Empirische verkenningen van bedrijfsinnovatie, overheidsinterventie en bedrijfsprestaties in Europese landen De algemene doelstellingen van het onderzoek in dit proefschrift zijn: ten eerste het analyseren van het innovatieproces bij verschillende soorten innovatie, waarbij het bedrijf wordt gebruikt als analyse-eenheid; ten tweede het onderzoeken van de relatie tussen bedrijfsinnovatie en productiviteit; en ten derde het onderzoeken van de relatie tussen overheidsinterventie en bedrijfsprestaties in Europa. De voornaamste bevindingen zijn dat de innovatie-inspanningen, de kapitaalintensiteit, de grootte, de locatie en het ondernemingsklimaat voor bedrijven in Ierland belangrijke variabelen zijn voor innovatie; dat er wat betreft Ierland een economisch-geografisch effect is dat het stedelijke-hiërarchiemodel ondersteunt, waarin verstedelijking belangrijk is voor productinnovatie en minder belangrijk is voor procesinnovaties; dat innovatie een positief effect heeft op de mate van productiviteit van bedrijven, ongeacht de soort innovatie (product/proces) en economie (innovatie-/transitiegedreven economieën) in Europese bedrijven; dat er factoren zijn die pleiten voor beleidsinterventie in Europa ten aanzien van niet-innoverende bedrijven, afhankelijk van waar de tijdelijke heterogeniteitseffecten het grootst zijn; dat subsidies in Ierland en in innovatiegerichte economieën belangrijk zijn voor bedrijven die innoveren, maar niet voor bedrijven in een overgangseconomie; dat het in evenwicht houden van regionale groei zowel in innovatie- als in transitiegerichte economieën een belangrijke reden voor overheidsinterventie is; en dat overheidsingrijpen in innovatiegerichte economieën en transitiegerichte economieën een positief effect heeft op de productiviteit van een bedrijf, maar als beleidsmakers marktrendement willen optimaliseren ten opzichte van de productiviteit van bedrijven, ze er meestal voor kiezen om te interveniëren in de ‘verkeerde’ groep bedrijven

Crowley, Frank

Empirische verkenningen van bedrijfsinnovatie, overheidsinterventie en bedrijfsprestaties in Europese landenDe algemene doelstellingen van het onderzoek in dit proefschrift zijn: ten eerste het analyseren van het innovatieproces bij verschillende soorten innovatie, waarbij het bedrijf wordt gebruikt als analyse-eenheid; ten tweede het onderzoeken van de relatie tussen bedrijfsinnovatie en productiviteit; en ten derde het onderzoeken van de relatie tussen overheidsinterventie en bedrijfsprestaties in Europa. De voornaamste bevindingen zijn dat de innovatie-inspanningen, de kapitaalintensiteit, de grootte, de locatie en het ondernemingsklimaat voor bedrijven in Ierland belangrijke variabelen zijn voor innovatie; dat er wat betreft Ierland een economisch-geografisch effect is dat het stedelijke-hiërarchiemodel ondersteunt, waarin verstedelijking belangrijk is voor productinnovatie en minder belangrijk is voor procesinnovaties; dat innovatie een positief effect heeft op de mate van productiviteit van bedrijven, ongeacht de soort innovatie (product/proces) en economie (innovatie-/transitiegedreven economieën) in Europese bedrijven; dat er factoren zijn die pleiten voor beleidsinterventie in Europa ten aanzien van niet-innoverende bedrijven, afhankelijk van waar de tijdelijke heterogeniteitseffecten het grootst zijn; dat subsidies in Ierland en in innovatiegerichte economieën belangrijk zijn voor bedrijven die innoveren, maar niet voor bedrijven in een overgangseconomie; dat het in evenwicht houden van regionale groei zowel in innovatie- als in transitiegerichte economieën een belangrijke reden voor overheidsinterventie is; en dat overheidsingrijpen in innovatiegerichte economieën en transitiegerichte economieën een positief effect heeft op de productiviteit van een bedrijf, maar als beleidsmakers marktrendement willen optimaliseren ten opzichte van de productiviteit van bedrijven, ze er meestal voor kiezen om te interveniëren in de ‘verkeerde’ groep bedrijven.Empirical Explorations of Firm Innovation, Government Intervention and Firm Performance in European Countries.The broad objectives of the research within this thesis are: firstly, to analyse the process of innovation across innovation types using the firm as a unit of analysis; secondly, to examine the firm innovation-productivity relationship; and thirdly to examine the relationship between government intervention and firm performance in Europe. Some of the key findings from the research indicate that: innovation effort, capital intensity, size, location and the operating environment are key variables explaining a firms’ propensity to innovate in Ireland; there is an economic geography effect in the Irish case supporting the urban-hierarchy model, where urbanisation is important for product innovation and less important for process innovations; innovation has a positive effect on the productivity levels of firms across all innovation (product/process) and economy types (innovation/transition driven economies) in European firms; there is a rationale for policy intervention in Europe towards non-innovating firms, depending on where the transitional heterogeneity effects are greatest; subsidies are important for firms innovating in the Irish case and in innovation driven economies, but not for firms in transition economies; a key motivation for government intervention is to balance regional growth both in innovation and transition driven economies; and government intervention in innovation driven economies and transition driven economies has a positive effect on firm productivity, but if policymakers want to maximise market returns with respect to firm productivity, they are choosing to intervene with the ‘wrong’ group of firms in most cases

