Posts filed under ‘Innovation’
Financial Constraints and Innovation
| Peter Klein |
Why are firms in poor countries less productive than firms in rich countries? Is it lack of technical know-how? Poor infrastructure? Insufficient human capital? Weak intellectual-property protection? Actually, the evidence suggests a more prosaic explanation: financial constraints.
One stylized fact that appears from emerging markets and transition economies . . . is that foreign owned fi rms tend to be more productive than domestically owned firms. . . . To the extent that foreign owned fi rms embody the technological frontier, one can interpret this fact as suggesting that some forces prevent domestically owned firms from emulating the best practices and techniques. . . .
We show that a fi rm’s decision to invest into innovative and exporting activities is sensitive to fi nancial frictions which can prevent fi rms from developing and adopting better technologies. Furthermore, we demonstrate that in a world without financial frictions, innovation and exporting goods are complementary activities. Thus, easing financial frictions can have an ampli ed eff ect on firms’ innovation eff ort and consequently the level of productivity. However, as financial frictions become increasingly severe, these activities become eff ectively substitutes since both exporting and innovation rely on internal funds of fi rms.
That’s from “Financial Constraints and Innovation: Why Poor Countries Don’t Catch Up” by Yuriy Gorodnichenko and Monika Schnitzer. One implication is that diversified firms, whose operating units have access to the firm’s internal capital market, have particular advantages in developing countries, an argument explored in several papers by Khanna and Palepu (e.g., here). In the US, these advantages may not outweigh other drawbacks of unrelated diversification.
Ross Emmett on Innovation
| Peter Klein |
Here are some provocative videos on innovation from Ross Emmett. The series is called “The Constitution of Innovation.” The first three are posted at vimeo:
- Why “Picking Winners” Robs Us All of a Better Future
- National Innovation Systems: Too “National”; Not “Constitutional”
- The Promise of Failure
See Ross’s website for more information.
Why Academic Freedom?
| Nicolai Foss |
At least in Europe, academic freedom is under siege. Politicians justify their meddling with the fact that universities are (largely) financed by taxpayers’ money, and they are assisted in their meddling by a growing class of bureaucrats in ministries, the EU and increasingly in universities themselves. All this derives legitimacy from a questionable ideology of Mode II research that broadly asserts that most important scientific advance (now) happens in the intersection of disciplines and as a result of collaborative relations between universities and business (here is the Wiki on Mode II).
Given this, it seems necessary to rethink the defense of academia and academic freedom. There is, of course, Polanyi’s application of Hayek’s unplanned order idea in the context of the “republic of science.” However, that argument lacks concreteness and cutting power against those bureaucrats/politicians who wants to intervene just a tiny bit but doesn’t want centrally planned science.
In a recent paper, “Academic Freedom, Private-sector Focus, and the Process of Innovation,” Aghion, Dewatripont, and Stein provide a rationale — derived from property rights economics rather than from considerations of appropriability — for academia. Academia is defined as an organizational form which “represents a precommitment to leave control over the choice of research strategy in the hands of individual scientists” (p. 621) (note that this does not necessarily entail public funding). (more…)
Industrial Policy Redux
| Peter Klein |
Keynesian economics is not the only once-discredited doctrine making a comeback following the financial crisis. Despite the well-publicized failures of MITI, Sematech, and similar ventures, people are now calling for a new US industrial policy. Here’s a former Shell executive writing in the WSJ about America’s “foolhardy fondness for ‘free market’ philosophies that tell us it’s OK to export all our jobs,” and complaining that “[w]e’ve never systematically used government incentives to help U.S. industry compete across the board. It’s time we did, like everyone else.” Oy vey. A more serious, but equally troubling, proposal comes from Nobel Laureate Edmund Phelps, calling for a “First National Bank of Innovation.” Writing in HBR, Phelps and Leo Tilman worry that high-risk, long-term investments aren’t getting adequate funding, but don’t explain exactly how government funders would compute NPV on anything other than political grounds (which suggests a new acronym: Net Political Value).
Kauffman Economic Outlook
| Peter Klein |
Here’s the inaugural release of the Kauffman Economic Outlook, based on a survey of distinguished economics bloggers (including Yours Truly). “America’s top economics bloggers represent a diverse group of writers with wide-ranging intellectual and political vantage points on one of the most important issues of the day — the economy. As independent thinkers who are immersed in discourse through the innovation of blogging, these economics writers have a unique voice and perspective, and potentially profound influence.” Take that, Old Media!
