IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sru/ssewps/80.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The role of codified sources of knowledge in innovation: empirical evidence from Dutch manufacturing

Author

Listed:

Abstract

This paper explores ongoing debates about the role that codified forms of knowledge play in fostering firms' and countries' innovative performance. It aims to provide an empirical exploration of the use of codified sources of information for innovation at the sectoral level. Despite considerable interest in David and Foray's (1995) work on the codification of knowledge and the changing nature of innovation due to the use of information and communication technologies, there are relatively few empirical studies that probe the role of codified sources of information in the innovation process. Our goal is to assess 'how' important codified sources of information are for innovation for different sectors and to the innovation system in general. We explore the relationship between the use of codified sources by individual firms and increases in the 'distributional power' of an innovation system, a key component in David and Foray's codification argument. We then link the use of codified sources to different innovative strategies and characteristics of innovation at the firm level. The data used for the analysis is based on The Netherlands Community Innovation Survey (II) for the manufacturing sector. The data set covers 1997 firms in 11 major industries.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefano Brusoni & Orietta Marsili & Ammon Salter, 2002. "The role of codified sources of knowledge in innovation: empirical evidence from Dutch manufacturing," SPRU Working Paper Series 80, SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex.
  • Handle: RePEc:sru:ssewps:80
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru/publications/imprint/sewps/sewp80/sewp80.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tijssen, Robert J. W., 2002. "Science dependence of technologies: evidence from inventions and their inventors," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 509-526.
    2. Nathan Rosenberg, 2009. "Uncertainty and Technological Change," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Studies On Science And The Innovation Process Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, chapter 8, pages 153-172 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Meyer, Martin, 2000. "Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 409-434.
    4. Meyer-Krahmer, Frieder & Schmoch, Ulrich, 1998. "Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 835-851.
    5. Etzkowitz, Henry & Webster, Andrew & Gebhardt, Christiane & Terra, Branca Regina Cantisano, 2000. "The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 313-330.
    6. Annika Rickne & Staffan Jacobsson, 1999. "New Technology-Based Firms In Sweden - A Study Of Their Direct Impact On Industrial Renewal," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, pages 197-223.
    7. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 509-532.
    8. Rosenberg, Nathan & Nelson, Richard R., 1994. "American universities and technical advance in industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 323-348.
    9. Benner, Mats & Sandstrom, Ulf, 2000. "Institutionalizing the triple helix: research funding and norms in the academic system," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 291-301.
    10. Mats Benner & Ulf Sandström, 2000. "Inertia and change in Scandinavian public-sector research systems: the case of biotechnology," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(6), pages 443-454, December.
    11. Faulkner, Wendy & Senker, Jacqueline, 1994. "Making sense of diversity: public-private sector research linkage in three technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 673-695.
    12. Pavitt, Keith, 1991. "What makes basic research economically useful?," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 109-119.
    13. McMillan, G. Steven & Narin, Francis & Deeds, David L., 2000. "An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 1-8.
    14. Loasby, Brian J., 1998. "The organisation of capabilities," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 139-160, April.
    15. Partha, Dasgupta & David, Paul A., 1994. "Toward a new economics of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 487-521.
    16. Pavitt, Keith, 1998. "The social shaping of the national science base," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 793-805.
    17. Keith Pavitt, 2000. "Why European Union funding of academic research should be increased: a radical proposal," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(6), pages 455-460, December.
    18. Behrens, Teresa R. & Gray, Denis O., 2001. "Unintended consequences of cooperative research: impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 179-199.
    19. Autant-Bernard, Corinne, 2001. "Science and knowledge flows: evidence from the French case," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 1069-1078.
    20. Rappert, Brian & Webster, Andrew & Charles, David, 1999. "Making sense of diversity and reluctance: academic-industrial relations and intellectual property," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 873-890.
    21. Godin, Benoit & Gingras, Yves, 2000. "The place of universities in the system of knowledge production," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 273-278.
    22. Bozeman, Barry, 2000. "Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 627-655.
    23. Mansfield, Edwin & Lee, Jeong-Yeon, 1996. "The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 1047-1058.
    24. Nathan Rosenberg, 1996. "Uncertainty and technological change," Conference Series ; [Proceedings], Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, pages 91-125.
    25. Narin, Francis & Hamilton, Kimberly S. & Olivastro, Dominic, 1997. "The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 317-330.
    26. Åsa Lindholm Dahlstrand, 1999. "Technology-based SMEs in the Go ¨teborg Region: Their Origin and Interaction with Universities and Large Firms," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, pages 379-389.
    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. Albahari, Alberto & Pérez-Canto, Salvador & Barge-Gil, Andrés & Modrego, Aurelia, 2017. "Technology Parks versus Science Parks: Does the university make the difference?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 13-28.
    2. Vaccaro, Antonino & Veloso, Francisco & Brusoni, Stefano, 2009. "The impact of virtual technologies on knowledge-based processes: An empirical study," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 1278-1287.
    3. Tom Broekel & Matthias Brachert, 2015. "The structure and evolution of inter-sectoral technological complementarity in R&D in Germany from 1990 to 2011," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, pages 755-785.
    4. Paul H. Jensen & Elizabeth Webster, 2006. "Managing Knowledge Flows through Appropriation and Learning Strategies," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2006n06, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    5. L. C. Hunter & Elizabeth Webster & Anne Wyatt, 2009. "Identifying Corporate Expenditures on Intangibles Using GAAP," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2009n12, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    6. Arora, Ashish & Athreye, Suma & Huang, Can, 2016. "The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 1352-1361.
    7. Thomä Jörg & Zimmermann Volker, 2013. "Knowledge Protection Practices in Innovating SMEs," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 233(5-6), pages 691-717, October.
    8. Ulrich Witt & Tom Broekel & Thomas Brenner, 2007. "Knowledge and its Economic Characteristics - A Conceptual Clarification," Jena Economic Research Papers 2007-013, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    9. repec:eee:respol:v:46:y:2017:i:7:p:1327-1339 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Ulrich Witt & Tom Broekel & Thomas Brenner, 2012. "Knowledge and its Economic Characteristics: A Conceptual Clarification," Chapters,in: Handbook of Knowledge and Economics, chapter 16 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. L. C. Hunter & Elizabeth Webster & Anne Wyatt, 2005. "Measuring Intangible Investment," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2005n15, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    12. Aykut Lenger & Erol Taymaz, 2006. "To innovate or to transfer?," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, pages 137-153.
    13. MOTHE Caroline & NGUYEN Thi Thuc Uyen, 2011. "Do firms rely on sources of information for organizational innovation?," LISER Working Paper Series 2011-39, LISER.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Innovation; knowledge; manufacturing industries; codification;

    JEL classification:

    • L60 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - General
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    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:sru:ssewps:80. 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: (Russell Eke). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/spessuk.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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.