IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ecinnt/v14y2005i1-2p83-102.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

'Inequality' of innovation: skewed distributions and the returns to innovation in Dutch manufacturing

Author

Listed:
  • Orietta Marsili
  • Ammon Salter

Abstract

It is a commonly held view that returns to innovation are highly skewed, that is, not all firms innovate, and the returns received from innovation for the firms that are successful innovators are highly concentrated in the hands of the few. Using data from two community innovation surveys for the Netherlands, this article investigates the properties of the distribution of the returns to innovation for different types of innovation. It finds that the returns to innovation are indeed highly skewed, but the distribution of the returns is shaped by the degree of novelty of the innovation - the more novel the innovation, the greater the concentration of the returns. The article also explores the distribution of the returns across different sectoral contexts, finding that low-technology sectors are characterised by higher performance diversity among innovators than high-technology sectors.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:ecinnt:v:14:y:2005:i:1-2:p:83-102
    DOI: 10.1080/1043859042000228642
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1043859042000228642
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/1043859042000228642?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Luís M B Cabral & José Mata, 2003. "On the Evolution of the Firm Size Distribution: Facts and Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1075-1090, September.
    2. Henrekson, Magnus & Johansson, Dan, 1999. "Institutional Effects on the Evolution of the Size Distribution of Firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 11-23, February.
    3. Ijiri, Yuji & Simon, Herbert A, 1974. "Interpretations of Departures from the Pareto Curve Firm-Size Distributions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(2), pages 315-331, Part I, M.
    4. 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.
    5. Uwe Cantner & Jens J. Krüger, 2004. "Technological and Economic Mobility in Large German Manufacturing Firms," Chapters, in: J. Stanley Metcalfe & John Foster (ed.), Evolution and Economic Complexity, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. 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.
    7. Patel, Pari & Pavitt, Keith, 1997. "The technological competencies of the world's largest firms: Complex and path-dependent, but not much variety," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 141-156, May.
    8. Stanley, Michael H. R. & Buldyrev, Sergey V. & Havlin, Shlomo & Mantegna, Rosario N. & Salinger, Michael A. & Eugene Stanley, H., 1995. "Zipf plots and the size distribution of firms," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 453-457, October.
    9. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1996. "Schumpeterian patterns of innovation are technology-specific," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 451-478, May.
    10. Chris Freeman & Luc Soete, 1997. "The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 3, volume 1, number 0262061953, December.
    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. 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.
    2. Andræs Barge-Gil, 2013. "Open Strategies and Innovation Performance," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 585-610, October.
    3. Gómez, Jaime & Salazar, Idana & Vargas, Pilar, 2020. "The Role Of Extramural R&D And Scientific Knowledge In Creating High Novelty Innovations: An Examination Of Manufacturing And Service Firms In Spain," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    4. Brian Paul Cozzarin & Weonseek Kim & Bonwoo Koo, 2017. "Does organizational innovation moderate technical innovation directly or indirectly?," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 385-403, May.
    5. Arianna Martinelli & Önder Nomaler, 2014. "Measuring knowledge persistence: a genetic approach to patent citation networks," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 623-652, July.
    6. Segarra Blasco, Agustí & Teruel Carrizosa, Mercedes, 2008. "Innovation sources and productivity in Catalonian firms: a quantile regression analysis," Working Papers 2072/9259, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    7. 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.
    8. Giacomo Marzi & Lamberto Zollo & Andrea Boccardi & Cristiano Ciappei, 2018. "Additive Manufacturing in SMEs: Empirical Evidences from Italy," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(01), pages 1-22, February.
    9. Bernhard Dachs & Bernd Ebersberger & Hans Lööf, 2008. "The innovative performance of foreign-owned enterprises in small open economies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 393-406, August.
    10. de Leeuw, Tim & Lokshin, Boris & Duysters, Geert, 2014. "Returns to alliance portfolio diversity: The relative effects of partner diversity on firm's innovative performance and productivity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(9), pages 1839-1849.
    11. Baig, Ahmed & Butt, Hassan Anjum & Fitwi, Abrar & Smith, Joey, 2021. "Does Innovation Explain the Skewness of Stock Returns?," American Business Review, Pompea College of Business, University of New Haven, vol. 24(2), pages 12-31, November.
    12. Idika Awa Uduma & Andy Fred Wali & Len Tiu Wright, 2015. "A quantitative study on the influence of breadth of open innovation on SMEs product-service performance: The moderating effect of type of innovation," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 1120421-112, December.
    13. Falk Martin, 2015. "Employment Effects of Technological and Organizational Innovations: Evidence Based on Linked Firm-Level Data for Austria," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 235(3), pages 268-285, June.
    14. Mercedes Teruel & Agustí Segarra, 2011. "Productivity and R&D sources in manufacturing and service firms in Catalonia: a regional approach," ERSA conference papers ersa11p1860, European Regional Science Association.
    15. Jos'e Alejandro Mendoza & Faustino Prieto & Jos'e Mar'ia Sarabia, 2021. "Inequality in the use frequency of patent technology codes," Papers 2111.11211, arXiv.org.
    16. Lee, Jangwook & Chung, Jiyoon, 2022. "Women in top management teams and their impact on innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    17. Sandra M. Leitner & Robert Stehrer, 2011. "Shapes and determinants of returns to innovation," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(8), pages 777-795, December.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Nabil Abou Lebdi,, 2015. "Radical Innovation – A domain of SMEs? A novel test of the Schumpeterian Hypothesis," DEM Discussion Paper Series 15-04, Department of Economics at the University of Luxembourg.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. Mata, José & Woerter, Martin, 2013. "Risky innovation: The impact of internal and external R&D strategies upon the distribution of returns," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 495-501.