ARTS repository - University of Groningen

   University of GroningenEmpirical explorations of firm innovation, government intervention and firm performance inEuropean countriesCrowley, FrankIMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2015Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):Crowley, F. (2015). Empirical explorations of firm innovation, government intervention and firm performancein European countries. [Thesis fully internal (DIV), University of Groningen]. University of Groningen.CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 13-02-2023209735-L-sub01-bw-CrowleyVIIAbstract | ABSTRACTInnovation in the form of new products and processes are all crucial for firm competitiveness, firm productivity and long term economic growth (Romer, 1990; Baumol, 2002; Bhide, 2011). Associated with the process of innovation in markets is the presence of market failures arising from: the partial-appropriability and public good nature of knowledge (Baldwin, 1969; Jaffe, 1998); information asymmetries (Rosenburg, 2004; Rodrik, 2009); and systems failures (Boschma, 2009). The broad objectives of the research within this thesis are: firstly, to analyse the process of innovation across innovation types using the firm as a unit of analysis; secondly, to examine the firm innovation-productivity relationship; and thirdly to examine the relationship between government intervention and firm performance in Europe. There are four empirical paper contributions to the literature in the areas of innovation, government intervention and firm performance.The data used for the analyses stems from the third (2005) and fourth (2009) editions of the Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Surveys (BEEPS). The BEEPS editions are a joint initiative conducted by the World Bank Group (World Bank) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). BEEPS contain information on firm characteristics, the location of the firm and the business environment of the firm. The survey methodology for BEEPS is stratified random sampling and country sampling frames are constructed from National statistical institutes, Chamber of Commerce membership lists, industry registers and commercial sources such as the Yellow Pages (Synovate, 2005). When investigated the links between innovation-productivity and subsidies-firm performance, there are a number of empirical concerns. Firstly, there may be the concern of simultaneity and omitted variable bias. For instance, firms self-select to innovate if they expect the returns of innovation (firm performance) to be beneficial to the firm’s success. Hence, expected firm productivity is motivating the firm to innovate and innovation is also driving firm productivity. In the case of government 209735-L-sub01-bw-CrowleyVIII | Abstractintervention, firms are chosen to be subsidised by policymakers based on the expected outcomes the intervention will achieve and/or firms may also self-select themselves to apply for subsidies from government sources, if they expect it will have positive consequences on their firm performance. There may also be heterogeneity differences between innovators/non-innovators and subsidised/non-subsidised firms that are not observed that explain productivity changes, and this must also be taken into account in the empirical models. Hence, to control for these concerns chapters three, four and six employ an endogenous switching model and the conditional expectations, treatment and heterogeneity effects for firms are estimated. This is the first occasion in the literature that an endogenous switching model has been employed to measure the innovation-productivity and the subsidy-firm performance relationship. The first contribution of the thesis is presented in chapter three. This paper explores the process of innovation cross innovation types and the innovation-productivity relationship across innovation types for a sample of firms in Ireland. The paper identifies that a firm’s innovation effort, capital intensity, firm size, location and its operating environment are key variables in explaining a firms’ propensity to innovate. However, the importance of these factors differs across innovation types. We find mixed results on the effect of innovation on the productivity of innovators across innovation types. The results indicate in the counterfactual analysis that all types of innovation have a positive effect on the productivity levels of non-innovating firms. The second contribution of the research is presented in chapter four. This paper is similar in approach to chapter three but expands the analysis to an examination of the innovation process and the innovation-productivity relationship to different innovation system types (innovation driven economies versus transition driven economies) and partitions the sample to compare results between the manufacturing and service sectors. The results suggest that innovation is found to have a positive effect on the productivity levels of firms across all innovation and economy types. Some of the findings provide support for the