IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/indinn/v19y2012i4p285-306.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Can CIS Data Tell Us about Technological Regimes and Persistence of Innovation?

Author

Listed:
  • Marion Frenz
  • Martha Prevezer

Abstract

This paper analyses the link between technological regimes and persistence in innovation at the firm level. It reviews the literature on persistence of innovation, measurement issues and technological regimes. It weighs up the advantages and disadvantages of using Community Innovation Survey (CIS) data in this debate. Technological regimes and innovation persistence are analysed with a balanced panel of around 4,000 firms that responded to the latest three waves of the UK version of the CIS. Key explanatory variables include measures of appropriability, cumulativeness, technological opportunity and closeness to the science base. We find that certain links between type of industry and characteristics of technological regime are more appropriate for analysis using CIS data, whereas others remain problematic.

Suggested Citation

  • Marion Frenz & Martha Prevezer, 2012. "What Can CIS Data Tell Us about Technological Regimes and Persistence of Innovation?," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 285-306, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:indinn:v:19:y:2012:i:4:p:285-306
    DOI: 10.1080/13662716.2012.694676
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13662716.2012.694676
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13662716.2012.694676?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emmanuel Duguet & Stéphanie Monjon, 2004. "Is innovation persistent at the firm Level. An econometric examination comparing the propensity score and regression methods," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques v04075, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    2. Segerstrom, Paul S & Anant, T C A & Dinopoulos, Elias, 1990. "A Schumpeterian Model of the Product Life Cycle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1077-1091, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dolores Añón Higón, 2016. "In-house versus External Basic Research and First-to-market Innovations," Working Papers 1601, Department of Applied Economics II, Universidad de Valencia.
    2. Wang, Haoying & Dou, Shuming, 2018. "Determinants of Trademarking: Evidence from Arizona and New Mexico Startups," MPRA Paper 90096, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Yang, Jialei & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia, 2022. "Evolving appropriability – Variation in the relevance of appropriability mechanisms across industries," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    4. Archibugi, Daniele & Filippetti, Andrea & Frenz, Marion, 2013. "Economic crisis and innovation: Is destruction prevailing over accumulation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 303-314.
    5. Davide Antonioli & Sandro Montresor, 2021. "Innovation persistence in times of crisis: an analysis of Italian firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1739-1764, April.
    6. Apa, Roberta & De Noni, Ivan & Orsi, Luigi & Sedita, Silvia Rita, 2018. "Knowledge space oddity: How to increase the intensity and relevance of the technological progress of European regions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1700-1712.
    7. Svetlov, Nikolai (Светов, Николай) & Shishkina, Ekaterina (Шишкина, Екатерина), 2016. "Economic and Mathematical Modeling of EAEC Agri-food Policy [Экономико-Математическое Моделирование Агро- Продовольственной Политики Еаэс]," Working Papers 767, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    8. Davide Antonioli & Alberto Marzucchi & Francesco Rentocchini & Simone Vannuccini, 2022. "Robot Adoption and Innovation Activities (last revised: December 2023)," Munich Papers in Political Economy 21, Munich School of Politics and Public Policy and the School of Management at the Technical University of Munich.
    9. Wang, Ming-Yeu & Fang, Shih-Chieh & Chang, Yu-Hsuan, 2015. "Exploring technological opportunities by mining the gaps between science and technology: Microalgal biofuels," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 182-195.
    10. Rammer, Christian & Schubert, Torben, 2016. "Concentration on the few? R&D and innovation in German firms 2001 to 2013," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-005, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    11. Suárez, Diana, 2014. "Persistence of innovation in unstable environments: Continuity and change in the firm's innovative behavior," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 726-736.
    12. Bjerke, Lina & Johansson, Sara, 2022. "Innovation in agriculture: An analysis of Swedish agricultural and non-agricultural firms," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    13. P. G. J. Persoon & R. N. A. Bekkers & F. Alkemade, 2020. "How cumulative is technological knowledge?," Papers 2012.00095, arXiv.org, revised May 2021.