Lots of interesting charts. And who says economists don’t agree?
Despite being a balanced panel in terms of political alignment (16 percent Republican, 19 percent Democratic, 47 percent independent, and roughly 18 percent libertarian/other), there is a strong consensus around many policy recommendations. Seventy-one percent of economics bloggers think the U.S. government is “too involved in the economy,” with only 17 percent calling for greater involvement. When asked what the government should be doing, the only policies with more than 50 percent support are: 1) to increase high-skill immigration (63 percent), and 2) to increase legal immigration at all skill levels (57 percent). Two policies stood out sharply with near-unanimous opposition: increasing business regulation (9 percent) and increasing tariffs (4 percent). . . .
According to economics bloggers, the top three variables that policymakers should emphasize in a model of economic growth are human capital, innovation, and economic freedom. In a related question, bloggers were asked to rate the beneficial importance of numerous key players in the U.S. economy. One hundred percent of the panel rate entrepreneurs as “important” or “very important,” and innovation also had unanimous support. Only slightly less important are free trade and education, with nearly all respondents rating them as “important” or “very important.” In contrast, only 30 percent of economics bloggers think labor unions are important, and nearly 70 percent rate them as “unimportant” (numbers may not add to 100 due to non-responses and rounding). Opinion is decidedly mixed on manufacturing, while there is mild support for the importance of big business.
New Issue of ICC
| Dick Langlois |
A new issue of Industrial and Corporate Change is out (TOC here) with a bunch of interesting articles. Prominent among them is a well-researched and nicely written piece by Pierre Desrochers that argues a politically unpopular view about corporations and the environment. Free speech in action?
Measuring the Returns to R&D
| Peter Klein |
A new paper by Bronwyn Hall, Jacques Mairesse, and Pierre Mohnen surveys the technical literature on private and aggregate returns to R&D, focusing on econometric issues. A great overview, with the relevant factoids conveniently summarized in tables. The version linked above is gated; I don’t know if there is an ungated one.
Dilbert takes a somewhat different perspective.
Update: an ungated version is available on Bronwyn’s research papers page.
For Hire: Neo-Schumpeterian Economist
| Dick Langlois |
I was recently contacted by Robert Atkinson of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation in Washington. His group is looking for a neo-Schumpeterian economist interested in the role of innovation in addressing climate change. Here’s the position listing. Surely there is a reader of O&M out there who fills the bill.
Can We Tackle the Big Problems?
| Peter Klein |
Russ Coff, Emory University strategy professor extraordinaire and former O&M guest blogger, sends this special report:
I’m reporting live (but jet lagged) from the Israel Strategy Conference that Peter had mentioned earlier. A theme among the keynote speakers (particularly Jay Barney and Anita McGahan) has been how we can apply our theories to tackle more meaningful problems.
Jay delivered a tearful account of his personal efforts to apply resource based theory to help a small village in Bolivia. (more…)
Samuelson and Schumpeter
| Peter Klein |
Paul Samuelson, the enormously influential economic theorist, textbook writer, and teacher, died yesterday. The Times calls him “the foremost academic economist of the 20th century,” which may be true, depending what’s meant by “foremost.” He was certainly brilliant, talented, and creative. His Foundations of Economic Analysis (1949) changed forever the way economists think about their discipline (formerly a distinct, mostly verbal, logical science, economics became a branch of classical mechanics). His textbook Economics established a new style for introductory texts: lengthy, comprehensive, but ad hoc and unsystematic (Murray Rothbard called it a “vast potpourri . . . of bits and smidgens of technique and of data, none of them integrated into any sort of digestible or comprehensible whole”).
The blogosphere is beginning to spew out commentary, not all of it flattering (Krugman fawns, Ed Glaeser and Arnold Kling are more nuanced, Yuri Maltsev is gracious, Mario Rizzo is blunt). I don’t have much to add specifically for O&M readers, but I’m curious about one issue that may not get much play: the influence on Samuelson’s thought of Joseph Schumpeter, Samuelson’s dissertation supervisor at Harvard.
