IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ipt/wpaper/201505.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Key Enabling Technologies and Smart Specialization Strategies. European Regional Evidence from patent data

Author

Listed:
  • Sandro Montresor

    () (Kore University of Enna)

  • Francesco Quatraro

    () (University of Turin)

Abstract

The paper aims at investigating whether Key Enabling Technologies (KETs) can have a role in facilitating regional Smart Specialisation Strategies (S3). Drawing on the economic geography approach to S3, we formulate some hypotheses about the impact that KETs-related knowledge can have on the construction of new regional technological advantages (RTAs). By crossing regional data on patent applications, in KETs-mapped classes of the International Patent Classification (IPC), with a number of regional economic indicators, we test these hypotheses on a panel of 26 European countries over the period 1980-2010. KETs show a positive impact on the construction of new RTAs, pointing to a new “enabling” role for them. KETs also exert a negative moderating role on the RTAs impact of the density of related pre-existing technologies, pointing to the KETs capacity of making the latter less binding in pursuing S3. Overall, the net-impact of KETs is positive, pointing to a new case for plugging KETs in the S3 policy tool-box.

Suggested Citation

  • Sandro Montresor & Francesco Quatraro, 2015. "Key Enabling Technologies and Smart Specialization Strategies. European Regional Evidence from patent data," JRC Working Papers on Corporate R&D and Innovation 2015-05, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
  • Handle: RePEc:ipt:wpaper:201505
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/10180/6306bd4e-2577-4b4b-9388-b7cf65d41852
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gaëlle Garnier & Endre György & Kees Heineken & Milena Mathé & Laura Puglisi & Savino Ruà & Agnieszka Skonieczna & Astrid Van Mierlo, 2014. "A wind of change? Reforms of Tax Systems since the launch of Europe 2020," Reflets et perspectives de la vie économique, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(2), pages 75-111.
    2. Karkinsky, Tom & Riedel, Nadine, 2012. "Corporate taxation and the choice of patent location within multinational firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 176-185.
    3. Devereux, Michael P. & Lockwood, Ben & Redoano, Michela, 2008. "Do countries compete over corporate tax rates?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(5-6), pages 1210-1235, June.
    4. Thiess Buettner & Martin Ruf, 2007. "Tax incentives and the location of FDI: Evidence from a panel of German multinationals," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 14(2), pages 151-164, April.
    5. Natarajan Balasubramanian & Jagadeesh Sivadasan, 2011. "What Happens When Firms Patent? New Evidence from U.S. Economic Census Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(1), pages 126-146, February.
    6. Bloom, Nick & Griffith, Rachel & Van Reenen, John, 2002. "Do R&D tax credits work? Evidence from a panel of countries 1979-1997," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 1-31, July.
    7. Scherer, F. M. & Harhoff, Dietmar, 2000. "Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 559-566, April.
    8. Bronwyn H. Hall & Francesca Lotti & Jacques Mairesse, 2013. "Evidence on the impact of R&D and ICT investments on innovation and productivity in Italian firms," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 300-328, April.
    9. Carine Peeters & Bruno Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2006. "Innovation strategy and the patenting behavior of firms," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 109-135, April.
    10. Bronwyn Hall & Christian Helmers & Mark Rogers & Vania Sena, 2014. "The Choice between Formal and Informal Intellectual Property: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(2), pages 375-423, June.
    11. Lisa Evers & Helen Miller & Christoph Spengel, 2015. "Intellectual property box regimes: effective tax rates and tax policy considerations," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 22(3), pages 502-530, June.
    12. Park, Walter G., 2008. "International patent protection: 1960-2005," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 761-766, May.
    13. Christof Ernst & Katharina Richter & Nadine Riedel, 2014. "Corporate taxation and the quality of research and development," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 21(4), pages 694-719, August.
    14. Dischinger, Matthias & Riedel, Nadine, 2011. "Corporate taxes and the location of intangible assets within multinational firms," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 691-707.
    15. Arundel, Anthony, 2001. "The relative effectiveness of patents and secrecy for appropriation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 611-624, April.
    16. Sophia Rabe-Hesketh & Anders Skrondal, 2012. "Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata, 3rd Edition," Stata Press books, StataCorp LP, edition 3, number mimus2, April.
    17. Daniel J. Wilson, 2009. "Beggar Thy Neighbor? The In-State, Out-of-State, and Aggregate Effects of R&D Tax Credits," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 91(2), pages 431-436, May.
    18. Carine Peeters & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe, 2006. "Complex innovation strategies and patenting behaviour," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9051, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    19. Petr Hanel, 2008. "The Use Of Intellectual Property Rights And Innovation By Manufacturing Firms In Canada," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 285-309.
    20. Griffith, Rachel & Miller, Helen & O'Connell, Martin, 2014. "Ownership of intellectual property and corporate taxation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 12-23.
    21. Desai, Mihir A. & Hines, James R. Jr., 2002. "Expectations and Expatriations: Tracing the Causes and Consequences of Corporate Inversions," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 55(3), pages 409-440, September.
    22. Fuest, Clemens & Spengel, Christoph & Finke, Katharina & Heckemeyer, Jost H. & Nusser, Hannah, 2013. "Profit shifting and 'aggressive' tax planning by multinational firms: Issues and options for reform," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-078, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
    23. Hélène Dernis & Mafini Dosso & Fernando Hervas & Valentine Millot & Mariagrazia Squicciarini & Antonio Vezzani, 2015. "World Corporate Top R&D Investors: Innovation and IP bundles," JRC Working Papers JRC94932, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    24. Mariagrazia Squicciarini & Hélène Dernis, 2013. "A Cross-Country Characterisation of the Patenting Behaviour of Firms based on Matched Firm and Patent Data," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2013/5, OECD Publishing.
    25. Johannes Becker & Clemens Fuest, 2007. "Quality versus Quantity – The Composition Effect of Corporate Taxation on Foreign Direct Investment," CESifo Working Paper Series 2126, CESifo Group Munich.
    26. Bettina Becker & Nigel Pain, 2008. "What Determines Industrial R&D Expenditure In The Uk?," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 76(1), pages 66-87, January.
    27. Blind, Knut & Edler, Jakob & Frietsch, Rainer & Schmoch, Ulrich, 2006. "Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 655-672, June.
    28. Becker, Johannes & Fuest, Clemens & Riedel, Nadine, 2012. "Corporate tax effects on the quality and quantity of FDI," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 1495-1511.
    29. Ginarte, Juan C. & Park, Walter G., 1997. "Determinants of patent rights: A cross-national study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 283-301, October.
    30. Zodrow, George R. & Mieszkowski, Peter, 1986. "Pigou, Tiebout, property taxation, and the underprovision of local public goods," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 356-370, May.
    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. Ron Boschma, 2017. "Relatedness as driver behind regional diversification: a research agenda," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1702, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jan 2017.
    2. Ron Boschma, Lars Coenen, Koen Frenken, Bernhard Truffer & Lars Coenen & Koen Frenken & Bernhard Truffer, 2016. "Towards a theory of regional diversification," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1617, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jul 2016.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Key Enabling Technologies; Smart Specialization Strategies; Revealed Technological Advantages;

    JEL classification:

    • R11 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Regional Economic Activity: Growth, Development, Environmental Issues, and Changes
    • R58 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Regional Development Planning and Policy
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ipt:wpaper:201505. 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: (Publication Officer) or (Hassan Zaidi). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ipjrces.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.