Does Schumpeter still rule? Reflections on the current epoch

Dekkers, Rob; Talbot, Steve; Thomson, Julie; Whittam, Geoff

doi:10.3917/jie.013.0007

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 111 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Market failure is not only tolerated, but taken as part of the fabric of innovation. Joseph Schumpeter's (1942, 1934) work advocating ‘industrial mutation' and ‘creative destruction' is commonly referenced, but the notion of a national innovation system (NIS) actually dates back to the 19th century (Dekkers et al., 2014; Freeman, 2002; Lundvall, 1992; Marshal, 1890; Nelson, 1993).…”

Section: Australian Innovation Policy Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing Australia's collaboration ‘problem’: Is there a Brave New World of innovation policy post COVID‐19?

George

Tarr

2021

Aust J Public Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a post‐COVID‐19 world, innovation stimuli and well‐aligned policies will assume even greater importance as various sectors seek to recover lost ground and to generate new opportunities. Collaborative partnering in innovation research and development (R&D) between private industry and higher education has increasingly emerged over the last decade as a leading key performance indicator for government policy development, and higher education research funding allocations. Recalibration of R&D‐related policies and incentivisation will require careful consideration, with constructive lessons to be learned from outcomes over the last four decades. This paper presents findings from a new study of stakeholder perceptions as to the National Innovation and Science Agenda's impact on innovation partnerships, and synthesises outcomes from two prior studies. It then examines a newly proposed innovation policy framework, Stimulating Business Investment in Innovation (SBII), set against a background of the shifting mix of paradigms that have comprised Australian innovation policy over the last 40 years. It argues that, following the SBII, any proposed change of policy direction will face significant challenges in its implementation, requiring a fully committed and comprehensive embrace by Government of the new APS engagement framework and greater levels of deliberative democracy.

show abstract

Section: Australian Innovation Policy Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing Australia's collaboration ‘problem’: Is there a Brave New World of innovation policy post COVID‐19?

George

Tarr

2021

Aust J Public Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the narrower sense (as defined by Global Entrepreneurship Monitor [GEM] for example), this means introducing new products or services to the market. However, in a broader sense, innovation includes introducing new methods of production, introducing different resources into production, innovating modes of conducting business, and creating new markets (Dekkers et al, 2014). Only a smaller proportion of entrepreneurial activity is truly innovative entrepreneurial activity (Low, 2015).…”

Section: Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Effects of Types of Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity on Subjective Well-Being

Svetek

Drnovšek

2021

J Happiness Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Entrepreneurial activity has been seen as the single most important activity of individuals due to its role in the economic development of nations. However, little is known about the impact of entrepreneurial activity on the subjective well-being of nations beyond its economic impact. The purpose of this study is to explore the impact of different types of entrepreneurial activity – total entrepreneurial activity, opportunity-driven entrepreneurial activity and innovative entrepreneurial activity – on subjective well-being across nations. We consider three distinct mechanisms by which entrepreneurship may influence subjective well-being at the national level. Our panel data includes representative country-level data from 2008 to 2015 from five different data sources for 31 European countries. We employ four econometric models for analyzing the panel data: pooled OLS regression (POLS), fixed effects model (FE), random effects model (RE), and simultaneous equations model (3SLS). Our results suggest that opportunity-driven entrepreneurial activity has a positive impact on subjective well-being. In addition, we find that subjective well-being affects the level of opportunity-driven and innovative entrepreneurial activity. These findings have implications for policy-makers seeking to promote not only economic development but also subjective well-being in the nation.

show abstract

“…Creativity and innovations are attributes of individual people but also features of organizations like cultural institutions, and social networks (Colapinto & Porlezza, 2013). Agricultural innovation in agriculture is more than a technology; involves different social, organizational or institutional processes, ranging from access to markets, credit or extension services to marketing produce in a new way (Abraham & Pingali, 2017), is a complex process where multiple actors play different roles (Dekkers et al, 2014;Dosi, 1983;Dosi et al, 1988). Smallholder farmers practice agricultural innovations to sustain food production and ensure rural food security under volatile production conditions, poor soil fertility, degraded land, proliferating agricultural risks, and high population pressure, and to address an increasingly diverse and complex range of needs (Kibwika, 2007;Lybbert & Sumner, 2012;Murray et al, 2016;Makate et al, 2018).…”

Section: Explaining the Values Of Social Network For Agricultural Innovationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovating social connectedness for agricultural innovations in eastern Ethiopia

Wedajo

Jilito

2020

Cogent Food & Agriculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agricultural innovations can be triggered by the social networks in which farmers have purposefully organized to support themselves. This paper, therefore, explores the values of social connectedness within locally established societies' mutual support associations for agricultural innovations. This study explains how mutual support social network associations trigger agricultural innovations and the way farmers utilize such networks to spiral agricultural innovations. Indigenous mutual support associations like Guuza, Iqubi and Afoosha function in trust-based self-enforcing orders, social networks and relationships in a more flexible and reciprocity-based order. These informal social networks are employed by farmers to collaborate on society's mutual support practices. Trust, norms and group membership are the key components of social capital within indigenous mutual support associations. The social connectedness within the sort of labor-sharing arrangement, informal financial group, funeral association and inter-village link aids member's collective capacity to figure the development of agricultural innovations. Inherently embedded social networks, mutual support, information sharing, interaction and trust among the members within mutual support associations are the ABOUT THE AUTHORS

show abstract

Does Schumpeter still rule? Reflections on the current epoch

Cited by 8 publications

References 111 publications

Addressing Australia's collaboration ‘problem’: Is there a Brave New World of innovation policy post COVID‐19?

Addressing Australia's collaboration ‘problem’: Is there a Brave New World of innovation policy post COVID‐19?

Exploring the Effects of Types of Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity on Subjective Well-Being

Innovating social connectedness for agricultural innovations in eastern Ethiopia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About