Fassio, C. (2011). Globalization and innovation in advanced economies. In Libecap, G. (ed.), Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth, vol. 22, pp. 21–46. Cambridge: Emerald.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C., Fassio, C. (2014). The economics of the light economy: Globalization, skill-biased technological change, and slow growth. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 87(C), 89–107.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C., Fassio, C. (2016). Globalization and the knowledge-driven economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 30(1), 3–14.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C., Feder, C. (2020). The new direction of technological change in the global economy. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 52(C), 1–12.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C., Feder, C. (2021a). A long-term comparative analysis of the direction and congruence of technological change. Socioeconomic Review, 19(2), 583–605.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C., Feder, C. (2021b). Knowledge appropriability and directed technological change: The Schumpeterian creative response in global markets. Journal of Technology Transfer, 46(3), 686–700.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C., Feder, C. (2021c). Schumpeterian loops in international trade: The evidence of the OECD countries. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 31(2), 799–820.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C., Feder, C. (2022a). Knowledge properties and the creative response in the global economy: The European evidence in the years 1990–2016. Journal of Technology Transfer, 47(2), 459–475.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C., Feder, C. (2022b). The foundations of the Schumpeterian dynamics: The European evidence. Journal of Evolutionary Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-022-00794-3 Google Scholar

Antonelli, C., Gehringer, A. (2016). The cost of knowledge and productivity growth. In Link, A. N., Antonelli, C. (eds.), Strategic Alliances: Leveraging Economic Growth and Development, pp. 155–174. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C., Orsatti, G., Pialli, G. (in press). The knowledge intensive direction of technological change. Eurasian Business Review.Google Scholar

Antonelli, C., Pialli, G. (in press). Intangible assets and the productivity slow down. International Journal of Technology Management.Google Scholar

Arrow, K. J. (1962a). The economic implications of learning by doing. Review of Economic Studies, 29(3), 155–173.Google Scholar

Arrow, K. J. (1962b). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In Nelson, R. R. (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pp. 609–625. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press for NBER.Google Scholar

Arrow, K. J. (1969). Classificatory notes on the production and transmission of technical knowledge. American Economic Review, 59(2), 29–35.Google Scholar

Arundel, A., Geuna, A. (2004). Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13(6), 559–580.Google Scholar

Arvanitis, S. (2005). Modes of labour flexibility at firm level: Are there any implications for performance and innovation? Evidence for the Swiss economy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(6), 993–1016.Google Scholar

Atkinson, A. B., Stiglitz, J. E. (1969). A new view of technological change. Economic Journal, 79(315), 573–578.Google Scholar

Audretsch, D. B., Keilbach, M. C. (2007). The localisation of entrepreneurship capital: Evidence from Germany. Papers in Regional Science, 86(3), 351–365.Google Scholar

Audretsch, D. B., Keilbach, M. C., Lehmann, E. E. (2006). Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Autio, E. (2005). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2005 report on high-expectation entrepreneurship. www.gemconsortium.org/file/open?fileId=47110 Google Scholar

Baldwin, R. E. (1971). Determinants of the commodity structure of U.S. trade. American Economic Review, 61(1), 126–146.Google Scholar

Baldwin, R. (2016). The Great Convergence Information Technology and the New Globalization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Baldwin, R., Lopez-Gonzalez, J. (2015). Supply-chain trade: A portrait of global patterns and several testable hypotheses. The World Economy, 38(11), 1682–1721.Google Scholar

Balland, P.-A., Boschma, R., Crespo, J., Rigby, D. L. (2019). Smart specialization policy in the European Union: Relatedness, knowledge complexity and regional diversification. Regional Studies, 53(9), 1252–1268.Google Scholar

Baughn, C. C., Neupert, K. E. (2003). Culture and national condition facilitating entrepreneurial start-ups. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1(3), 313–330.Google Scholar

Baughn, C. C., Sugheir, J., Neupert, K. E. (2010). Labor flexibility and the prevalence of high-growth entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 23(1), 1–15.Google Scholar