traditional patterns previously found in the innovation literature, in which innovation efforts and investments in physical and human capital are found to be important for product and process innovations in manufacturing and service firms and across all types of economies. Other institutional factors including policy support are also found to be important for both manufacturing and service firms, while economic geography is found to be important primarily for service firms. Finally, the conditional expectations, treatment and heterogeneity analysis examined in this paper outlines a rationale for policy intervention towards non-innovating firms as well as innovating firms depending on where the transitional heterogeneity effects are greatest. The third contribution of this thesis is presented in chapter five. This paper examines the link between innovation and product discontinuation using the firm as a unit of analysis in order to enhance our understandings of the product life cycle (PLC). The examination of product life cycles using the firm as a unit of analysis is novel to the literature. Furthermore, a key objective of the paper is to compare the results between manufacturing and service firms. The literature has focused primarily on PLC 209735-L-sub01-bw-CrowleyIXAbstract | patterns and has completely overlooked service-life-cycles (SLC’s). Our understanding of innovation patterns has essentially been on the basis of technological innovation in manufacturing industries (Tether, 2003). The results indicate that product and service life cycles have similar patterns where innovation was significant for product/service discontinuation and process innovation was found to be important for product innovations. Similarly, monopoly power was important for innovation in both industry types. However, there were also some key differences, particularly in relation to firm age and economic geography effects. The principle conclusion of the paper is that it is not appropriate to assume that the process of innovation in manufacturing firms will be identical to the process of innovation in service firms.The fourth contribution of this research is presented in chapter six of the thesis. The purpose of this contribution is to identify what types of firms are more likely to receive subsidies from policymakers and the effect that the subsidies have on the performance of firms. Rodrik (2009) argues that it is extremely easy to make the case for industrial policy and it’s a case of how to implement industrial policy and not why. But from an empirical perspective, it is far from clear if government subsidies are good or bad in achieving long term growth at all (Bergstrom, 2000). Industrial policy is at the centre stage of Europe’s 2020 new growth model strategy (European Commission, 2010). Hence, the motivation of this final contribution is to provide more clarity on the subsidy-firm performance relationship. The paper identifies an economic geography ‘dualism’ effect with subsidy allocation and that the targeted firms are larger, they export and are more high-tech. These types of firms may be identified as ‘winners’, but the heterogeneity analysis identifies that policymakers are targeting the ‘weaker’ firms within this category type of firms. However, the treatment effect analysis suggests that policymakers are targeting the wrong firms if they want to maximise productivity returns. 209735-L-sub01-bw-CrowleyX | AbstractREFERENCESBank, E.-W. (2005/09). Business environment and enterprise performance survey.Baldwin, R. E. (1969). The case against infant-industry tariff protection. The Journal of Political Economy, 295-305.Baumol, W. J. (2002). Free Market Innovation Machine: Analyzing the Growth Miracle of Capitalism. Princeton University Press.Bergström, F. (2000). Capital subsidies and the performance of firms. Small Business Economics, 14(3), 183-193.Bhide, A. (ed.) (2011). Venturesome Consumption, Innovation and Globalization, Cambridge: MIT Press.Boschma, R. (2009). Evolutionary economic geography and its implications for regional innovation policy. Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG), 912, 169-190.European Commission (2010) Communication From the Commission. Europe 2020: a strategy for smart, sustainable and growth. Brussels.Jaffe, A. B. (1998). The importance of “spillovers” in the policy mission of the advanced technology program. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 23(2), 11-19.Rodrik, D. (2009). Industrial policy: don’t ask why, ask how. Middle East Development Journal, 1(01), 1-29.Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, S71-S102.Rosenberg, N. (2004). Innovation and economic growth. Innovation and Economic Growth. OECD.Synovate (2005). The Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS): A brief report on observations, experiences and methodology from the surveys in Spain and the Irish Republic. EBRD publications.Tether*, B. S. (2003). The sources and aims of innovation in services: variety between and within sectors. Economics of Innovation and new technology, 12 (6), 481-505.

