Knowledge that Transforms

This study applies a holistic approach grounded in configurational theory to a sample of 2505 innovative public administration agencies in Europe to explore the effect of organizational risk aversion on the benefits from service innovations. The analyses, using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), identify several combinations of strategies (varying by the agency size and the novelty of innovation) that managers in risk-averse agencies can use to work effectively around the risks of innovating. The findings show that the managers of both high and low risk-averse agencies can achieve high benefits from their innovation efforts, but their strategizing behaviors differ. An integrated strategy that combines collaboration, complementary process and communication innovations, and an active management strategy to support innovation is the most effective method for ‘low-risk-averse’ small agencies and ‘high-risk-averse’ larger agencies to obtain high benefits from either novel or incremental service innovations. Our results point to the need to rethink the conventional assumption that a culture of risk aversion in public sector agencies is a cause of management ineffectiveness and a stumbling block to innovation success.

Turkey and Poland are two technology-follower countries that represent a similar level of economic development. In recent years the governments in both countries sought to improve the innovation performance of companies by increasingly offering grants for innovation activities. We analyze the institutional frameworks in which these policies were formulated and implemented, and we assess their efficiency by looking at data from the 2010 innovation surveys. We find that government aid for RD in fact they may have actually impeded it. Policy conclusions for what we call “technology-follower countries with relatively well-developed institutions” are suggested.

An unresolved issue in innovation studies is to what extent and how innovation is affected by changes in the economic environment of firms. This study elaborates on a theoretical framework that unites theories of innovation as creative response and the economics of complexity. In the empirical section, results from a new micro-based database on Swedish product innovations, 1970–2007, are introduced. Applying the theoretical framework, both quantitative evidence and collected innovation biographies inform of the historical impulses that have shaped innovation activity in the Swedish economy in two broad surges during the 1970s and 1990s. The study shows that, rather than being the result of continuous efforts, most innovations were developed as a response to discrete events, history-specific problems and new technological opportunities. It is also suggested that patterns of creative response are industry-specific and associated with the radicalness and complexity of innovation processes.

We use an augmented version of the UK Innovation Surveys 4–7 to explore firm-level and local area openness externalities on firms’ innovation performance. We find strong evidence of the value of external knowledge acquisition both through interactive collaboration and non-interactive contacts such as demonstration effects, copying or reverse engineering. Levels of knowledge search activity remain well below the private optimum, however, due perhaps to informational market failures. We also find strong positive externalities of openness resulting from the intensity of local interactive knowledge search—a knowledge diffusion effect. However, there are strong negative externalities resulting from the intensity of local non-interactive knowledge search—a competition effect. Our results provide support for local initiatives to support innovation partnering and counter illegal copying or counterfeiting. We find no significant relationship between either local labour quality or employment composition and innovative outputs.

The paper adds to the literature on the barriers to innovation in two ways. First, we assess comparatively what mostly constrains firms’ ability to translate investment in innovation activity into new products and processes, whether it is mainly finance, as most of the literature would suggest, or whether it is mostly knowledge and market-related aspects. Second, we suggest a method to correct for the sample selection bias that often affects empirical contributions to this scholarship. By filtering out firms that are not interested in innovation from those that struggle to engage in it, we obtain a relevant sample of potential innovators, which allows us to analyse the comparative effect of financial and non-financial barriers on innovation success. We find that demand-side factors, particularly concentrated market structure and lack of demand, are as important as financial constraints in determining firms’ innovation failures. This evidence redirects attention from financial to non-financial barriers by considering traditional demand, market structure and regulation factors involved in reduced firm innovation performance. The empirical analysis is based on an unbalanced panel of firm-level data from four waves of the UK Community Innovation Survey (CIS) between 2002 and 2010 merged with data from the UK Business Structure Database.