IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/streco/v19y2008i4p357-362.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fortune favours the brave: The distribution of innovative returns in Finland, the Netherlands and the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Ebersberger, Bernd
  • Marsili, Orietta
  • Reichstein, Toke
  • Salter, Ammon

Abstract

It is widely accepted that innovation may allow some industrial firms to reap great economic gains. Yet little is known about how the shape of the distribution of firm-level innovative returns differs across industries. The paper explores the general properties and sectoral differences in the distribution of share of innovative sales of manufacturing and service firms in Finland, the Netherlands and the UK. In general, the distribution is positively skewed with a long right tail. Applying a classification of industries in four broad categories, we find that the distribution exhibits significantly more skewness in sectors with low levels of technological opportunity. We explore the implications of these findings for research and theory on the economic implications of innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Ebersberger, Bernd & Marsili, Orietta & Reichstein, Toke & Salter, Ammon, 2008. "Fortune favours the brave: The distribution of innovative returns in Finland, the Netherlands and the UK," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 357-362, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:streco:v:19:y:2008:i:4:p:357-362
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0954-349X(08)00020-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Manuel Trajtenberg, 1990. "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 172-187, Spring.
    2. Silverberg, Gerald & Verspagen, Bart, 2007. "The size distribution of innovations revisited: An application of extreme value statistics to citation and value measures of patent significance," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 139(2), pages 318-339, August.
    3. Pavitt, Keith, 1998. "Technologies, Products and Organization in the Innovating Firm: What Adam Smith Tells Us and Joseph Schumpeter Doesn't," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 7(3), pages 433-452, September.
    4. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Cassiman, Bruno, 2004. "Foreign subsidiaries as a channel of international technology diffusion: Some direct firm level evidence from Belgium," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 455-476, April.
    5. Alfred Kleinknecht & Kees Van Montfort & Erik Brouwer, 2002. "The Non-Trivial Choice between Innovation Indicators," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 109-121.
    6. Cohen, Wesley M & Klepper, Steven, 1992. "The Anatomy of Industry R&D Intensity Distributions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(4), pages 773-799, September.
    7. Breschi, Stefano & Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 2000. "Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 388-410, April.
    8. Jacques Mairesse & Pierre Mohnen, 2002. "Accounting for Innovation and Measuring Innovativeness: An Illustrative Framework and an Application," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 226-230, May.
    9. Bruno Cassiman & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2002. "R&D Cooperation and Spillovers: Some Empirical Evidence from Belgium," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1169-1184, September.
    10. repec:adr:anecst:y:1998:i:49-50:p:19 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. F. M. Scherer, 1998. "The Size Distribution of Profits from Innovation," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 49-50, pages 495-516.
    12. 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.
    13. Kaiser, Ulrich, 2002. "Measuring knowledge spillovers in manufacturing and services: an empirical assessment of alternative approaches," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 125-144, January.
    14. Katz, J. Sylvan, 1999. "The self-similar science system1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 501-517, June.
    15. Orietta Marsili, 2001. "The Anatomy and Evolution of Industries," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2272.
    16. Richard R. Nelson, 1991. "Why do firms differ, and how does it matter?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(S2), pages 61-74, December.
    17. F. M. Scherer & Dietmar Harhoff & J, rg Kukies, 2000. "Uncertainty and the size distribution of rewards from innovation," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 175-200.
    18. Orietta Marsili & Ammon Salter, 2005. "'Inequality' of innovation: skewed distributions and the returns to innovation in Dutch manufacturing," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1-2), pages 83-102.
    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. Andræs Barge-Gil, 2013. "Open Strategies and Innovation Performance," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 585-610, October.
    2. Pu Liu & Yingying Shao, 2022. "Innovation and new business formation: the role of innovative large firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 691-720, August.
    3. Martin Carree & Ingrid Verheul & Enrico Santarelli, 2011. "Sectoral patterns of firm exit in Italian provinces," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 499-517, August.
    4. Rutzer, Christian, 2014. "A Theory of Trade Liberalization and Innovations with Heterogeneous Firms," Working papers 2014/02, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gerald Silverberg & Bart Verspagen, 2007. "Self-organization of R&D search in complex technology spaces," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 2(2), pages 211-229, December.
    2. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    3. de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Marsili, Orietta, 2006. "The fruit flies of innovations: A taxonomy of innovative small firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 213-229, March.
    4. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2011. "The puzzle of patent value indicators," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 33-62.
    5. Cefis, Elena & Marsili, Orietta, 2015. "Crossing the innovation threshold through mergers and acquisitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 698-710.
    6. Silverberg, Gerald & Verspagen, Bart, 2002. "A Percolation Model of Innovation in Complex Technology," Research Memorandum 032, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    7. Silverberg, G. & Verspagen, B., 2003. "Brewing the future: stylized facts about innovation and their confrontation with a percolation model," Working Papers 03.06, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies.
    8. Silverberg, Gerald & Verspagen, Bart, 2005. "A percolation model of innovation in complex technology spaces," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 29(1-2), pages 225-244, January.
    9. Raquel Ortega-Argilés & Marco Vivarelli & Peter Voigt, 2009. "R&D in SMEs: a paradox?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 3-11, June.
    10. Egger, Peter H. & Seliger, Florian & Woerter, Martin, 2016. "On the distribution of patent citations and its fundamentals," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 72-77.
    11. Mincheol Choi & Chang-Yang Lee, 2020. "Power-law distributions of corporate innovative output: evidence from U.S. patent data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 519-554, January.
    12. Marco Da Rin & María Fabiana Penas, 2017. "Venture capital and innovation strategies," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(5), pages 781-800.
    13. Andræs Barge-Gil, 2013. "Open Strategies and Innovation Performance," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 585-610, October.
    14. Fulvio Castellacci, 2007. "Technological regimes and sectoral differences in productivity growth ," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(6), pages 1105-1145, December.
    15. Gabriele Pellegrino & Mariacristina Piva & Marco Vivarelli, 2015. "How do new entrepreneurs innovate?," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 42(3), pages 323-341, September.
    16. Pellegrino, Gabriele & Piva, Mariacristina & Vivarelli, Marco, 2009. "How Do Young Innovative Companies Innovate?," IZA Discussion Papers 4301, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Pellegrino, Gabriele & Piva, Mariacristina & Vivarelli, Marco, 2012. "Young firms and innovation: A microeconometric analysis," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 329-340.
    18. Roberto Fontana & Alessandro Nuvolari & Hiroshi Shimizu & Andrea Vezzulli, 2013. "Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation and the Sources of Breakthrough Inventions: Evidence from a Data-set of R&D Awards," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Pyka & Esben Sloth Andersen (ed.), Long Term Economic Development, edition 127, pages 313-340, Springer.
    19. Keiichi Kishi, 2014. "A patentability requirement and industries targeted by R&D," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 14-27, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics.
    20. Bianca Potì & Giovanni Cerulli, 2009. "Heterogeneity of innovation strategies and firm performance," Springer Books, in: Uwe Cantner & Jean-Luc Gaffard & Lionel Nesta (ed.), Schumpeterian Perspectives on Innovation, Competition and Growth, pages 277-300, Springer.

    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:eee:streco:v:19:y:2008:i:4:p:357-362. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/525148 .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.