IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Innovativity : A Comparison Across Seven European Countries

  • Pierre Mohen

    (Crest)

  • Jacques Mairesse

    (Crest)

  • Marcel Dagenais

    (Crest)

This paper proposes a framework to account for innovation similar to the usual accounting framework inproduction analysis and a measure of “innovativity” comparable to that of total factor productivity. Thisinnovation accounting framework is illustrated using micro-aggregated firm data from the first CommunityInnovation Surveys (CIS1) for seven European countries: Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, theNetherlands, Norway and Italy for the year 1992. Based on the estimation of a generalized Tobit model andmeasuring innovation as the share of total sales due to improved or new products, it compares thepropensity 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 fewexplanatory variables our innovation framework already accounts for sizeable differences in countryinnovation intensity. It also shows that differences in innovativity across countries can be nonetheless verylarge.

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.crest.fr/images/doctravail/2006-15.pdf
File Function: Crest working paper version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Centre de Recherche en Economie et Statistique in its series Working Papers with number 2006-15.

as
in new window

Length: 58
Date of creation: 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:crs:wpaper:2006-15
Contact details of provider: Postal: 15 Boulevard Gabriel Peri 92245 Malakoff Cedex
Phone: 01 41 17 60 81
Web page: http://www.crest.fr

More information through EDIRC

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. Ashish Arora & Marco Ceccagnoli & Wesley M. Cohen, 2003. "R&D and the Patent Premium," NBER Working Papers 9431, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. Iain Cockburn & Zvi Griliches, 1987. "Industry Effects and Appropriability Measures in the Stock Markets Valuation of R&D and Patents," NBER Working Papers 2465, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Baldwin, John & Lin, Zhengxi, 2002. "Impediments to advanced technology adoption for Canadian manufacturers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 1-18, January.
  6. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
  7. Suits, Daniel B, 1984. "Dummy Variables: Mechanics v. Interpretation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 66(1), pages 177-80, February.
  8. Dominique Foray, 2006. "The Economics of Knowledge," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262562235, June.
  9. Quah, Danny, 1999. "The Weightless Economy in Economic Development," CEPR Discussion Papers 2094, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  10. repec:fth:inseep:9833 is not listed on IDEAS
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  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. 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.
  15. 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).
  16. Brouwer, Erik & Kleinknecht, Alfred, 1999. "Keynes-Plus? Effective Demand and Changes in Firm-Level R&D: An Empirical Note," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 385-91, May.
  17. 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.
  18. José Miguel Benavente, 2002. "The Role of Research and Innovation in Promoting Productivity in Chile," Working Papers wp200, University of Chile, Department of Economics.
  19. Zvi Griliches, 1984. "R&D, Patents, and Productivity," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gril84-1, December.
  20. 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.
  21. 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).
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. Zvi Griliches & Jacques Mairesse, 1981. "Productivity and R and D at the Firm Level," NBER Working Papers 0826, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:crs:wpaper:2006-15. 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: (Florian Sallaberry)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.