In many ways, they were opposites: Schumpeter the flamboyant, dramatic innovator, Samuelson the careful, rigorous systematizer; Schumpeter the defender of capitalism and critic of Keynes, Samuelson the interventionist and foremost American Keynesian; Schumpeter, someone I greatly admire, Samuelson. . . . well, you get the picture. Both were brilliant and egocentric (you all know the Schumpeter quip about wishing to become the greatest horseman, economist, and lover in Vienna, but achieving only two of the three; Samuelson once declared, “I can claim in talking about modern economics I am talking about me”).
Samuelson is mentioned in the Schumpeter biographies, including McCraw’s, mostly to illustrate Schumpeter’s enthusiasm for Samuelson’s brand of mathematical economics, which Schumpeter greatly admired even if he himself was not a practitioner. Samuelson has written a bit on his old teacher, mostly to praise Schumpeter’s brilliance (and celebrate his quirkiness, particularly in the classroom), but not much on Schumpeter’s specific theoretical contributions. (Here is Samuelson’s 1951 paper “Schumpeter as a Teacher and Economic Theorist,” which is a good read but not, ultimately, very informative; here is Samuelson’s critique of Schumpeter’s theory of equilibrium interest rates). Samuelson certainly didn’t give the entrepreneur a prominent place in his own system (here is a technical paper on innovation); what did he think of Schumpeter’s account of entrepreneurship and economic change?
User Innovation and Collaborative Innovation
| Dick Langlois |
Two of my favorite scholars, Carliss Baldwin and Eric von Hippel, have bridged the Charles to team up on a joint manifesto pushing their related views on innovation. The paper is subtitled (or is it supertitled?) “Modeling a Paradigm Shift.” Here is the abstract.
In this paper we assess the economic viability of innovation by producers relative to two increasingly important alternative models: Innovations by single user individuals or firms, and open collaborative innovation projects. We analyze the design costs and architectures and communication costs associated with each model. We conclude that innovation by individual users and also open collaborative innovation increasingly compete with — and may displace — producer innovation in many parts of the economy. We argue that a transition from producer innovation to open single user and open collaborative innovation is desirable in terms of social welfare, and so worthy of support by policymakers.
Carliss has always been more willing than I am to make a normative case for modularity, which is the idea underlying the collaborative model. But she does have some analytical arguments to back that up. The “worthy of support by policymakers” part actually turns out to be a healthy argument against present-day political forces in the direction of stronger intellectual property rights. As this blog has noted in the past, these political forces are moving opposite to increased patent skepticism among scholars.
Just So Stories: Financial Regulation Edition
| Craig Pirrong |
All of the legislative proposals relating to over-the-counter derivatives would impose seismic changes on the way that these instruments are traded, and the performance risks related to them are managed. Indeed, it is fair to say that these proposals, if implemented would dramatically shrink the OTC market, and perhaps destroy it altogether. Under either the House (Frank) or Senate (Dodd) bills, most derivatives would have to be traded on exchanges, and be cleared. (Clearing is a way of mutualizing default risks. At present, default risks in a particular contract are directly limited to the buyer and seller.) (BTW, when you hear “Frank and Dodd” do you think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? I do. Does this inspire confidence? Self-answering question.) These efforts are strongly supported by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, CFTC head Gary Gensler, and SEC head Mary Shapiro.
These legislative proposals are clearly predicated on a very strong belief: participants in the derivatives markets routinely chose the wrong institutional arrangements. That this immense market is and was in fact arguably the largest market failure in financial history. (more…)
Bentham and Hume in the West Wing
| Dick Langlois |
From a perhaps uncharacteristic source — David Brooks at the New York Times — comes a funny and spot-on column about Bentham and Hume as present-day DC policy advisors.
The people on Mr. Bentham’s side believe that government can get actively involved in organizing innovation. . . . The people on Mr. Hume’s side believe government should actively tilt the playing field to promote social goods and set off decentralized networks of reform, but they don’t think government knows enough to intimately organize dynamic innovation.
So let’s have the debate. But before we do, let’s understand that Mr. Bentham is going to win. The lobbyists love Bentham’s intricacies and his stacks of spending proposals, which they need in order to advance their agendas. If you want to pass anything through Congress, Bentham’s your man.
