Innovativeness of the US economy. Permanent or weakening dominance?

The paper is divided into three parts. In the first one, main causes of American leadership in the field of technology are explained. In the second part, innovation performance of the US economy in comparison with the EU and Asian economies is presented. Finally, there is an analysis of innovation capacity of US economy in the context of challenges resulting from the financial and economic crisis.Strukturę opracowania można przedstawić następująco: po wprowadzeniu dokonano charakterystyki głównych czynników i procesów, które przyczyniły się do powstania dominacji gospodarki Stanów Zjednoczonych w dziedzinie innowacyjności, następnie poddano analizie zjawisko zmniejszania się przewagi innowacyjnej tej gospodarki nad resztą świata, a w dalszej kolejności skoncentrowano uwagę na zagadnieniu wpływu współczesnego kryzysu gospodarczego na perspektywy utrzymania przewagi technologicznej Stanów Zjednoczonych

Global Competitiveness in Pharmaceuticals: A European Perspective

The report examines the competitive position of the European pharmaceutical companies and industries, and compares them with the pharmaceutical companies and industries in other parts of the world, particularly the US. Over the last two decades, the industry has experienced some important structural changes, mainly driven by technological and institutional shocks that have affected all the stages of its value chain. In turn, this has led to changes in firms' organisation and in market structure, within domestic markets, regionally, and globally. The main finding of the report is that the European industry has indeed been losing competitiveness as compared to the USA, although there are large differences and trends across European countries. As a whole, Europe is lagging behind in its ability to generate, organise, and sustain innovation processes that are increasingly expensive and organisationally complex. In fact, one conclusion of the report is that the relative position of the US as a locus of innovation in pharmaceuticals has increased over the past decade compared to Europe. All in all, the report claims that the competitiveness of the European pharmaceutical industry is negatively affected by the persistence of insufficient degrees of competition and institutional integration, still centred on domestic and fragmented health care and research systems. Four sets of variables have been found to be relevant as sources of competitiveness and growth in pharmaceuticals: 1) The size and the structure of the biomedical education and research systems; 2) Some basic institutions governing labor markets for skilled researchers and managers, as well as corporate governance and finance; 3) Intellectual property rights and patent law; 4) The institutional settings in the regulation of health care systems and, moreover, the nature and intensity of competition on the final market. The data analysed in this report come from OECD, Eurostat, the European Patent Office, IMS Health and PHID (PHarmaceutical Industry Database) at the University of Siena

The Global Challenges of the Knowledge Economy: China and the EU

This paper addresses some of the challenges confronting the European Union and China as they build their knowledge economies, and their on-going and possible future actions to address such challenges. Fifty years after the creation of what became the European Union, we argue that there is an urgent need to develop a new European Lisbon Agenda, preparing the EU for globalization. A new and "outward-looking" Lisbon strategy would focus on three key areas: international trade in services, internationalization of research networking, and access to brains and talent. The paper shows that the success of the Chinese economy over the past three decades can be partially attributed to its ability to absorb globally advanced technology and huge flows of foreign investment, its large pool of knowledge and talent, and its enactment of a policy framework that provides incentives to domestic and foreign firms to innovate - a strategy very much reminiscent of Europe's own internal Lisbon agenda. To move further, China needs to overcome the obstacles of regional disparities, transform its industry and deepen industry-academy linkages, which are also unavoidable tasks for the sustainable development of Europe. We contend that the scope for comparative studies of the EU and China, for mutual learning from each other's experience - even for joint initiatives - is substantial.Knowledge Economy, Industry-University Partnerships, Globalization, Internationalization, Highly Skilled Migration, European Union, China

A policy to boost R&D: Does the R&D tax credit work?

In this article we address various issues raised by the evaluation of the R&D tax credit policy. We first consider the studies that estimate the direct effects of the tax credit on R&D inputs. We discuss results obtained through different approaches and methods and show that they give a contrasted picture of the policy’s effectiveness. Next we argue that a comprehensive evaluation of the R&D tax credit should include other outcomes and present studies focussing on them. We also initiate a very tentative meta-analysis to obtain a more synthetic view on the various evaluation results. We finally conclude that harmonization and increased comparability in evaluation studies would be useful to bridge the gab between evaluation and policy design and implementation.R&D; R&D tax credit; R&D capital; capital use cost; evaluation; meta-analysis

R&D capital and economic growth: The empirical evidence

This paper reviews the empirical literature on rates of return on R&D and interprets the economic significance of these estimates using a semi-endogenous growth model with a calibrated knowledge production sector. We analyse how R&D subsidies, a reduction of entry barriers for start-ups and increasing high-skilled labour would contribute towards raising productivity and knowledge investment in the EU. The simulation results show that substantial efforts will have to be made if Europe wants to come close to achieving the Lisbon productivity and knowledge-investment targets. Achieving US standards in all three areas would reduce the productivity gap by about 50 percent. Improving the quality of tertiary education and increasing competition in non-manufacturing sectors would also help the EU to get to the productivity frontier.Productivity differences; endogenous growth; R&D; DSGE models

The economic and innovation contribution of universities: a regional perspective

Universities and other higher education institutions (HEIs) have come to be regarded as key sources of knowledge utilisable in the pursuit of economic growth. Although there have been numerous studies assessing the economic and innovation impact of HEIs, there has been little systematic analysis of differences in the relative contribution of HEIs across regions. This paper provides an exploration of some of these differences in the context of the UK’s regions. Significant differences are found in the wealth generated by universities according to regional location and type of institution. Universities in more competitive regions are generally more productive than those located in less competitive regions. Also, traditional universities are generally more productive than their newer counterparts, with university productivity positively related to knowledge commercialisation capabilities. Weaker regions tend to be more dependent on their universities for income and innovation, but often these universities under-perform in comparison to counterpart institutions in more competitive regions. It is argued that uncompetitive regions lack the additional knowledge infrastructure, besides universities, that are more commonly a feature of more competitive regions

The R&D-patent relationship: An industry perspective

This paper re-visits the empirical failure to establish a clear link between R&D efforts and patent counts at the industry level. It is claimed that the “propensity-to-patent” concept should be split into an “appropriability propensity” and a “strategic propensity”. The empirical contribution is based on a unique panel dataset composed of 18 industries in 19 countries over 19 years. The results confirm that the R&D-patent relationship is affected by research productivity, appropriability propensity and strategic propensity factors. The observed increase in the propensity to file for patents is much stronger for supranational (that is, triadic or regional) patents than for priority filings, suggesting that the current patent hype is essentially the result of a globalization phenomenon.Propensity to patent; strategic propensity; appropriability; research productivity