Ben Hassine, H., Boudier, F., Mathieu, C. (2017). The two ways of FDI R&D spillovers: Evidence from the French manufacturing industry. Applied Economics, 49(25), 2395–2408.Google Scholar

Blanchflower, D. G., Oswald, A. J. (1998). What makes an entrepreneur? Journal of Labor Economics, 16(1), 26–60.Google Scholar

Bloom, N., Draca, M., Van Reenen, J. (2016). Trade induced technical change? The impact of Chinese imports on innovation, IT and productivity. Review of Economic Studies, 83(1), 87–117.Google Scholar

Bolton, M. K. (1993). Organizational innovation and substandard performance: When is necessity the mother of innovation? Organization Science, 4(1), 57–75.Google Scholar

Bos, J. W., Stam, E. (2014). Gazelles and industry growth: A study of young high-growth firms in the Netherlands. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(1), 145–169.Google Scholar

Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.Google Scholar

Boschma, R., Balland, P. A., Kogle, D. F. (2014). Relatedness and technological change in cities: The rise and fall of technological knowledge in US metropolitan areas from 1981 to 2010. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(1), 223–250.Google Scholar

Boschma, R., Frenken, K. (2011a). Technological relatedness and regional branching. In Bathelt, H., Feldman, M. P., Kogler, D. F. (eds.), Dynamic Geographies of Knowledge Creation and Innovation, pp. 64–81. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Boschma, R., Frenken, K. (2011b). Technological relatedness, related variety and economic geography. In Cooke, P. (ed.), Handbook of Regional Innovation and Growth, pp. 187–197. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Boschma, R., Minondo, A., Navarro, M. (2013). The emergence of new industries at the regional level in Spain: A proximity approach based on product-relatedness. Economic Geography, 89(1), 29–51.Google Scholar

Braunerhjelm, P. (2008). Specialization of regions and universities: The new versus the old. Industry and Innovation, 15(3), 253–275.Google Scholar

Bresnahan, T. F., Trajtenberg, M. (1995). General purpose technologies “engines of growth”? Journal of Econometrics, 65(1), 83–108.Google Scholar

Bruneel, J., d’Este, P., Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858–868.Google Scholar

Calderini, M., Scellato, G. (2005). Academic research, technological specialization and the innovation performance in European regions: An empirical analysis in the wireless sector. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(2), 279–305.Google Scholar

Chang, Y., Yang, P., Chen, M. (2009). The determinants of academic research commercial performance: Towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Research Policy, 38(6), 936–946.Google Scholar

Cohen, W. M., Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.Google Scholar

Collins, C. J., Smith, K. G. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academic Management Journal, 49(3), 544–560.Google Scholar

Colombelli, A. (2016). The impact of local knowledge bases on the creation of innovative start-ups in Italy. Small Business Economics, 47(2), 383–396.Google Scholar

Colombelli, A., De Marco, A., Paolucci, E., Ricci, R., & Scellato, G. (2021). University technology transfer and the evolution of regional specialization: the case of Turin. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46(4), 933–960.Google Scholar

Colombelli, A., Krafft, J., Quatraro, F. (2013). Properties of knowledge base and firm survival: Evidence from a sample of French manufacturing firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(8), 1469–1483.Google Scholar

Colombelli, A., Krafft, J., Quatraro, F. (2014). The emergence of new technology-based sectors at the regional level: A proximity-based analysis of nanotechnology. Research Policy, 43(10), 1681–1696.Google Scholar

Colombelli, A., Quatraro, F. (2014). The persistence of firms’ knowledge base: A quantile approach to Italian data. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 23(7), 585–610.Google Scholar

Cooke, P., Morgan, K. (1999). The Associational Economy: Firms, Regions, and Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Coronado, D., Flores, E., Martínez, Á. (2017). The role of regional economic specialization in the production of university-owned patents. Annals of Regional Science, 59(2), 513–533.Google Scholar

Corrado, C., Hulten, C., Sichel, D. (2005). Measuring capital and technology: An expanded framework. In Corrado, C., Haltiwanger, J., Sichel, D. (eds.), Measuring Capital in the New Economy, pp. 11–46. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Corrado, C., Hulten, C., Sichel, D. (2009). Intangible capital and US economic growth. Review of Income and Wealth, 55(3), 661–685.Google Scholar