QWERTY in the Long Run
| Dick Langlois |
The new issue of Industrial and Corporate Change has an article by Andreas Reinstaller and Werner Hölzl called “Big Causes and Small Events: QWERTY and the Mechanization of Office Work.” Although it’s an interesting paper in many respects, I think it fails in its avowed aim to defend Paul David against the attack of Liebowitz and Margolis. Mostly, they don’t get L&M right (and explicitly get them wrong in footnote 1). The issue is whether the QWERTY keyboard is an example of what L&M call “third-degree” path dependency, that, is path dependency leading to an outcome that is both regrettable ex post and would somehow have been remediable ex ante. The criterion of “remediable” to R&H seems to be whether contemporaries “knew about” superior alternatives. That’s not quite right, of course: the real issue is whether any alternative institutional structure could have done a better job of choosing a standard under the conditions of knowledge at the time. Their only example is the existence of a French “Ideal” keyboard layout (which some people “knew about”) that was swept aside by the tidal wave of the American QWERTY standard (and became AZERTY in France). But they have no evidence about how much better this keyboard was — or if it was better at all. In footnote 1 they cite Donald Norman’s interesting book on design to the effect that the Dvorak keyboard is 10 per cent faster than QWERTY. But (A) Norman’s point in the book is how insignificant this difference is and (B) that doesn’t demonstrate third-degree path dependency, since no one “knew about” the Dvorak keyboard until Dvorak invented it (an extremely laborious process, according to Norman).
Again, I don’t want to be too hard on R&H: I think there’s a lot that’s interesting in the paper, especially the discussion of the mechanization of office work. What really struck me in this context, however, is how irrelevant, or at least dated, the QWERTY saga is. And I say this not for the usual reason: that computers now allow us to have any keyboard layout we like. Rather, what struck me is that the production of documents has long since become demechanized, making even more-than-nominal differences in typing speed irrelevant. Since we now all (or almost all) compose right on the computer, and never send our documents out to the typing pool, manuscript production has become a craft again. What is slowing us down is how quickly we think of something to say, not how fast we can type. And I doubt that, fifties nostalgia notwithstanding, we are unlikely to see the return of the typing pool anytime soon. So, from a historical perspective, QWERTY will have been technically inefficient (though not therefore economically inefficient) only for that brief historical period between the invention of Dvorak and the coming of the personal computer.
The same issue of ICC also has a paper by Ashish Arora and coauthors that’s worth a look.
Niche Markets for Obsolete Technologies
| Peter Klein |
One of the most interesting papers I saw presented at this year’s ACAC meeting was Ron Adner and Daniel Snow’s “‘Old’ Technology Responses to ‘New’ Technology Threats: Demand Heterogeneity and Graceful Technology Retreats.” They show how incumbents sometimes react to disruptive innovation by repositioning the old technology as a niche product, aimed at specialized users or enthusiasts. Their examples are fascinating. One-way pagers, for example, are still popular in hospitals because their low-powered signals work better around, and interfere less with, complex medical equipment. Many audiophiles prefer vinyl records, with their rich, analog sound, to digital media. (Needles for high-end turntables sell for thousands of dollars.) Calligraphers prefer fountain pens to ball-point pens. And so on. Adner and Snow present a taxonomy of “reactive” strategies by incumbents facing innovative entrants and characterize the benefits and costs of each strategy. Here’s the abstract:
We explore the implications of a real and common alternative to attempting the transformation required to embrace a new, dominant, technology — the choice to maintain focus on the old technology. In considering this choice we distinguish between ‘racing’ strategies, which attempt to fight off the rise of the new technology by extending the performance of the old technology, and ‘retreat’ strategies, which attempt to accommodate the rise of the new technology by repositioning the old technology in the demand environment. Underlying our arguments is the observation that the emergence of a new technology does more than just create a substitute threat — it can also reveal significant underlying heterogeneity in the old technology’s broader demand environment. This heterogeneity is a source of opportunities that can support a new position for the old technology, in either the current market or a new one. Using this lens we explore the decision to stay with the old technology as a rational, proactive choice rather than as a mark of managerial and organizational failure. We then consider the distinctive challenges and organizational dynamics that arise in technology retreats, and their implications for the ways in which managers and scholars should approach questions regarding the management of capabilities, lifecycles, and ecosystems.
I came across another example this summer, in a NY Times piece on a Dutch firm resurrecting the Polaroid camera. And there was the 2006 Darren Aronofsky film The Fountain, which used a low-tech combination of soap bubbles, oils, and other liquids rather than digital technology to create its unusual visual effects.