English

Empirical explorations of firm innovation, government intervention and firm performance in European countries

   University of GroningenEmpirical explorations of firm innovation, government intervention and firm performance inEuropean countriesCrowley, FrankIMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2015Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):Crowley, F. (2015). Empirical explorations of firm innovation, government intervention and firm performancein European countries. [Thesis fully internal (DIV), University of Groningen]. University of Groningen.CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 09-09-2023209735-L-sub01-bw-CrowleyVIIAbstract | ABSTRACTInnovation in the form of new products and processes are all crucial for firm competitiveness, firm productivity and long term economic growth (Romer, 1990; Baumol, 2002; Bhide, 2011). Associated with the process of innovation in markets is the presence of market failures arising from: the partial-appropriability and public good nature of knowledge (Baldwin, 1969; Jaffe, 1998); information asymmetries (Rosenburg, 2004; Rodrik, 2009); and systems failures (Boschma, 2009). The broad objectives of the research within this thesis are: firstly, to analyse the process of innovation across innovation types using the firm as a unit of analysis; secondly, to examine the firm innovation-productivity relationship; and thirdly to examine the relationship between government intervention and firm performance in Europe. There are four empirical paper contributions to the literature in the areas of innovation, government intervention and firm performance.The data used for the analyses stems from the third (2005) and fourth (2009) editions of the Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Surveys (BEEPS). The BEEPS editions are a joint initiative conducted by the World Bank Group (World Bank) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). BEEPS contain information on firm characteristics, the location of the firm and the business environment of the firm. The survey methodology for BEEPS is stratified random sampling and country sampling frames are constructed from National statistical institutes, Chamber of Commerce membership lists, industry registers and commercial sources such as the Yellow Pages (Synovate, 2005). When investigated the links between innovation-productivity and subsidies-firm performance, there are a number of empirical concerns. Firstly, there may be the concern of simultaneity and omitted variable bias. For instance, firms self-select to innovate if they expect the returns of innovation (firm performance) to be beneficial to the firm’s success. Hence, expected firm productivity is motivating the firm to innovate and innovation is also driving firm productivity. In the case of government 209735-L-sub01-bw-CrowleyVIII | Abstractintervention, firms are chosen to be subsidised by policymakers based on the expected outcomes the intervention will achieve and/or firms may also self-select themselves to apply for subsidies from government sources, if they expect it will have positive consequences on their firm performance. There may also be heterogeneity differences between innovators/non-innovators and subsidised/non-subsidised firms that are not observed that explain productivity changes, and this must also be taken into account in the empirical models. Hence, to control for these concerns chapters three, four and six employ an endogenous switching model and the conditional expectations, treatment and heterogeneity effects for firms are estimated. This is the first occasion in the literature that an endogenous switching model has been employed to measure the innovation-productivity and the subsidy-firm performance relationship. The first contribution of the thesis is presented in chapter three. This paper explores the process of innovation cross innovation types and the innovation-productivity relationship across innovation types for a sample of firms in Ireland. The paper identifies that a firm’s innovation effort, capital intensity, firm size, location and its operating environment are key variables in explaining a firms’ propensity to innovate. However, the importance of these factors differs across innovation types. We find mixed results on the effect of innovation on the productivity of innovators across innovation types. The results indicate in the counterfactual analysis that all types of innovation have a positive effect on the productivity levels of non-innovating firms. The second contribution of the research is presented in chapter four. This paper is similar in approach to chapter three but expands the analysis to an examination of the innovation process and the innovation-productivity relationship to different innovation system types (innovation driven economies versus transition driven economies) and partitions the sample to compare results between the manufacturing and service sectors. The results suggest that innovation is found to have a positive effect on the productivity levels of firms across all innovation and economy types. Some of the