Publications
-
List item
The role of gender in linking external sources of knowledge and R&D intensity
Scholars examining the effect of knowledge spillovers on R&D and innovation all agree on one thing--there is a strong relationship… Show more between the firm's R&D effort and knowledge spillover. The sign of this relationship depends, however, on many things, such as the type of spillovers (horizontal, vertical, or from other sources), the level of appropriability , the type of firm (e.g., age and sector), and the measurement of the spillover itself. A missing piece of evidence to this literature is the role of gender in the founding team of the firm. Our contribution is to fill this gap by explicitly analyzing the role played by gender in the founding team. Given that the relationship between a firm's R&D intensity and external knowledge spillovers is ultimately context-specific, we analyse the differences between male-owned and female-owned young entrepreneurial firms with respect to the influence that knowledge spillovers have on their R&D intensity. Show less
-
List item
Regulations and technology gap in Europe: the role of firm dynamics
In this paper, we develop a new firm-level measure of distance to the productivity frontier that accounts for international technology… Show more spillovers stemming from the use of imported intermediate goods. The trade-weighted technological distance to frontier is matched with sector- and country-level data on regulation and firm dynamics (entry and exit rates) of 16 European countries. Using our measure of trade-adjusted technology gap, we investigate the role of labour, capital, and product market regulatory frameworks in the technology catch-up process, gauging the effect of firms' dynamics in mediating and moderating the impact of regulation on the technology gap. Our study offers a novel perspective and insights to the analysis of the link between framework conditions and technological distance to frontier. While most scholars argue that less regulation always favours productivity growth and the diffusion of technology, our results provide a more nuanced picture. Deregulation is not a one-size-fits-all solution that leads to faster technology diffusion, instead heterogeneity in business dynamism and countries' regulatory structures need to be considered. Show less
-
List item
Technological readiness in Europe EU policy perspectives on Industry 4.0
Industry 4.0 and Regional Transformations, Edited By L.a De Propris, D. Bailey (13 chapters, 276 pages) This edited volume brings together… Show more a group of expert contributors to explorebthe opportunities and the challenges that Industry 4.0 (smart manufacturing) is likely to pose for regions, fi rms and jobs in Europe. Drawing on theory and empirical cases, it considers emerging issues like servitization, new innovation models for local production systems and the increase in reshoring. Industry 4.0 and Regional Transformations captures the complexity of this new manufacturing model in an accessible way and considers its implications for the future. It will be essential reading for advanced students and researchers and policy makers in regional studies, industrial policy, economic geography, innovation studies, operations management and engineering. Chapter 12: Technological readiness in Europe: EU policy perspectives on Industry 4.0, by Mafini Dosso, JRC B3. Territorial development, Seville, Spain The technological and innovative developments promised by the next industrial revolution come with their corollaries of optimistic and pessimistic scenarios for our societies. Public policy is tackling digital transition issues; meanwhile, it is already acting on and anticipating the challenges and opportunities, and the risks and uncertainties, of the emerging Industry 4.0 paradigm. The qualitative analysis mainly relies upon official European Commission communications and European Union (EU) reports as well as thematic national and regional strategies. It brings together an updated and structured picture of some of the rationales and directions of I4.0-enabling policies in the EU. The initial efforts to develop key enabling technologies and advanced manufacturing as engines of the EU’s growth trajectory led to the identification of priority action lines for the EU’s industrial policy and investments into new technologies. The priority areas underlined in the previous communications also constituted important building blocks of the EU Regional and Cohesion Policy for the period 2014–2020 Show less
-
List item
The EU vs US corporate R&D intensity gap: Investigating key sectors and firms
This paper contributes to the literature on corporate research and development (R&D) intensity decomposition by examining the effects of several… Show more parameters on R&D intensity. It draws on a longitudinal company-level micro-dataset, built using four editions of the EU R&D Scoreboard, and confirms the structural nature of the EU R&D intensity gap with the US, which has widened in the last decade. As a novel contribution to the literature, this paper uncovers the differences between the EU and the US by inspecting which sectors and firms are more accountable for the aggregate R&D intensity performance of these two economies. Furthermore, the study shows that a large share of R&D investment by the EU sample is mostly conducted in sectors with medium or low R&D intensity, and that there is a high concentration of R&D in a few sectors and firms. Interestingly, the investigation finds a high heterogeneity in firms' R&D intensity within sectors, indicating the coexistence of firms with different R&D investment strategies and efficiencies. Finally, the study reveals that the EU holds a much lower number of both larger and smaller R&D investors than the USA, in the four high-tech sectors that are key to the aggregate EU R&D intensity gap vis-à-vis the USA. Show less
-
List item
On R&D sectoral intensities and convergence clubs
