Within the span of a generation, innovation and entrepreneurship have emerged as two of the most vital forces in the economy and, even more broadly, in society (Link, 2017). It was not always that way. During the second industrial paradigm, or the era of mass production, particularly following World War II, innovation was barely on the radar screen of economics, management, and other social sciences. Rather, what mattered for economic performance was articulated concisely by the management scholar, Alfred Chandler (1990), in the title of his seminal analysis of firm competitiveness and productivity – Scale and Scope. Economic success lies in largescale production, which enabled companies to attain the highest levels of efficiency and productivity while reducing average cost to a minimum. The primacy of physical capital as the driving force underlying economic performance was mirrored at the macroeconomic level through the Solow (1956) model. Economic policy reflected the capital-driven economy with its focus on instruments to stimulate investment in physical capital. Innovation played at best a marginal role, which was considerably more than could be said for entrepreneurship. In an economy where scale and scope dictated competitiveness and efficiency, new and small firms were typically viewed as a burden on the economy, and they were characterized as constituting “sub optimal capacity,” meaning that they lacked sufficient scale to be efficient.
Browse by title
David B. Audretsch, Erik E. Lehmann and Albert N. Link
Albert N. Link
This paper presents descriptive findings from 12 case studies of Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) award recipients in southeastern states. The focus of the case studies was to determine, to the extent possible, if the Fast Track Initiative encourages more rapid commercialization of research results through the acquisition of private investment capital, and if Fast Track projects progress more rapidly than standard SBIR awards.
John T. Scott
This paper provides case studies for 14 research and development projects funded in 13 New England companies by the Department of Defense Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. The performance of the six Fast Track projects, each conducted by a different company, is compared with the performance of eight non-Fast Track projects.
John T. Scott
The purpose of this article is to propose a mechanism – the hurdle-lowering auction – for leveraging the public funds invested in public/private partnerships to promote technology. The article addresses financial engineering – the optimal amount and design of public funding of privately performed investments in technology and innovation carried out by public/private partnerships. Public/private partnerships are joint research ventures combining public and private resources to invest in the research and development of technology and innovations. Thus, financial engineering concerns the design of mechanisms for public funding of public/private partnerships that generate the maximum leverage of the public funds on the private investment and performance. By maximum leverage of public funding, is meant maximum effectiveness of the funds in ensuring the use of the least amount of public funds to get the desired results and ensuring the necessary incentives to get those results given the appropriate amount of public funding.
Albert N. Link and John T. Scott
Albert N. Link and John T. Scott
This chapter summarizes the theory and practice of public- sector R & D economic analysis with specific reference to the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) efforts to document the impact that their in- house R & D has had on society. Motivating this research is the general expectation and challenge for public institutions to be accountable for their use of public resources. Economic impact analysis is one way that public institutions can quantify the social contribution of their activity. Impact analysis can also provide important lessons to management about the effectiveness of previous resource allocation decisions, and it can provide guidelines for future strategic planning
The aim of this ending chapter is to present a structured summary of the previous chapters and tie them together through lingering on some cross-chapter themes and contributions in view of the aims of the book. Some of the main themes in this book at macro-level will moreover be tied into a previous book of mine 20 years back (as of April 2018) on the rise of intellectual capitalism and the economics and management of IP at micro-level. The chapter will end with a final plea for transnational technology and innovation governance in light of the crucial roles of new technologies and innovations and for global challenges and welfare. The general aim of this book has been to present a research-based analysis of the linkages between R & D, patents, innovations, growth and welfare and thereby increase our knowledge about how R & D of new technologies and innovations can contribute to growth and ultimately to welfare in society. A corollary aim has then been to focus specifically on patents and their linkages since patent and IP issues have been somewhat disconnected in general from R & D, innovations and economic growth in studies and debate of the latter. A subsidiary aim has been to clarify and offer a number of key concepts, distinctions and models in an attempt to contribute to a professional language in the innovation policy and management area. A final aim of the book has been to contribute to research in the innovation and IP area by offering some answers to common research questions as well as offering methods and suggestions for further IP policy research.
This chapter discusses how companies may use the management of their information and communication technology (ICT) standardization activities to improve competitiveness and innovativeness. Case studies are presented to show different approaches to standardization management adopted by different types of companies in different parts of the ICT sector. The cases illustrate the variety of approaches to standards and standardization that firms and organizations might adopt, relative to several essential factors as drawn from the literature on both standards and innovation. This shows how different strategies emerge depending upon the relative importance of various strategic and tactical factors in participating firms. The chapter concludes by illustrating the variety of approaches to standards and standardization that managers in firms and organizations might adopt.