findings provide support for the traditional patterns previously found in the innovation literature, in which innovation efforts and investments in physical and human capital are found to be important for product and process innovations in manufacturing and service firms and across all types of economies. Other institutional factors including policy support are also found to be important for both manufacturing and service firms, while economic geography is found to be important primarily for service firms. Finally, the conditional expectations, treatment and heterogeneity analysis examined in this paper outlines a rationale for policy intervention towards non-innovating firms as well as innovating firms depending on where the transitional heterogeneity effects are greatest. The third contribution of this thesis is presented in chapter five. This paper examines the link between innovation and product discontinuation using the firm as a unit of analysis in order to enhance our understandings of the product life cycle (PLC). The examination of product life cycles using the firm as a unit of analysis is novel to the literature. Furthermore, a key objective of the paper is to compare the results between manufacturing and service firms. The literature has focused primarily on PLC 209735-L-sub01-bw-CrowleyIXAbstract | patterns and has completely overlooked service-life-cycles (SLC’s). Our understanding of innovation patterns has essentially been on the basis of technological innovation in manufacturing industries (Tether, 2003). The results indicate that product and service life cycles have similar patterns where innovation was significant for product/service discontinuation and process innovation was found to be important for product innovations. Similarly, monopoly power was important for innovation in both industry types. However, there were also some key differences, particularly in relation to firm age and economic geography effects. The principle conclusion of the paper is that it is not appropriate to assume that the process of innovation in manufacturing firms will be identical to the process of innovation in service firms.The fourth contribution of this research is presented in chapter six of the thesis. The purpose of this contribution is to identify what types of firms are more likely to receive subsidies from policymakers and the effect that the subsidies have on the performance of firms. Rodrik (2009) argues that it is extremely easy to make the case for industrial policy and it’s a case of how to implement industrial policy and not why. But from an empirical perspective, it is far from clear if government subsidies are good or bad in achieving long term growth at all (Bergstrom, 2000). Industrial policy is at the centre stage of Europe’s 2020 new growth model strategy (European Commission, 2010). Hence, the motivation of this final contribution is to provide more clarity on the subsidy-firm performance relationship. The paper identifies an economic geography ‘dualism’ effect with subsidy allocation and that the targeted firms are larger, they export and are more high-tech. These types of firms may be identified as ‘winners’, but the heterogeneity analysis identifies that policymakers are targeting the ‘weaker’ firms within this category type of firms. However, the treatment effect analysis suggests that policymakers are targeting the wrong firms if they want to maximise productivity returns. 209735-L-sub01-bw-CrowleyX | AbstractREFERENCESBank, E.-W. (2005/09). Business environment and enterprise performance survey.Baldwin, R. E. (1969). The case against infant-industry tariff protection. The Journal of Political Economy, 295-305.Baumol, W. J. (2002). Free Market Innovation Machine: Analyzing the Growth Miracle of Capitalism. Princeton University Press.Bergström, F. (2000). Capital subsidies and the performance of firms. Small Business Economics, 14(3), 183-193.Bhide, A. (ed.) (2011). Venturesome Consumption, Innovation and Globalization, Cambridge: MIT Press.Boschma, R. (2009). Evolutionary economic geography and its implications for regional innovation policy. Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG), 912, 169-190.European Commission (2010) Communication From the Commission. Europe 2020: a strategy for smart, sustainable and growth. Brussels.Jaffe, A. B. (1998). The importance of “spillovers” in the policy mission of the advanced technology program. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 23(2), 11-19.Rodrik, D. (2009). Industrial policy: don’t ask why, ask how. Middle East Development Journal, 1(01), 1-29.Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, S71-S102.Rosenberg, N. (2004). Innovation and economic growth. Innovation and Economic Growth. OECD.Synovate (2005). The Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS): A brief report on observations, experiences and methodology from the surveys in Spain and the Irish Republic. EBRD publications.Tether*, B. S. (2003). The sources and aims of innovation in services: variety between and within sectors. Economics of Innovation and new technology, 12 (6), 481-505.