Sectoral convergence in R&D intensities among firms is a concept that, although rarely formalized, has been at the center of… Show more discussions of industrial and non-industrial actors, such as entrepreneurs, institutions and academics. Far from being a settled issue, the subject has seen very limited empirical attention. We start from the few current evidences, which point to the existence of some beta-convergence together with diffused heterogeneity. We recover and integrate the literature from convergence clubs and extend the work introducing the use of Pavitt taxonomy, and new estimation techniques. Particularly, we apply the concept of weak sigma-convergence using a quite novel econometric factor model. Thanks to this, we provide evidences of both beta-convergence for within-sector intensities and of club convergence for across-sector intensities. Finally, the club classification according to "innovative effort" may be used as an alternative way to look at standard economic activities classifications. Show less
-
List item
PDF Global race for robotisation – Looking at the entire robotisation chain
Where does Europe stand in the global robotisation race? This paper aims to answer this question by developing a novel… Show more theoretical and analytical framework which applies the concept of a global value chain to robotisation. By doing this, we investigate in detail the entire robotisation chain, from robotics developers to robot manufacturers, and companies that deploy industrial robots. For the research and development (R&D)-intensive part of the chain (robotics development), we analyse the robotics patent data of the Worldwide Patent Statistical Database (PATSTAT) combined with ORBIS, while for the capital-intensive part (deployment of robots), our information is sourced from the International Federation of Robotics (IFR). Our results show that although the ‘big five’ (Europe, USA, China, Japan, and Korea) dominate the global robotisation landscape they do not all hold equally strong positions across the whole robotisation chain. Japan and Korea are the early first-movers and today’s global leaders, as they are robustly engaged in every part of the chain. Europe is very strong in robot manufacturing and robot deployment, but is behind global leaders in robotics development. The USA has its firm competitive advantages in robotics development, while at present the latecomer China is a rival only in the industrial deployment of robots. Nevertheless, in Europe, some smaller and advanced economies are specialising in certain parts of the robotisation chain, as Austria, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden are performing well in robotics development; not only this, Belgium, Italy, and Spain are making extensive use of industrial robots for various kinds of manufacturing. European economies which are lagging behind the rest – largely consisting of Central and Eastern European countries – are involved in the robotisation chain only insofar as they are involved in robot deployment. Since there are only 43 countries globally who are taking part in robotisation, the eminent policy challenge remains to find ways for countries to become integrated into the robotisation chain, and for those countries already engaged in robotisation, the main focus is to create policies which support upgrading across the chain, as the reshoring of previously offshored production becomes more prevalent. Show less
-
List item
Asbestos, leaded petrol, and other aberrations: Comparing countries’ regulatory responses to disapproved products and technologies
Industrial innovation churns out increasingly unnatural products and technologies amid scientific uncertainty about their harmful effects. We argue that a… Show more quick regulatory response to the discovery that certain innovations are harmful is an important indicator for evaluating the performance of an innovation system. Using a unique hand-collected dataset, we explore the temporal geography of regulatory responses as evidenced by the years in which countries introduce bans against leaded petrol, asbestos, DDT, smoking in public places, and plastic bags, as well as introducing the driver’s seatbelt obligation. We find inconsistent regulatory responses by countries across different threats, and that countries’ level of economic development is often not a good predictor of early bans. Moreover, an early introduction of one ban is not strongly related to the relative performance in regard to another ban, which raises possible questions about the coherence of regulatory responses across different threats. Show less
-
List item
PDF Investigating the capabilities and the competitiveness of the EU visà-vis its main competitors in developing civilian technologies with critical spillovers into the defence
This study proposes a framework for investigating the relevance of dual use inventions, i.e., military applications of civilian patents. The… Show more data collected extends the companion report that focused on the opposite direction of dual use: from military inventions to civilian applications (Caviggioli et al., 2018). The analyses focus on 10 million patent families from selected patent offices in the years 2002-2015. The method proposed identified 85,034 defence inventions (0.9%) that were compared with the civilian inventions along several dimensions (time, geography, technological clusters). This study operationalises dual use from both a civilian to a military application (CM dual use) and in the opposite direction (MC dual use). The presence of CM dual inventions is 1.4% of the total civilian sample, with a slightly decreasing trend. They are four times the MCs in absolute numbers. The geographical analysis reveals heterogeneity: the US is the origin of 58.7% of the total dual use inventions identified in the sample and shows the highest incidence of cases (4.7% of all civilian inventions). The results also indicate significant heterogeneity in the share of domestic knowledge flows. The domestic spillover for dual in most of the countries examined is lower than for non-dual: a military application of a civilian innovation is a relatively more frequent occurrence outside the borders of the country with the exceptions of the USA, France, and the Russian Federation. The share of domestic CM dual use in the EU28 area is 36%, smaller than the corresponding non-dual value (42%). Show less