    14. Thiago Caliari & Philipe Scherer Mendes & Márcia Rapini & Camila Tolentino, 2021. "Technological Cumulativeness and Innovation in Brazilian Manufacturing Industry: Evidences from Brazilian Innovation Surveys 2008, 2011, and 2014," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(2), pages 876-898, June.
    15. Davide Antonioli & Alberto Marzucchi & Francesco Rentocchini & Simone Vannuccini, 2024. "Robot Adoption and Product Innovation," GREDEG Working Papers 2024-01, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    16. Añón Higón, Dolores, 2016. "In-house versus external basic research and first-to-market innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 816-829.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chen, Hung-Ju, 2019. "Innovation and FDI: Does the Target of Intellectual Property Rights Matter?," MPRA Paper 94692, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Chu, Angus C. & Cozzi, Guido & Furukawa, Yuichi, 2016. "Unions, innovation and cross-country wage inequality," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 104-118.
    3. Gilberto Tadeu Lima, 2000. "Market concentration and technological innovation in a dynamic model of growth and distribution," BNL Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 53(215), pages 447-475.
    4. Chol-Won Li, 2003. "Endogenous Growth Without Scale Effects: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(3), pages 1009-1017, June.
    5. Leonard F.S. Wang & Arijit Mukherjee, 2014. "Patent Protection, Innovation and Technology Licensing," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3-4), pages 245-254, December.
    6. Yi-Ling Cheng & Juin-Jen Chang, 2017. "The Quality of Intermediate Goods: Growth and Welfare Implications," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 93(302), pages 434-447, September.
    7. Beschorner, Patrick Frank Ernst, 2008. "Do Shorter Product Cycles Induce Patent Thickets?," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-098, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Chu, Angus C. & Pan, Shiyuan, 2013. "The Escape-Infringement Effect Of Blocking Patents On Innovation And Economic Growth," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(4), pages 955-969, June.
    9. Rajat Acharyya & Prabal Roy Chowdhury, 2006. "Innovation incentives in an intergrated marketed with vertical product differentiation," Discussion Papers 06-02, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi.
    10. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1991. "Quality Ladders and Product Cycles," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(2), pages 557-586.
    11. Aghion, Philippe & Akcigit, Ufuk & Howitt, Peter, 2014. "What Do We Learn From Schumpeterian Growth Theory?," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 515-563, Elsevier.
    12. Haruyama, Tetsugen & Zhao, Laixun, 2017. "Trade and firm heterogeneity in a Schumpeterian model of growth," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 540-563.
    13. Pozzolo, Alberto Franco, 2004. "Endogenous Growth in Open Economies - A Survey of Major Results," Economics & Statistics Discussion Papers esdp04020, University of Molise, Department of Economics.
    14. Chen, Hung-Ju, 2018. "Innovation And Imitation: Effects Of Intellectual Property Rights In A Product-Cycle Model Of Skills Accumulation," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(6), pages 1475-1509, September.
    15. Soete, Luc & Weel, Bas ter, 1999. "Schumpeter and the Knowledge-Based Economy: On Technology and Competition Policy," Research Memorandum 004, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    16. Kerk Phillips & Jeffrey M. Wrase, 1999. "Schumpeterian growth and endogenous business cycles," Working Papers 99-20, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
    17. Huy-Cuong Vo-Thai & Trinh-Hoang Hong-Hue & My-Linh Tran, 2021. "Technological- and Non-Technological Innovation During the Growth Phase of Industry Life Cycle: An Evidence From Vietnamese Manufacturing Enterprises," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, July.
    18. Alberto Franco Pozzolo, 2004. "Research and Development, Regional Spillovers and the Location of Economic Activities," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 72(4), pages 463-482, July.
    19. Gancia, Gino & Zilibotti, Fabrizio, 2005. "Horizontal Innovation in the Theory of Growth and Development," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 3, pages 111-170, Elsevier.
    20. Ledezma, Ivan, 2013. "Defensive strategies in quality ladders," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 176-194.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:indinn:v:19:y:2012:i:4:p:285-306. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CIAI20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.