Organizations, Markets, and Health Care Reform
| Russ Coff |
Amidst the fierce debate about the U.S. health care system is a raving lack of clarity. At the core, is whether organizations and markets fail to produce an optimal solution. Even the most neoclassical of economists these days acknowledge that market externalities exist and that these should be the focus of government intervention. Unfortunately, I don’t feel that the debate has been rigorous or well-informed in defining the market failure or why a government run system would be superior.
Liberal Economist Paul Krugman explains why markets fail summarizing Kenneth Arrow’s arguments (here). Basically, the third-party payee system and the information asymmetries render comparison shopping ineffective (and hence competition fails to yield an optimal solution).
Indeed, there is a good bit of inefficiency in the current U.S. system. A recent NY Times article notes that health care costs the average U.S. household $6,500 more each year than other comparable wealthy nations. Unfortunately, looking at many of the important outcomes, it appears that consumers are not getting much for their money on many dimensions (e.g., chronic disease outcomes). So it should be possible to lower costs and improve outcomes. Of course, this ignores the question of whether costs are higher to subsidize R&D that ultimately spills over into other countries.
Unfortunately, the article continues to point out how the reform efforts seem to ignore this low-hanging fruit. (more…)
Patenting Economics (and Other Things)
| Nicolai Foss |
The Google Empire appears to be expanding continually, and it is not easy to keep track of its recent conquests. Actually, I learned only yesterday that Google indexes patents and patent applications from the United States Patent and Trademark Office under www.google.com/patents.
The engine — which comprises 7 million patents — is fun to explore. Surprisingly many patent (applications) relate to economics. Many seem downright cranky, such as the application for a Method for the Determination of Economic Potentials and Temperatures (or perhaps I am just ignorant). Lots of management tools are also patented. For example, here is a patent describing a tool for analyzing “strategic capability networks.”
Ian Stewart claims (here) that two prime numbers have been patented (here is the short one: 7,994,412,097,716,110,548,127,211,733,331,600,522,93757,046,707,3,776, 649,963,673,962,686,200,838,432,950,239,103,981,070,728,369,599,816,314,646, 482,720,706,826,018,360,181,196,843,154,224,748,382,211,019 (now, don’t reproduce this, unless you want to get into trouble ;-)), but I haven’t been able to locate them.
The Organization of Firms Across Countries
| Peter Klein |
Interesting new NBER paper by Nicholas Bloom, Raffaella Sadun, and John Van Reenen, “The Organization of Firms Across Countries” (ungated version here, may be older):
We argue that social capital as proxied by regional trust and the Rule of Law can improve aggregate productivity through facilitating greater firm decentralization. We collect original data on the decentralization of investment, hiring, production and sales decisions from Corporate Head Quarters to local plant managers in almost 4,000 firms in the US, Europe and Asia. We find Anglo-Saxon and Northern European firms are much more decentralized than those from Southern Europe and Asia. Trust and the Rule of Law appear to facilitate delegation by improving co-operation, even when we examine “bilateral trust” between the country of origin and location for affiliates of multinational firms. We show that areas with higher trust and stronger rule of law specialize in industries that rely on decentralization and allow more efficient firms to grow in scale. Furthermore, even for firms of a given size and industry, trust and rule of law are associated with more decentralization which fosters higher returns from information technology (we find IT is complementary with decentralization). Finally, we find that non-hierarchical religions and product market competition are also associated with more decentralization. Together these cultural, legal and economic factors account for four fifths of the cross-country variation in the decentralization of power within firms.
The emphasis on institutional determinants of organizational form makes this a welcome addition to the (slim) set of papers relating institutional arrangements to the institutional environment. (more…)
Lamoreaux and Sokoloff’s Financing Innovation in the United States
| Peter Klein |
Nice EH.Net review by Charles Calomiris of Naomi Lamoreaux and Sokoloff’s edited volume Financing Innovation in the United States: 1870 to the Present (MIT Press, 2007).
Anyone interested in the organization of innovation, and the nexus between finance and the organization and process of innovation, must read this book. All of the chapters are original, scholarly, and packed with insightful gems (truly a font of inspiration for Ph.D. students), and the analysis manages to be both sophisticated (theoretically and statistically) and accessible to a broad audience. While the volume is too rich to boil down to a single theme, the editors’ introduction does point to a common thread that runs through many of the essays: “… perhaps the most striking aspect of the record of innovation over American economic history is the flexibility that technologically creative entrepreneurs have exhibited in adjusting their business and career plans so as to obtain financing for, and extract returns from, their projects.”
Organizations and Markets 
Recent Comments