    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. Alex Coad, 2007. "Firm Growth: a Survey," Post-Print halshs-00155762, HAL.
    2. Kang, Sang Hoon & Jiang, Zhuhua & Cheong, Chongcheul & Yoon, Seong-Min, 2011. "Changes of firm size distribution: The case of Korea," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 390(2), pages 319-327.
    3. Christian Cordes & Tong-Yaa Su & Pontus Strimling, 2019. "A critical human group size and firm size distributions in industries," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 123-144, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Mariani, Myriam, 2004. "What determines technological hits?: Geography versus firm competencies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1565-1582, December.
    6. Christian Cordes & Tong-Yaa Su & Pontus Strimling, 2015. "Going Through a Crisis: Firm Devekopment and Firm SIze Distributions," Papers on Economics and Evolution 2015-06, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    7. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    8. G. Bottazzi & E. Cefis & G. Dosi & A. Secchi, 2007. "Invariances and Diversities in the Patterns of Industrial Evolution: Some Evidence from Italian Manufacturing Industries," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 137-159, June.
    9. S .G. Winter & Y. M. Kaniovski, 2000. "Modeling Industrial Dynamics with Innovative Entrants," Chapters, in: Innovation, Organization and Economic Dynamics, chapter 16, pages 459-500, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Caiani, Alessandro & Godin, Antoine & Caverzasi, Eugenio & Gallegati, Mauro & Kinsella, Stephen & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 2016. "Agent based-stock flow consistent macroeconomics: Towards a benchmark model," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 375-408.
    11. Gambardella, Alfonso & Giuri, Paola & Luzzi, Alessandra, 2007. "The market for patents in Europe," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1163-1183, October.
    12. Onji, Kazuki, 2009. "The response of firms to eligibility thresholds: Evidence from the Japanese value-added tax," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(5-6), pages 766-775, June.
    13. Francesca Lotti & Enrico Santarelli, 2004. "Industry Dynamics and the Distribution of Firm Sizes: A Nonparametric Approach," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 70(3), pages 443-466, January.
    14. Wagner, Marcus, 2011. "To explore or to exploit? An empirical investigation of acquisitions by large incumbents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1217-1225.
    15. Emin Dinlersoz & Glenn MacDonald, 2009. "The Industry Life-Cycle of the Size Distribution of Firms," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 12(4), pages 648-667, October.
    16. Cortés, Lina M. & Mora-Valencia, Andrés & Perote, Javier, 2017. "Measuring firm size distribution with semi-nonparametric densities," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 485(C), pages 35-47.
    17. Binlei Gong & Robin C. Sickles, 2021. "Resource allocation in multi-divisional multi-product firms," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 47-70, April.
    18. Emmanuelle Fauchart & Max Keilbach, 2009. "Testing a model of exploration and exploitation as innovation strategies," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 257-272, October.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:taf:ecinnt:v:14:y:2005:i:1-2:p:83-102. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GEIN20 .

    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.