Recent developments in statistical methodology have facilitated international innovation comparisons. These, however, inevitably reflect both the industrial structure of the underlying economies, and the innovativeness of firms within each element of the industrial structure. The authors consider the extent to which structural differences between economies can influence international innovation comparisons. The impact of structural differences is considered both in conceptual and in empirical terms, with the aid of data from the first and second Community Innovation Surveys (CIS 1 and CIS 2). Conceptual analysis suggests a very restricted range of scenarios under which structural adjustment will be effective. Empirical results are more reassuring, however, suggesting that, although structural effects are in some cases quite large, they do not significantly distort international innovation relativities. The comparisons do, however, highlight significant inconsistencies between different innovation indicators and suggest policy priorities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndertonB, 1999, “UK trade performance and the role of product quality, innovation and hysteresis: Some preliminary results”Scottish Journal of Political Economy46570–595.
2.
ArundelASmithKPatelPSirilliG, 1998, “The future of innovation measurement in Europe—concepts, problems and practical directions”, IDEA Paper Series, number 3; http://www.sol.no/step/IDEA/.
3.
AshcroftBDunlopSLoveJ H, 1995, “UK innovation policy; a critique”Regional Studies29307–311.
4.
BrouwerEKleinknechtA, 1996, “Determinants of innovation: A micro-econometric analysis of three alternative innovation output indicators”, in Determinants of Innovation: The Message from New Indicators Ed. KleinknechtA, (Macmillan, London) pp 99–124.
5.
CarlssonBJacobssonSHolmenMRickneA, 2002, “Innovation systems: Analytical and methodological issues”Research Policy31233–245.
6.
CefisEOrsenigoL, 2001, “The persistence of innovative activities; a cross country and crosssectors comparative analysis”Research Policy301139–1158.
7.
ChristensenJ L, 2003, “Changes in Danish innovation policy: Responses to the challenges of a dynamic business environment”, Innovation Policy in Europe and the USA: The New Agenda Eds BiegelbauerP SBorrasJ, (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 93–111.
8.
DennisonE, 1962The Sources of Economic Growth in the United States and the Alternatives Before UsCommittee for Economic Development, New York.
9.
DTI, 2003, “Competing in the global economy: The innovation challenge”, Department of Trade and Industry, London.
10.
EdquistCLundvallB-Å, 1993, “Comparing the Danish and Swedish systems of innovation”, National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis Ed. NelsonR R, (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 265–298.
11.
EdquistCMcKelveyM, 1998, “High R&D intensity without high tech products: A Swedish paradox?”, in Institutions and Economic Change: New Perspectives on Markets, Firms and Technology (Edward Elgar, Aldershot, Hants) pp 131–149.
12.
EU Commission, 2004, “European innovation scoreboard 2004—comparative analysis of innovation performance”, Commission Staff WP SEC(2004) 1475.
13.
FrenkelASheferDRoperS, 2003, “Public policy, locational choice and the innovation capability of high-tech firms: A comparison between Israel and Ireland”Regional Science82203–221.
14.
GrilichesZ, 1979, “Issues in assessing the contribution of R&D to productivity growth”Bell Journal of Economics1092–116.
15.
GrilichesZ, 1995, “R&D and productivity: Econometric results and measurement issues”, in Handbook of Economics of Innovation and Technological Change Ed. StonemanP, (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 52–89.
16.
HallL ABagchi-SenS, 2002, “A study of R&D, innovation, and business performance in the Canadian biotechnology industry”Technovation22Issue 4, April 2002, 231–244.
17.
HoldenD RSwalesJ KNairnA G M, 1987, “The repeated application of shift-share: A structural explanation of regional growth?”Environment and Planning A191233–1250.
18.
KleinknechtA, 1989, “Firm size and innovation: Observations in Dutch manufacturing industries”Small Business Economics215–222.
19.
KoschatzkyKFrenkelAWalterG HSheferD, 1998, “Regional concentration and dynamics of fast growing industries in Baden – Wurttemberg and Israel”International Planning Studies3237–255.
20.
LedeburL CMoomawR L, 1983, “A shift-share analysis of regional labour productivity in manufacturing”Growth and Change142–9.
21.
LööfHHeshmatiA, 2001, “On the relationship between innovation and performance: A sensitivity analysis”, WP 446, SSE/EFI, Stockholm School of Economics.
22.
LööfHHeshmatiA, 2002, “Knowledge capital and performance heterogeneity: A firm level innovation study”International Journal of Production Economics7661–85.
23.
LoveJ HRoperS, 2001, “Location and network effects on innovation success: Evidence for UK, German and Irish manufacturing plants”Research Policy30643–661.
24.
LoveJ HRoperS, 2004, “The organisation of innovation: Collaboration, co-operation and multifunctional groups in UK and German manufacturing”Cambridge Journal of Economics28379–395.
25.
LundvallB-Å, 2002Innovation, and Growth and Social Cohesion: The Danish Model (Edward Elgar, Aldershot, Hants).
26.
MalerbaF, 2004Sectoral Systems of Innovation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
27.
NelsonR R, 1993National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
28.
OECD, 1997Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data: Oslo Manual (OECD, Paris).
29.
OECD, 2002Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development: Frascati Manual 2002 (OECD, Paris).
30.
OerlemansL A GMeusM T HBoekemaF W M, 1998, “Do networks matter for innovation? The usefulness of the economic network approach in analysing innovation”Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie89298–309.
31.
O'MahonyMvan ArkB, 2003, “EU productivity and competitiveness: An industry perspective. Can Europe resume the catching-up process?”, EU Commission, Luxembourg.
32.
RoperSFrenkelA, 2000, “Different paths to success—the growth of the electronics sector in Israel and Ireland”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy18651–665.
33.
RoperSGrimesS, 2003, “Wireless Valley, Silicon Wadi and Digital Island—Helsinki, Tel Aviv and Dublin in the ICT boom”, presented at the European Regional Science Association Conference, Finland, 27–30 August; copy available from the author.
34.
RoperSAshcroftBLoveJ HDunlopSVogler-LudwigKHofmannH, 1996, “Product innovation and development in UK, German and Irish manufacturing firms”, Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre, Queen's University, Belfast; Fraser of Allander Institute, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
35.
SandvenTSmithK, 1998, “Using community innovation survey data for empirical analysis”, IDEA Report Series, No 14; http://www.sol.no/step/IDEA/.
36.
SandvenTPedersenT ESmithK, 1998Analysis of CIS Data on the Impact of Innovation on Growth in the Sector of Manufacturing of Machinery and Equipment and of Electrical Machinery DG–Enterprise, Innovation & SME Programme, CIS 98/188; ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/eims/docs/eims_full_text_98_188.pdf.
37.
SantarelliESterlacchiniA, 1990, “Innovation, formal vs. informal R&D, and firm size: Some evidence from Italian manufacturing firms”Small Business Economics2223–228.
38.
ThirwallA, 1986Balance of Payments Theory and the UK Experience (Macmillan, London).
39.
van ArkBInklaarRMcGuckinR H, 2003, “ICT and productivity in Europe and the United States: Where do the differences come from?”CESifo Economic Studies49295–318.