Crépon, B., Duguet, E., Mairesse, J. (1998). Research and development, innovation and productivity: An econometric analysis at the firm level. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 7(2), 115–158.Google Scholar

Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., Wright, P. M. (2005). Human resource management and labor productivity: Does industry matter? Academic Management Journal, 48(1), 135–145.Google Scholar

Dosi, G., Nelson, R. R. (2010). Technological change and industrial dynamics as evolutionary processes. In Hall, B. H., Rosenberg, N. (eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, pp. 51–127. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Erixon, L. (2016). Is firm renewal stimulated by negative shocks? The status of negative driving forces in Schumpeterian and Darwinian economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 40(1), 93–121.Google Scholar

Essletzbichler, J. (2015). Relatedness, industrial branching and technological cohesion in US metropolitan areas. Regional Studies, 49(5), 752–766.Google Scholar

Evans, D. S., Jovanovic, B. (1989). An estimated model of entrepreneurial choice under liquidity constraints. Journal of Political Economy, 97(4), 808–827.Google Scholar

Fazzari, S., Hubbard, R. G., Petersen, B. C. (1988). Financing constraints and corporate investment. Brookings Papers in Economic Activity, 78(2), 141–195.Google Scholar

Fleming, L., Sorenson, O. (2001). Technology as a complex adaptive system: Evidence from patent data. Research Policy, 30(7), 1019–1039.Google Scholar

Foster, J., Metcalfe, J. S. (2012). Economic emergence: An evolutionary economic perspective. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 82(2–3), 420–432.Google Scholar

Gibson, C., Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.Google Scholar

Goya, E., Vayá, E., Suriñach, J. (2013). Do spillovers matter? CDM model estimates for Spain using panel data. SEARCH Working Paper WP4/28. www.ub.edu/searchproject/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/WP_SEARCH-4.28.pdf Google Scholar

Graham, S. J. H., Merges, R., Samuelson, P., Sichelman, T. (2010). High technology entrepreneurs and the patent system: Results of the 2008 Berkeley patent survey. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 24(4), 1255–1328.Google Scholar

Griliches, Z. (1979). Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1), 92–116.Google Scholar

Griliches, Z. (1992). The search for R&D spillovers. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94(Supplement), 29–47.Google Scholar

Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., Alpkan, L. (2011). Effects of innovation types on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 133(2), 662–676.Google Scholar

Hall, B. H. (2005). Measuring the returns to R&D: The depreciation problem. Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, 79/80, 341–382.Google Scholar

Hall, B. H., Mairesse, J. (2006). Empirical studies of innovation in the knowledge driven economy. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(4/5), 289–299.Google Scholar

Hall, B. H., Mairesse, J., Mohnen, P. (2010). Measuring the returns to R&D. In Hall, B. H., Rosenberg, N. (eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, vol. 2, pp. 1033–1082. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Hansen, M. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.Google Scholar

Hausmann, R., Hidalgo, C. A. (2009). The building block of economic complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(26), 10570–10575.Google Scholar

Hausmann, R., Hidalgo, C. A. (2013). The Atlas of Economic Complexity: Mapping Paths to Prosperity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Holtz-Eakin, D., Joulfaian, D., Rosen, H. S. (1994). Sticking it out: Entrepreneurial survival and liquidity constraints. Journal of Political Economy, 102(1), 53–75.Google Scholar

Jacobs, J. (1969). The Economy of Cities. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

Jaffe, A. B. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits, and market value. American Economic Review, 76(5), 984–1001.Google Scholar

Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598.Google Scholar

Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., Lundvall, B. A. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36(5), 680–693.Google Scholar

Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., Lundvall, B. A. (2002). Why all this fuss about codified and tacit knowledge? Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(2), 245–262.Google Scholar

Jones, C. (1995.) R&D based models of economic growth. European Journal of Political Economy, 103(4), 759–784.Google Scholar

Kalleberg, A., Mardsen, P. (2005). Externalizing organizational activities: Where and how U.S. establishments use employment intermediaries. Socioeconomic Review, 3(3), 389–415.Google Scholar

