The Innovation and Imitation Dichotomy in Spanish Firms: Do Absorptive Capacity and the Technological Frontier Matter?

Gombau, Verònica; Segarra‐Blasco, Agustí

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1973790

Cited by 17 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whereas the country-or industry-level empirical data is usually collected by national statistical offices, sociological studies are conducted to estimate the TFs for individual companies. For example, a survey of Spanish businesses allowed for modeling the impact of companies' technological gap with the leading firm on their choice between innovation creation and borrowing; the TF was measured as the TFP [Gombau, Segarra, 2011]. A similar survey was conducted in African countries, but TF was not considered in the context of imitation vs innovation [Cirera et al, 2017].…”

Section: Tf Quantification Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of the Technology Frontier

Balatsky¹

2021

Foresight and STI Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The subject of this study is the innovation market. To understand the laws of its functioning, this article introduces the concept of a technology frontier. This is understood as the relative productivity of labor (relative to the technological leader – the United States), the achievement of which makes it justified for developing economies to move from large-scale borrowing of foreign new technologies to their development within the country. The purpose of the article is to determine the specified frontier, for which a simple econometric model based on international statistics for 61 countries is proposed. To improve the accuracy of the calculations, countries were clustered into two groups: advanced, for which the technology frontier has been crossed and their own developments of new technologies prevail, and developing, for which the problem of the technology frontier remains important. The current value of the technology frontier is in the region of 70% of labor productivity in the United States. The comparison with previous estimates shows that this value tends to increase, which creates additional difficulties for the transition of catching-up countries from the mode of borrowing to the mode of creating new technologies. Taking into account the technological frontier allows avoiding both an undue delay in the development of proprietary technologies as well as a premature transition to the creation of innovations while ignoring the possibilities of borrowing.

show abstract

Section: Tf Quantification Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of the Technology Frontier

Balatsky¹

2021

Foresight and STI Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Tf Quantification Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2021

Foresight and STI Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growing share on the aerospace market is due to the increased supply of aircraft components, primarily engines (Figure 5).The changes in the global AM markets' "design" among other things have been caused by the implementation of industrial policies aimed at increasing competitiveness and accelerating growth through structural reforms. However, countries' priorities and implementation methods vary significantly. Industry 4.0 radically changes the understanding of industrial policy vector and stakeholders [Reischauer, 2018]. Germany, China, and the US are striving to maintain leadership by increasing value added in the manufacturing industry. France and Japan localize production, increase its sustainability, and reduce the negative effects of high labor costs. France aims to modernize its manufacturing basis and retain AM leadership, provided it can contain labor costs growth and related social factors [Blanchet et al., 2016]. Russia's industrial policy is mostly vertical in nature, providing selective support and "appointing champions" -industries Таble 1. Classification of AM markets Group Number of markets Composition Share in aggregate AM market (%) Industry 3.0 3 Electronics, optoelectronics, ICT 63.2 Industry 4.0 4 Additive manufacturing, biotechnology, life sciences, flexible production (including robotics) 27.2 Other* 4 New materials, aerospace, nuclear technologies, armaments 9.6* Products not directly related to Industry 3.0 and 4.0. COMTRADE data includes only public information on international trade in armaments. Thus the above estimates do not reflect this market's actual size. However, using this approach makes sense for two reasons. Other available data allows to estimate the overall arms market size without breaking it down into product types (e.g. the SIPRI Arms Transfers Database project). For us, it's important to consider structural shifts not only between markets but also within them, at the level of specific product groups. In line with the adopted approach, the arms market comprises not only armaments and their parts, but also prismatic infrared binoculars, optical telescopes, periscopes, navigation logbooks, and depth sounding equipment.. Source: authors. *To analyse the changes in the aggregate AM market situation, we selected countries at different stages of economic development according to the World Bank classification, including: developed, newly industrialised, and emerging ones, and the BRICS group. Sources: authors' calculations based on COMTRADE data and HS 2002 classification.Таble 4. Selected countries' shares in global imports of advanced AM products (%)*

show abstract

Evaluating Antitrust Leniency Programs

Borrell

Jiménez

García³

2012

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper identifies and then quantifies econometrically the impact of leniency programs on the perception of the effectiveness of antitrust policies in the business community using panel data for as much as 59 countries and 14-year span. We use the dynamics of the gradual diffusion of leniency programs across countries and over time to evaluate the impact of the program, taking care of the bias caused by self-selection into the program. We find that leniency programs increase the perception of effectiveness by an order of magnitude ranging from 10% to 21%. Leniency programs have become weapons of mass dissuasion in the hands of antitrust enforcers against the more damaging forms of explicit collusion among rival firms in the market place.JEL Codes: D7; K2; L4; O4.

show abstract

The Innovation and Imitation Dichotomy in Spanish Firms: Do Absorptive Capacity and the Technological Frontier Matter?

Cited by 17 publications

References 75 publications

Identification of the Technology Frontier

Identification of the Technology Frontier

Untitled

Evaluating Antitrust Leniency Programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About