-
List item
PDF The 2019 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard
The 2019 edition of the EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard (the Scoreboard) comprises the 2500 companies investing the largest sums… Show more in R&D in the world in 2018/19. These companies, based in 44 countries, each invested over €30 million in R&D for a total of €823.4bn which is approximately 90% of the world’s business-funded R&D. They include 551 EU companies accounting for 25% of the total, 769 US companies for 38%, 318 Japanese companies for 13%, 507 Chinese for 12% and 355 from the rest-of-the-world (RoW) for 12%. This report analyses the main changes in companies' R&D and economic indicators over the past year and their performance over the past ten years. It also includes patent-based analyses aimed at characterising further the R&D efficiency of the business health sector and the activity of the Scoreboard companies in the field of environmental technologies. Show less
-
List item
PDF The 2019 EU Survey on Industrial R&D Investment Trends
The 131 EU companies participating in this year's EU Survey expect R&D investments to increase by 4.6% per year in… Show more 2019 and 2020. This is slightly below the 5.4% that was expected last year, but still high in a historic perspective. Companies in the 'Health industries' and 'ICT producers' sectors expect their R&D to increase most. Ninety percent of all participating companies have both environmental and social sustainability policies in place, while the rest plans to do so in the coming 5 years. Due to European Green Deal and climate action priority of the Commission, this year's survey asked participating firms on the sustainability efforts of their companies. Companies that had environmental sustainability policies in place also had social sustainability policies in place (and vice versa). Only two companies indicated to not have either an environmental or social sustainability in place and nor is planning to implement this within the coming five years. Sustainable technologies are considered among the most relevant technologies to remain competitive in the future. Together with Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Big Data, these technologies have been identified as most relevant for future competitiveness. While sustainability technologies are specifically relevant for companies from sectors that have a big impact on the environment (either as provider or supplier of sustainable solutions), AI and Big Data are expected to have a positive impact on competitiveness in a wide range of sectors. Health and Industrials invest the smallest proportion of net sales in environmental sustainability. Companies from the ICT sectors have the highest environmental sustainability intensity. While the average R&D intensity of all participants to the survey is 3.5%, this environmental sustainability intensity is 1.0%. Only less than half of the companies provided an estimation of the company's investments in environmental sustainability indicating that still many companies do not keep track of this information or find it difficult to provide even a rough estimate. This year’s expectations on the impact of Brexit on R&D strategies are much more negative than last year. The proportion of firms expecting no impact decreased from 52% to 37% while the group that expects a relevant impact on their R&D strategies multiplied from 4% to 16%. Especially the firms that responded last year that the impact depended on the negotiations turned more negative, with almost half of them expecting now a relevant impact, clearly indicating of how the situation has evolved over the last year. This information was gathered during the period March-June 2019, during which the insecurities about the implementation of the Brexit process increased significantly. 72% of all R&D is performed within the EU, which is similar to previous editions. This proportion has been stable since many years, still not showing any sign of erosion or offshoring the R&D base to other regions. In fact, the absolute amount of R&D within the EU is foreseen to grow the coming two years by 2.5% per year, from €25 to €26 billion, while the proportion of firms with R&D activities in all four of the main regions (EU, US, Asia and RoW) remains very high. For the first time since the start of the survey, R&D investment growth in China is expected to be single-digit (8.1% compared to 21.3% in the previous survey). The highest R&D increase in percentage points is expected in India (+10.4%, similar to last year). This year, with "only" a foreseen increase of 8.1%, this is the lowest foreseen increase since the start of the survey but still well above the average expected R&D growth. One out of nine companies in this survey performs R&D in only one country – in line with last year's survey. All of these firms perform their R&D exclusively in the country of the headquarters. The headquarters’ country remains an important location to perform for companies with international R&D activities: almost 80% of the firms have their main R&D location in the country of the headquarters and perform a higher proportion of their R&D in this location than firms with their main R&D location outside the company’s HQ (68% vs 42%). The US is the most popular R&D location for the top EU R&D performers that participated in this survey, followed by Germany and China. Almost half of the participants performs R&D activities in the US. For Germany and China, this is around one third of the companies. Within the EU, Germany is followed by the UK, France and Sweden. Show less