Business psychology.

n/

Bureaucrats or Markets in Innovation Policy? – a critique of the entrepreneurial state

This paper takes stock of recent suggestions that the state apparatus is a central and underappreciated actor in the generation, diffusion and exploitation of innovations enhancing growth and social welfare. We contrast such a view of “the entrepreneurial state” with theories and empirical evidence of the microeconomic processes of innovation in the modern economy which focus on well-functioning markets, free entry and competition among firms, and independent entrepreneurship as central mechanisms in the creation and dissemination of innovations. In doing so, we identify several deficiencies in the notion of an entrepreneurial state by showing that (i) there is weak empirical support in the many hundreds empirical studies and related meta analyses evaluating the effectiveness of active industrial and innovative policies, that (ii) these policies do not take account of the presence of information and incentive problems which together explain why attempts to address purported market failures often result in policy failures, and that (iii) the exclusive focus on knowledge creation through R&D and different forms of firm subsidies ignores the equally important mechanisms of knowledge dissemination and creation through commercial exploitation in markets. We discuss how a more theoretically well-founded focus on the state as investing in knowledge generation and securing the conditions of free and competitive markets will lead to a more innovative economy

Chemical and transcriptional responses of Norway spruce genotypes with different susceptibility to Heterobasidion spp. infection

Background: Norway spruce [Picea abies (L.) Karst.] is one of the most important conifer species in Europe. The wood is economically important and infections by wood-rotting fungi cause substantial losses to the industry. The first line of defence in a Norway spruce tree is the bark. It is a very efficient barrier against infection based on its mechanical and chemical properties. Once an injury or an infection is recognized by the tree, induced defences are activated. In this study we examined transcriptional response, using 454-sequencing, and chemical profiles in bark of Norway spruce trees with different susceptibility to Heterobasidion annosum s.l. infection. The aim was to find associations between the transcriptome and chemical profiles to the level of susceptibility to Heterobasidion spp. in Norway spruce genotypes. Results: Both terpene and phenol compositions were analysed and at 28 days post inoculation (dpi) high levels of 3-carene was produced in response to H. annosum. However, significant patterns relating to inoculation or to genotypes with higher or lower susceptibility could only be found in the phenol fraction. The levels of the flavonoid catechin, which is polymerized into proanthocyanidins (PA), showed a temporal variation; it accumulated between 5 and 15 dpi in response to H. annosum infection in the less susceptible genotypes. The transcriptome data suggested that the accumulation of free catechin was preceded by an induction of genes in the flavonoid and PA biosynthesis pathway such as leucoanthocyanidin reductase. Quantitative PCR analyses verified the induction of genes in the phenylpropanoid and flavonoid pathway. The qPCR data also highlighted genotype-dependent differences in the transcriptional regulation of these pathways. Conclusions: The varying dynamics in transcriptional and chemical patterns displayed by the less susceptible genotypes suggest that there is a genotypic variation in successful spruce defence strategies against Heterobasidion. However, both high levels of piceasides and flavonoids in the less susceptible genotypes suggested the importance of the phenolic compounds in the defence. Clearly an extended comparison of the transcriptional responses in the interaction with Heterobasidion between several independent genotypes exhibiting reduced susceptibility is needed to catalogue mechanisms of successful host defence strategies

Orexinergic bouton density is lower in the cerebral cortex of cetaceans compared to artiodactyls

The species of the cetacean and artiodactyl suborders, which make up the cetartiodactyl order, have very different arousal thresholds and sleep-wake systems. The aim of this study was to determine whether cetaceans or artiodactyls have differently organized orexinergic arousal systems by examining the density of orexinergic innervation to the cerebral cortex. This study provides a comparison of orexinergic bouton density in the cerebral cortex of twelve cetartiodactyl species by means of immunohistochemical staining and stereological analysis. It was observed that the morphology of the axonal projections of the orexinergic system to the cerebral cortex was similar across all species, as the presence, size and proportion of large and small orexinergic boutons were similar. Despite this, orexinergic bouton density was lower in the cerebral cortex of cetaceans compared to artiodactyls, even when corrected for brain mass, neuron density, glial density and glial: neuron ratio. Glial density was identified as the major determinant for the observed differences. It appears a synergy exists between the orexinergic neurons and their projections, glial cells, and the biochemical correlates of appetitive drive and arousal, but further studies need to be performed to understand the full extent of the orexinergic system and its role in sustained arousal.This work was mainly supported by funding from the South African National Research Foundation (P.R.M., N.C.B.) and by a fellowship within the Postdoctoral-Program of the German Academic Exchange Service, DAAD (N.P.). The work was also supported by an IOER R&G Grant from Des Moines University (#12- 13-03) (M.A.S.), Reykjavik University 2010 Development Fund (K.Æ.K.), the Deanship of Scientific Research at the King Saud University through the research group project number RGP_020 (A.N.A., O.B.M.), and NIH grant DA 2R01MH064109 and the Department of Veterans Affairs (J.M.S).http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jchemneu2016-10-31hb2016Mammal Research InstituteZoology and Entomolog

Bureaucrats or Markets in Innovation Policy? - a critique of the entrepreneurial state

This paper takes stock of recent suggestions that the state apparatus is a central and underappreciated actor in the generation, diffusion and exploitation of innovations enhancing growth and social welfare. We contrast such a view of "the entrepreneurial state" with theories and empirical evidence of the microeconomic processes of innovation in the modern economy which focus on well-functioning markets, free entry and competition among firms, and independent entrepreneurship as central mechanisms in the creation and dissemination of innovations. In doing so, we identify several deficiencies in the notion of an entrepreneurial state by showing that (i) there is weak empirical support in the many hundreds empirical studies and related meta analyses evaluating the effectiveness of active industrial and innovative policies, that (ii) these policies do not take account of the presence of information and incentive problems which together explain why attempts to address purported market failures often result in policy failures, and that (iii) the exclusive focus on knowledge creation through R&amp;D and different forms of firm subsidies ignores the equally important mechanisms of knowledge dissemination and creation through commercial exploitation in markets. We discuss how a more theoretically well-founded focus on the state as investing in knowledge generation and securing the conditions of free and competitive markets will lead to a more innovative economy.Funding Agencies|Chalmers University of Technology</p

Bureaucrats or Markets in Innovation Policy? - a critique of the entrepreneurial state

This paper takes stock of recent suggestions that the state apparatus is a central and underappreciated actor in the generation, diffusion and exploitation of innovations enhancing growth and social welfare. We contrast such a view of "the entrepreneurial state" with theories and empirical evidence of the microeconomic processes of innovation in the modern economy which focus on well-functioning markets, free entry and competition among firms, and independent entrepreneurship as central mechanisms in the creation and dissemination of innovations. In doing so, we identify several deficiencies in the notion of an entrepreneurial state by showing that (i) there is weak empirical support in the many hundreds empirical studies and related meta analyses evaluating the effectiveness of active industrial and innovative policies, that (ii) these policies do not take account of the presence of information and incentive problems which together explain why attempts to address purported market failures often result in policy failures, and that (iii) the exclusive focus on knowledge creation through R&amp;D and different forms of firm subsidies ignores the equally important mechanisms of knowledge dissemination and creation through commercial exploitation in markets. We discuss how a more theoretically well-founded focus on the state as investing in knowledge generation and securing the conditions of free and competitive markets will lead to a more innovative economy.Funding Agencies|Chalmers University of Technology</p