Katz, L. F., Autor, D. H. (1999). Changes in the wage structure and earnings inequality. In Ashenfelter, O., Card, D. E. (eds.), Handbook of Labor Economics, vol. 3, pp. 1463–1555. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Kremer, M. (1993). The O-ring theory of economic development. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 551–575.Google Scholar

Kruse, D. L. (1992). Profit sharing and productivity: Microeconomic evidence from the United States. Economic Journal, 102(410), 24–36.Google Scholar

Laursen, K., Reichstein, T., Salter, A. (2011). Exploring the effect of geographical proximity and university quality on university–industry collaboration in the United Kingdom. Regional Studies, 45(4), 507–523.Google Scholar

Lazonick, W. (1990). Competitive Advantage on the Shop Floor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Lazonick, W. (1991). Business Organization and the Myth of Market Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lazonick, W. (1992). Organization and Technology in Capitalist Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Lazonick, W. (2010). The Chandlerian corporation and the theory of innovative enterprise. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(2), 317–349.Google Scholar

Leontief, W. (1953). Domestic production and foreign trade: The American capital position re-examined. Proceedings of the American Philosophycal Society, 97(4), 332–349.Google Scholar

Lhuillery, S. (2011). Absorptive capacity, efficiency effect and competitors spillovers. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 21(4), 649–663.Google Scholar

Link, A. N. (1980). Firm size and efficient entrepreneurial activity: A Reformulation of the Schumpeter hypothesis. European Journal of Political Economy, 88(4), 771–782.Google Scholar

Link, A., Siegel, D. (2007). Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Technological Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Liu, D., Gong, Z. J., Huang, J. C. (2017). Human resource systems, employee creativity, and firm innovation: The moderating role of firm ownership. Academic Management Journal, 60(3), 1164–1188.Google Scholar

Malcomson, J. M. (1997). Contracts, hold-up, and labour markets. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(4), 1916–1957.Google Scholar

Mansfield, E., Lee, J. (1996). The modern university: Contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Research Policy, 25(7), 1047–1058.Google Scholar

Mansfield, E., Schwartz, M., Wagner, S. (1981). Imitation costs and patents: An empirical study. Economic Journal, 91(364), 907–918.Google Scholar

Martínez-Sánchez, A., Vela-Jiménez, M. J., Pérez-Pérez, M., de-Luis-Carnicer, P. (2011). The dynamics of labour flexibility: Relationship between employment type and innovativeness. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 715–736.Google Scholar

Matusik, S. F., Hill, C. W. L. (1998). The utilization of contingent work, knowledge creation, and competitive advantage. Academic Management Review, 23(4), 680–697.Google Scholar

Manzaneque, M., Rojo-Ramírez, A. A., Diéguez-Soto, J., Martinez-Romero, M. J. (2020). How negative aspiration performance gaps affect innovation efficiency. Small Business Economics, 54(1), 209–233.Google Scholar

Massenot, B., Pettinicchi, Y. (2018). Can firms see into the future? Survey evidence from Germany. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 145(C), 66–79.Google Scholar

Merton, R. (2013). Innovation risk. Harvard Business Review, 91(4), 48–56.Google Scholar

Milgrom, P., Roberts, J. (1994). Complementarities and systems: Understanding Japanese economic organization. Estudios Economicos, 9(1), 3–42.Google Scholar

Mokyr, J. (1990). The Lever of Riches. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Montresor, S., Quatraro, F. (2017). Regional branching and key enabling technologies: Evidence from European patent data. Economic Geography, 93(4), 367–396.Google Scholar

Munoz, F. F., Encinar, M. I. (2014). Intentionality and the emergence of complexity: An analytical approach. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 24(2), 317–334.Google Scholar

Muscio, A., Vallanti, G. (2014). Perceived obstacles to university–industry collaboration: Results from a qualitative survey of Italian academic departments. Industry and Innovation, 21(5), 410–429.Google Scholar

