IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ipt/iptwpa/jrc81448.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Comparing Innovation Performance in the EU and the USA: Lessons from Three ICT Sub-Sectors

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Forge

    (SCF Associates Ltd)

  • Colin Blackman

    (Camford Associates)

  • Itzhak Goldberg

    (CASE (Center for Social and Economic Research))

  • Federico Biagi

    (European Commission JRC)

Abstract

The objective of the study is to document the existence of innovation gaps between the EU and its main competitors in specific ICT sub-sectors namely web services, industrial robotics and display technologies and to explore the role of government policies in Europes future needs for innovation in information and communication technologies (ICT) through a comparison with the USA and Asian countries. Our analysis shows that rather than there being a simple innovation gap with the EU lagging behind the USA, a more nuanced picture emerges in which firms in different countries have strengths in different sub-sectors and in different parts of the value chain. A key lesson from the analysis of the three subsectors is the critical importance of higher education, particularly elite university research, and of local networks as generated by clusters. Governments can also encourage innovation through appropriate intellectual property and competition laws and, more generally, through the development of a business environment conducive to innovation. Finally, Governments can have a very important role through the funding of early-stage innovation

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Forge & Colin Blackman & Itzhak Goldberg & Federico Biagi, 2013. "Comparing Innovation Performance in the EU and the USA: Lessons from Three ICT Sub-Sectors," JRC Research Reports JRC81448, Joint Research Centre.
  • Handle: RePEc:ipt:iptwpa:jrc81448
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC81448
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Unknown, 2005. "End Materials," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 20(1), pages 1-1.
    2. Federico Biagi & Juraj Stancik, 2012. "Characterizing the evolution of the EU-US R&D Intensity gap using data from top R&D performers," EcoMod2012 4207, EcoMod.
    3. James Bessen & Jennifer L. Ford & Michael J. Meurer, 2011. "The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls," Working Papers 1103, Research on Innovation.
    4. Simon Forge & Colin Blackman, 2010. "A Helping Hand for Europe: The Competitive Outlook for the EU Robotics Industry," JRC Research Reports JRC61539, Joint Research Centre.
    5. Juraj Stancik & Federico Biagi, 2012. "Characterizing the Evolution of the EU-US R&D Intensity Gap using Data from Top R&D Performers," JRC Research Reports JRC75892, Joint Research Centre.
    6. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    7. Christensen, Jens Froslev & Olesen, Michael Holm & Kjaer, Jonas Sorth, 2005. "The industrial dynamics of Open Innovation--Evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1533-1549, December.
    8. Thierry Rayna & Ludmila Striukova, 2009. "Public venture capital: missing link or weakest link?," International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 9(4), pages 453-465.
    9. Federico Biagi & Juraj Stančík, 2012. "Characterizing the evolution of the EU R&D intensity gap using data from top R&D performers," ERSA conference papers ersa12p321, European Regional Science Association.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Michel Dumont, 2015. "Working Paper 05-15 - Evaluation of federal tax incentives for private R&D in Belgium: An update," Working Papers 1505, Federal Planning Bureau, Belgium.
    2. Olivér KOVÁCS, 2013. "Black swans or creeping normalcy? – An attempt to a holistic crisis analysis," Eastern Journal of European Studies, Centre for European Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, vol. 4, pages 127-143, June.
    3. Tihana Škrinjarić, 2020. "R&D in Europe: Sector Decomposition of Sources of (in)Efficiency," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-21, February.
    4. Jorge Gallego & Luis Rubalcaba, 2013. "Patterns of public–private collaboration for innovation in Europe," Chapters, in: Faïz Gallouj & Luis Rubalcaba & Paul Windrum (ed.), Public–Private Innovation Networks in Services, chapter 6, pages 139-163, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Lema, Rasmus & Quadros, Ruy & Schmitz, Hubert, 2012. "Shifts in Innovation Power to Brazil and India: Insights from the Auto and Software Industries," MPRA Paper 49591, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Gallego, Jorge & Rubalcaba, Luis & Suárez, Cristina, 2013. "Knowledge for innovation in Europe: The role of external knowledge on firms' cooperation strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(10), pages 2034-2041.
    7. Francesco Bogliacino & Mario Pianta, 2016. "The Pavitt Taxonomy, revisited: patterns of innovation in manufacturing and services," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 33(2), pages 153-180, August.
    8. Bhumika Gupta & Salil K. Sen, 2019. "Carbon Capture Usage and Storage with Scale-up: Energy Finance through Bricolage Deploying the Co-integration Methodology," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 9(6), pages 146-153.
    9. Lise Gastaldi, 2009. "Stratégies d'innovation et modes de management de la recherche en entreprise. La formalisation de trois idéaux-types," Post-Print halshs-00384386, HAL.
    10. Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Boschma, Ron, 2022. "Do scientific capabilities in specific domains matter for technological diversification in European regions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    11. Baldwin, Carliss Y. & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Kapoor, Rahul & West, Joel, 2024. "Focusing the ecosystem lens on innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    12. Aurora A.C. Teixeira & Rosa Portela Forte, 2009. "Unbounding entrepreneurial intents of university students: a multidisciplinary perspective," FEP Working Papers 322, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
    13. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    14. Cassiman, Bruno & Perez-Castrillo, David & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2002. "Endogenizing know-how flows through the nature of R&D investments," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 775-799, June.
    15. Rõigas, Kärt, 2011. "Linkage between productivity and innovation in different service sectors," Discourses in Social Market Economy 2011-02, OrdnungsPolitisches Portal (OPO).
    16. Su, Hsin-Ning & Moaniba, Igam M., 2017. "Investigating the dynamics of interdisciplinary evolution in technology developments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 12-23.
    17. Keld Laursen, 1998. "How Structural Change Differs, and Why it Matters (for Economic Growth)," DRUID Working Papers 98-25, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    18. Pierre J. Tremblay, 1998. "Informal Thinkering: How Is It Important?," CIRANO Working Papers 98s-13, CIRANO.
    19. Tom Broekel & Matthias Brachert, 2015. "The structure and evolution of inter-sectoral technological complementarity in R&D in Germany from 1990 to 2011," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 755-785, September.
    20. Tether, B. S., 1998. "Small and large firms: sources of unequal innovations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(7), pages 725-745, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ICT; Innovation policy; Industrial policy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L5 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy
    • L6 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing
    • L8 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ipt:iptwpa:jrc81448. 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: Publication Officer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipjrces.html .

    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.