Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Innovativity: A Comparison Across Seven European Countries

Contents:

Author Info

  • Pierre Mohnen

    ()

  • Jacques Mairesse
  • Marcel Dagenais

Abstract

This paper proposes a framework to account for innovation similar to the usual accounting framework in production analysis and a measure of “innovativity” comparable to that of total factor productivity. This innovation accounting framework is illustrated using micro-aggregated firm data from the first Community Innovation Surveys (CIS1) for seven European countries: Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Italy for the year 1992. Based on the estimation of a generalized Tobit model and measuring innovation as the share of total sales due to improved or new products, it compares the propensity to innovate, and the innovation intensity conditional and unconditional on being innovative, across the seven countries and low- and high-tech manufacturing sectors. Even with relatively few explanatory variables our innovation framework already accounts for sizeable differences in country innovation intensity. It also shows that differences in innovativity across countries can be nonetheless very large. Nous proposons, dans cette étude, un cadre d’analyse, ou « comptabilité de l’innovation », semblable à celui très généralement utilisé pour la « comptabilité de la croissance », ainsi qu’une mesure de la « productivité des facteurs d’innovation » ou « innovativité » comparable à celle de la productivité totale des facteurs. Nous appliquons ce cadre d’analyse à la comparaison de l’innovation pour sept pays européens – l’Allemagne, la Belgique, le Danemark, l’Irlande, l’Italie, la Norvège et les Pays-Bas –, à partir des données d’entreprises « micro agrégées » de la première enquête communautaire sur l’innovation (CIS1) portant sur l’année 1992. Sur la base d’un modèle Tobit généralisé et en mesurant l’innovation par la part du chiffre d’affaires des entreprises en produits innovants (nouveaux ou améliorés sur les trois années 1990-1992), nous estimons la propension à innover et l’intensité de l’innovation (conditionnellement ou non au fait d’innover) pour les industries manufacturières de haute et basse technologie des sept pays. Bien que disposant de variables explicatives peu nombreuses, nous rendons compte ainsi de différences déjà très significatives d’intensité d’innovation entre pays. Les différences d’innovativité entre pays restent néanmoins très fortes.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.cirano.qc.ca/pdf/publication/2006s-11.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by CIRANO in its series CIRANO Working Papers with number 2006s-11.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 01 Jun 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2006s-11

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 2020 rue University, 25e étage, Montréal, Quéc, H3A 2A5
Phone: (514) 985-4000
Fax: (514) 985-4039
Email:
Web page: http://www.cirano.qc.ca/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Europe; innovation; innovativity; R-D; selectivity; Europe; innovation; innovativité; R-D; sélectivité;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Heckman, James J, 1979. "Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(1), pages 153-61, January.
  2. repec:fth:inseep:9833 is not listed on IDEAS
  3. Geroski, P. A. & Van Reenen, J. & Walters, C. F., 1997. "How persistently do firms innovate?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 33-48, March.
  4. Cockburn, Iain & Griliches, Zvi, 1988. "Industry Effects and Appropriability Measures in the Stock Market's Valuation of R&D and Patents," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(2), pages 419-23, May.
  5. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1988. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial R&D," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 862, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
  6. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  7. Mairesse ,Jacques & Mohnen,Pierre, 2001. "To Be Or Not To Be Innovative: An Exercise In Measurement," Research Memorandum 038, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
  8. Arora, Ashish & Ceccagnoli, Marco & Cohen, Wesley M., 2008. "R&D and the patent premium," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 1153-1179, September.
  9. Crepon, B. & Duguet, E. & Mairesse, J., 1998. "Research Investment, Innovation and Productivity: An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 98.15, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
  10. Gary Jefferson & Bai Huamao & Guan Xiaojing & Yu Xiaoyun, 2006. "R&D Performance in Chinese industry," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4-5), pages 345-366.
  11. Dominique Foray, 2006. "The Economics of Knowledge," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262562235, December.
  12. Cragg, John G, 1971. "Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(5), pages 829-44, September.
  13. Puhani, Patrick A, 2000. " The Heckman Correction for Sample Selection and Its Critique," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 53-68, February.
  14. Jacques Mairesse & Pierre Mohnen, 2002. "Accounting for Innovation and Measuring Innovativeness: An Illustrative Framework and an Application," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 226-230, May.
  15. Lin, Zhengxi & Baldwin, John R., 2001. "Impediments to Advanced Technology Adoption for Canadian Manufacturers," Analytical Studies Branch Research Paper Series 2001173e, Statistics Canada, Analytical Studies Branch.
  16. José Miguel Benavente, 2002. "The Role of Research and Innovation in Promoting Productivity in Chile," Working Papers wp200, University of Chile, Department of Economics.
  17. Caves, Douglas W & Christensen, Laurits R & Diewert, W Erwin, 1982. "Multilateral Comparisons of Output, Input, and Productivity Using Superlative Index Numbers," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(365), pages 73-86, March.
  18. Quah, D., 1999. "The Weightless Economy in Economic Development," Research Paper 155, World Institute for Development Economics Research.
  19. Brouwer, Erik & Kleinknecht, Alfred, 1997. "Keynes-plus? Effective demand and changes in firm-level R&D: an empirical note," Serie Research Memoranda 0038, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
  20. Zvi Griliches & Jacques Mairesse, 1981. "Productivity and R and D at the Firm Level," NBER Working Papers 0826, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  21. Marcel Dagenais & Pierre Mohnen, 2000. "Towards an Innovation Intensity Index: The Case of CIS 1 in Denmark and Ireland," CIRANO Working Papers 2000s-20, CIRANO.
  22. Suits, Daniel B, 1984. "Dummy Variables: Mechanics v. Interpretation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 66(1), pages 177-80, February.
  23. Zvi Griliches, 1984. "R & D, Patents, and Productivity," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gril84-1, June.
  24. Robson, M. & Townsend, J. & Pavitt, K., 1988. "Sectoral patterns of production and use of innovations in the UK: 1945-1983," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-14, February.
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 in new window

Cited by:
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2006s-11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Webmaster).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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