University of Groningen Research Database

  
 University of Groningen
Empirical explorations of firm innovation, government intervention and firm performance in
European countries
Crowley, Frank
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from
it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date:
2015
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Crowley, F. (2015). Empirical explorations of firm innovation, government intervention and firm performance
in European countries [Groningen]: University of Groningen
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the
author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the
number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Download date: 11-02-2018
209735-L-sub01-bw-Crowley
Empirical explorations of 
firm innovation, government 
intervention and firm performance 
in European countries
Frank Crowley
209735-L-sub01-bw-Crowley
The research presented in this book was conducted at the faculty of Spatial Sciences at the University 
of Groningen.
ISBN: 978-90-367-7845-9
Printed by: Ipskamp Drukkers BV, Enschede, the Netherlands
Layout: Legatron Electronic Publishing, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
© Frank Crowley
All rights reserved. Save exceptions by the law, no part of this publication may be reproduced in any 
form, by print, photocopying, or otherwise, without the prior written permission from the author. 
209735-L-sub01-bw-Crowley
Empirical explorations of firm innovation, 
government intervention and firm 
performance in European countries
PhD thesis 
to obtain the degree of PhD at the
University of Groningen
on the authority of the
Rector Magnificus Prof. E. Sterken
and in accordance with
the decision by the College of Deans.
This thesis will be defended in public on 
Monday 14 September 2015 at 14.30 hours
by 
Frank Crowley 
born on 12 May 1983
in Cork, Ireland
209735-L-sub01-bw-Crowley
Supervisor
Prof. P. McCann 
Assessment Committee
Prof. J. van Dijk 
Prof. F. van Oort 
Prof. S. Roper


NARCIS 

University of Groningen

   University of GroningenEmpirical explorations of firm innovation, government intervention and firm performance inEuropean countriesCrowley, FrankIMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublication date:2015Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):Crowley, F. (2015). Empirical explorations of firm innovation, government intervention and firm performancein European countries. [Groningen]: University of Groningen.CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 12-11-2019209735-L-sub01-bw-CrowleyEmpirical explorations of firm innovation, government intervention and firm performance in European countriesFrank Crowley209735-L-sub01-bw-CrowleyThe research presented in this book was conducted at the faculty of Spatial Sciences at the University of Groningen.ISBN: 978-90-367-7845-9Printed by: Ipskamp Drukkers BV, Enschede, the NetherlandsLayout: Legatron Electronic Publishing, Rotterdam, the Netherlands© Frank CrowleyAll rights reserved. Save exceptions by the law, no part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, by print, photocopying, or otherwise, without the prior written permission from the author. 209735-L-sub01-bw-CrowleyEmpirical explorations of firm innovation, government intervention and firm performance in European countriesPhD thesis to obtain the degree of PhD at theUniversity of Groningenon the authority of theRector Magnificus Prof. E. Sterkenand in accordance withthe decision by the College of Deans.This thesis will be defended in public on Monday 14 September 2015 at 14.30 hoursby Frank Crowley born on 12 May 1983in Cork, Ireland209735-L-sub01-bw-CrowleySupervisorProf. P. McCann Assessment CommitteeProf. J. van Dijk Prof. F. van Oort Prof. S. Roper

Empirical explorations of firm innovation, government intervention and firm performance in European countries

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ARTS repository - University of Groningen

ARTS repository - University of Groningen

University of Groningen Research Database

NARCIS

University of Groningen