IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joevec/v36y2026i1d10.1007_s00191-025-00927-4.html

Openness and appropriability of young innovative firms: Evidence from a large-scale survey study

Author

Listed:
  • Hani Elzoumor

    (University of Gothenburg, Department of Economy and Society, Unit for Innovation and Entrepreneurship
    Technical University of Denmark, Centre for Technology Entrepreneurship
    Cairo University, Department of Economics)

  • Ethan Gifford

    (University of Gothenburg, Department of Economy and Society, Unit for Innovation and Entrepreneurship)

  • Daniel Ljungberg

    (University of Gothenburg, Department of Economy and Society, Unit for Innovation and Entrepreneurship)

Abstract

This study investigates the extent to which the breadth of appropriability mechanisms employed, along with the impact of external appropriability conditions, influences the openness of young innovative firms. More specifically, we use principal components analysis to derive four measures of external appropriability conditions—competitive pressure, innovation pressure, operational barriers, and IP barriers. We analyze how these conditions—along with the firm’s breadth of appropriability mechanisms—associate with two forms of firm-level openness. We use cross-sectional survey data on 3476 young innovative firms across ten European countries. Our study makes four important contributions. First, we confirm existing findings concerning the appropriability–openness paradox, while extending it to young innovative firms. Second, we provide new results differentiating between the effects of external appropriability conditions on two measures of openness: breadth of external search and collaboration depth. Third, we find novel evidence regarding the positive relationship between one type of external appropriability conditions—institutional barriers—and openness in young innovative firms. Fourth, we show a positive moderating effect of the severity of institutional barriers on the association between breadth of appropriability mechanisms and openness, i.e., more severe barriers lead to higher openness per unit of breadth.

Suggested Citation

  • Hani Elzoumor & Ethan Gifford & Daniel Ljungberg, 2026. "Openness and appropriability of young innovative firms: Evidence from a large-scale survey study," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 1-38, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:joevec:v:36:y:2026:i:1:d:10.1007_s00191-025-00927-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s00191-025-00927-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00191-025-00927-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00191-025-00927-4?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M., 2010. "How open is innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 699-709, July.
    2. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M. & Wallin, Martin W., 2021. "How open is innovation? A retrospective and ideas forward," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    3. Annamaria Conti & Marie Thursby & Frank T. Rothaermel, 2013. "Show Me the Right Stuff: Signals for High‐Tech Startups," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 341-364, June.
    4. Reinhilde Veugelers & Cédric Schneider, 2018. "Which IP strategies do young highly innovative firms choose?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 113-129, January.
    5. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Klevorick, Alvin K. & Levin, Richard C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Winter, Sidney G., 1995. "On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 185-205, March.
    7. Louis Guttman, 1954. "Some necessary conditions for common-factor analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 19(2), pages 149-161, June.
    8. David J. Teece, 2007. "Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(13), pages 1319-1350, December.
    9. Gimenez-Fernandez, Elena M. & Sandulli, Francesco D. & Bogers, Marcel, 2020. "Unpacking liabilities of newness and smallness in innovative start-ups: Investigating the differences in innovation performance between new and older small firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(10).
    10. Miozzo, Marcela & Desyllas, Panos & Lee, Hsing-fen & Miles, Ian, 2016. "Innovation collaboration and appropriability by knowledge-intensive business services firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1337-1351.
    11. 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.
    12. Astrid Heidemann Lassen & Daniel Ljungberg & Maureen McKelvey, 2020. "Promoting Future Sustainable Transition by Overcoming the Openness Paradox in KIE Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-14, December.
    13. Ethan Gifford & Daniel Ljungberg & Maureen McKelvey, 2022. "Innovating in knowledge-intensive entrepreneurial firms: exploring the effects of a variety of internal and external knowledge sources on goods and service innovations [Advancing knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship and innovation for economic gro," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 31(5), pages 1259-1284.
    14. Ethan Gifford & Guido Buenstorf & Daniel Ljungberg & Maureen McKelvey & Olof Zaring, 2021. "Variety in founder experience and the performance of knowledge-intensive innovative firms," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 677-713, April.
    15. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2002. "When Does Start-Up Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 571-586, Winter.
    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. Oliver Kovacs, 2026. "Mastering the spirited horse: A review of The Economics of Creative Destruction," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 1-12, August.

    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. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Yang, Jialei, 2022. "Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    2. Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Does fragmented or heterogeneous IP ownership stifle investments in innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-096, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    3. Langlois, Jonathan & BenMahmoud-Jouini, Sihem & Servajean-Hilst, Romaric, 2023. "Practicing secrecy in open innovation – The case of a military firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    4. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.
    5. Ovuakporie, Oghogho Destina & Pillai, Kishore Gopalakrishna & Wang, Chengang & Wei, Yingqi, 2021. "Differential moderating effects of strategic and operational reconfiguration on the relationship between open innovation practices and innovation performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    6. Joan Farre-Mensa & Deepak Hegde & Alexander Ljungqvist, 2016. "The Bright Side of Patents," NBER Working Papers 21959, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Colombelli, Alessandra & Grilli, Luca & Minola, Tommaso & Mrkajic, Boris, 2020. "To what extent do young innovative companies take advantage of policy support to enact innovation appropriation mechanisms?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(10).
    8. Torres de Oliveira, Rui & Verreynne, Martie-Louise & Steen, John & Indulska, Marta, 2021. "Creating value by giving away: A typology of different innovation revealing strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 137-150.
    9. Annamaria Conti & Jerry Thursby & Marie Thursby, 2013. "Patents as Signals for Startup Financing," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 592-622, September.
    10. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    11. Vlasova, Valeriya, 2021. "Industry-science cooperation and public policy instruments utilization in the private sector," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 519-528.
    12. Giovanni Dosi & Luigi Marengo & Corrado Pasquali, 2010. "How Much Should Society Fuel the Greed of Innovators? On the Relations between Appropriability, Opportunities and Rates of Innovation," Chapters, in: Riccardo Viale & Henry Etzkowitz (ed.), The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. David Encaoua & Dominique Guellec & Catalina Martínez, 2010. "Sistemas de patentes para fomentar la innovación: Lecciones de análisis económico," Working Papers 1015, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    14. Schwiebacher, Franz, 2012. "Complementary assets, patent thickets and hold-up threats: Do transaction costs undermine investments in innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-015, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    15. Archibugi, Daniele & Filippetti, Andrea, 2018. "The retreat of public research and its adverse consequences on innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 97-111.
    16. Aliasghar, Omid & Un, C. Annique & Asakawa, Kazuhiro & Haar, Jarrod & Wu, Sihong, 2025. "Foreign and domestic university collaboration for outbound open innovation," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2).
    17. Simon Wakeman, 2012. "How does obtaining intellectual property rights impact technology commercialization strategy for start-up innovators? Reconciling the effects on licensing vs. financing," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-12-03 (R1), ESMT European School of Management and Technology, revised 11 Jul 2012.
    18. Fischer, Timo & Henkel, Joachim, 2013. "Complements and substitutes in profiting from innovation—A choice experimental approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 326-339.
    19. Francesco Paolo Appio & Fabrizio Cesaroni & Alberto Minin, 2014. "Visualizing the structure and bridges of the intellectual property management and strategy literature: a document co-citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 623-661, October.
    20. Peters, Bettina & Diekhof, Josefine & Grimpe, Christoph & Marks, Hannes & Sofka, Wolfgang, 2023. "Machbarkeitsstudie Technologiemärkte," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 8-2023, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:spr:joevec:v:36:y:2026:i:1:d:10.1007_s00191-025-00927-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.