Neffke, F., Hartog, M., Boschma, R., Henning, M. (2018). Agents of structural change: The role of firms and entrepreneurs in regional diversification. Journal Economic Geography, 94(1), 23–48.Google Scholar

Nelson, R. R. (1982). The role of knowledge in R&D efficiency. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 97(3), 453–470.Google Scholar

Nelson, R. R., Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar

Nooteboom, B. (2000). Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Penrose, E. T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Quatraro, F. (2009). Diffusion of regional innovation capabilities: Evidence from Italian patent data. Regional Studies, 43(10), 1333–1348.Google Scholar

Quatraro, F. (2010). Knowledge coherence, variety and economic growth: Manufacturing evidence from Italian regions. Research Policy, 39(10), 1289–1302.Google Scholar

Quatraro, F. (2012). The Economics of Structural Change in Knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Qian, H., Jung, H. (2017). Solving the knowledge filter puzzle: Absorptive capacity, entrepreneurship and regional development. Small Business Economics, 48(1), 99–114.Google Scholar

Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.Google Scholar

Revest, V., Sapio, A. (2012). Financing technology-based small firms in Europe: What do we know? Small Business Economics, 39, 179–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-010-9291-6 Google Scholar

Rigby, D. L. (2015). Technological relatedness and knowledge space: Entry and exit of US cities from patent classes. Regional Studies, 49(11), 1922–1937.Google Scholar

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

Romer, P. M. (1994). The origins of endogenous growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 3–22.Google Scholar

Saviotti, P. P. (2007). On the dynamics of generation and utilisation of knowledge: The local character of knowledge. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 18(4), 387–408.Google Scholar

Schumpeter, J. A. (1928). The instability of capitalism. Economic Journal, 38(151), 361–386.Google Scholar

Schumpeter, J. A. (1911–1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar

Schumpeter, J. A. (1947). The creative response in economic history. Journal of Economic History, 7(2), 149–159.Google Scholar

Shapiro, C., Stiglitz, J. E. (1984). Equilibrium unemployment as a worker discipline device. American Economic Review, 74(3), 433–444.Google Scholar

Scitovsky, T. (1954). Two concepts of external economy. Journal of Political Economy, 62(2), 143–151.Google Scholar

Söderblom, A., Samuelsson, M., Wiklund, J., Sandberg, R. (2015). Inside the black box of outcome additionality: Effects of early-stage government subsidies on resource accumulation and new venture performance. Research Policy, 44(8), 1501–1512.Google Scholar

Stiglitz, J. E. (1974). Alternative theories of wage determination and unemployment in LDCs: The labor turnover model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 88(2), 194–227.Google Scholar

Stiglitz, J. E. (1987). Learning to learn, localized learning and technological progress. In Dasgupta, P., Stoneman, P. (eds.), Economic Policy and Industrial Performance, pp. 125–144. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Storey, J., Quintas, P., Taylor, P., Fowle, W. (2002). Flexible employment contracts and their implications for product and process innovation. International Journal of Human Resources Management, 13(1), 1–18.Google Scholar

Storey, D. J., Tether, B. S. (1998). Public policy measures to support new technology-based firms in the European Union. Research Policy, 26(9), 1037–1057.Google Scholar

Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing, and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.Google Scholar

Tushman, M., O’Reilly, C. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–29.Google Scholar

Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323.Google Scholar

Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., François, D. (2009). The cost factor in patent systems. Journal of Industrial Competition and Trade, 9(4), 329–355.Google Scholar

Von Hippel, E. (1988). The Sources of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Von Hippel, E. (1994). Sticky information and the locus of problem-solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40(4), 429–439.Google Scholar

Von Hippel, E. (1998). Economics of product development by users: The impact of sticky local information. Management Science, 44(4), 629–644.Google Scholar

Weitzman, M. L. (1996). Hybridizing growth theory. American Economic Review, 86(2), 207–212.Google Scholar

Weitzman, M. L. (1998). Recombinant growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(2), 331–360.Google Scholar

Zhou, H., Dekker, R., Kleinknecht, A. (2011). Flexible labor and innovation performance: Evidence from longitudinal firm-level data. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(3), 941–968.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.