Search

Service-sector competition, innovation and R&D

PublicationArticle (with peer review)
Företagandets villkor, Innovation, Konkurrens, Patrik Karpaty, Research and Development

Abstract

The central prediction of the Aghion, Bloom, Blundell and Howitt model is an inverted U-shaped relationship between innovation and competition. The model is built on the assumption of a product market and has not yet been tested on the service sector. Using detailed firm-level data on Swedish service-sector firms, we find evidence of an inverse U-shaped relationship for exporting service-sector firms. A further breakdown of innovation expenditures shows that the inverse U-shaped pattern holds for intramural R&D and training, but not for extramural R&D. Finally, the results indicate that as competition increases, small firms tend to seek strategic alliances with competitors, whereas large firms tend to reduce collaboration with competitors. The behavior of large firms can partly be due to their superior capacity to handle innovation projects internally, which will become more important if increased competition results in higher pay-offs to innovation.

Karpaty, P. & Gustavsson Tingvall, P. (2011). Service-sector competition, innovation and R&D. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 20(1): 63-88.


Similar content

Assessing user perceptions of the interplay between the sharing, access, platform and community‐based economies
Article (with peer review)Publication
Geissinger, A., Laurell, C., Öberg, C., Sandström, C. & Suseno, Y.
Publication year

2020

Abstract

Purpose
Digitally intermediated peer-to-peer exchanges have accelerated in occurrence, and as a consequence, they have introduced an increased pluralism of connotations. Accordingly, this paper aims to assess user perceptions of the interplay between the sharing, access, platform, and community-based economies.

Design/methodology/approach
The sharing, access, platform, and community-based economies have been systematically tracked in the social media landscape using Social Media Analytics (SMA). In doing so, a total material of 62,855 publicly posted user-generated content concerning the four respective economies were collected and analyzed.

Findings
Even though the sharing economy has been conceptually argued to be interlinked with the access, platform, and community-based economies, the empirical results of the study do not validate this interlinkage. Instead, the results regarding user perceptions in social media show that the sharing, access, platform, and community-based economies manifest as clearly separated.

Originality/value
This paper contributes to existing literature by offering an empirical validation, as well as an in-depth understanding, of the sharing economy’s interlinkage to other economies, along with the extent to which the overlaps between these economies manifest in social media.

Bureaucrats or Markets in Innovation Policy? – a critique of the entrepreneurial state
Article (with peer review)Publication
Karlson, N., Sandström, C., & Wennberg, K.
Publication year

2020

Abstract

This paper takes stock of recent suggestions that the state apparatus is a central and underappreciated actor in the generation, diffusion and exploitation of innovations enhancing growth and social welfare. We contrast such a view of “the entrepreneurial state” with theories and empirical evidence of the microeconomic processes of innovation in the modern economy which focus on well-functioning markets, free entry and competition among firms, and independent entrepreneurship as central mechanisms in the creation and dissemination of innovations. In doing so, we identify several deficiencies in the notion of an entrepreneurial state by showing that (i) there is weak empirical support in the many hundreds empirical studies and related meta analyses evaluating the effectiveness of active industrial and innovative policies, that (ii) these policies do not take account of the presence of information and incentive problems which together explain why attempts to address purported market failures often result in policy failures, and that (iii) the exclusive focus on knowledge creation through R&D and different forms of firm subsidies ignores the equally important mechanisms of knowledge dissemination and creation through commercial exploitation in markets. We discuss how a more theoretically well-founded focus on the state as investing in knowledge generation and securing the conditions of free and competitive markets will lead to a more innovative economy.

Working Paper no. 331: Bureaucrats or Markets in Innovation Policy? – A critique of the entrepreneurial state
Working paperPublication
Karlson, N., Sandström, C. & Wennberg, K.
Publication year

2020

Abstract

This paper takes stock of recent suggestions that the state apparatus is a central and underappreciated actor in the generation, diffusion and exploitation of innovations enhancing growth and social welfare. We contrast such a view of “the entrepreneurial state” with theories and empirical evidence of the microeconomic processes of innovation in the modern economy which focus on well-functioning markets, free entry and competition among firms, and independent entrepreneurship as central mechanisms in the creation and dissemination of innovations. In doing so, we identify several deficiencies in the notion of an entrepreneurial state by showing that (i) there is weak empirical support in the many hundreds empirical studies and related meta analyses evaluating the effectiveness of active industrial and innovative policies, that (ii) these policies do not take account of the presence of information and incentive problems which together explain why attempts to address purported market failures often result in policy failures, and that (iii) the exclusive focus on knowledge creation through R&D and different forms of firm subsidies ignores the equally important mechanisms of knowledge dissemination and creation through commercial exploitation in markets. We discuss how a more theoretically well-founded focus on the state as investing in knowledge generation and securing the conditions of free and competitive markets will lead to a more innovative economy.

Show more

Postgiro: 382621-1

|

Bankgiro: 512-6578