Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T09:15:26.038Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Business Strategy

The Creative Response

Knowledge and Innovation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2023

Cristiano Antonelli  and
Alessandra Colombelli
Cristiano Antonelli
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Torino, Italy
Alessandra Colombelli
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Torino

Summary

This Element combines the advances of the economics of knowledge and innovation implementing the Schumpeterian notion of creative response to understand the determinants and the effects of the rate and direction of technological and organizational change and its variance across time and space, firms, and industries. The notion of creative response provides an inclusive framework that enables to highlight the crucial role of knowledge in assessing the rate and direction of technological change and to clarify that no innovation is possible without the generation of new knowledge, while the generation of new knowledge augments the chances of innovation but does not automatically yield the introduction of innovation. Firms thus are faced with several strategic decisions to make the creative response possible. The Element elaborates on the analytical core of the notion of creative response and articulates its implications for economic policy and strategic management.
Get access

Keywords

creative responseinnovation functionknowledge generation functiontechnology production functiontechnological change
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Business Strategy
Online ISBN: 9781108987547
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 16 March 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acemoglu, D. K. (2002). Directed technological change. Review of Economic Studies, 69(4), 781–810.Google Scholar
Acemoglu, D. K. (2003). Labor- and capital-augmenting technical change. Journal of European Economic Association, 1(1), 1–37.Google Scholar
Acemoglu, D. K. (2015). Localised and biased technologies: Atkinson and Stiglitz’s new view – Induced innovations and directed technological change. Economic Journal, 125(583), 443–463.Google Scholar
Acosta, M., Coronado, D., León, D., Martínez, Á. (2009). Production of university technological knowledge in European regions: Evidence from patent data. Regional Studies, 43(9), 1167–1181.Google Scholar
Acs, Z. J., Armington, C. (2006). Entrepreneurship, Geography and American Economic Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E. (2013). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 757–774.Google Scholar
Adams, J. D. (1990). Fundamental stocks of knowledge and productivity growth. European Journal of Political Economy, 98(4), 673–702.Google Scholar
Aghion, P., Howitt, P. W. (1997). Endogenous Growth Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aghion, P., Jaravel, X. (2015). Knowledge spillovers, innovation and growth. Economic Journal, 125(583), 533–573.Google Scholar
Akcigit, U., Liu, Q. (2016). The role of information in innovation and competition. Journal of the European Economic Association, 14(4), 828–870.Google Scholar
Akerloff, G. A. (1984). Gift exchange and efficiency-wage theory: Four views. American Economic Review, 74(2), 79–83.Google Scholar
Akerloff, G. A., Yellen, J. Y. (eds.) (1986). Efficiency Wages Models and the Labor Market. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ambos, T., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., d’Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1424–1447.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C. (1995). The Economics of Localized Technological Change and Industrial Dynamics. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C. (2008). Pecuniary knowledge externalities: The convergence of directed technological change and the emergence of innovation systems. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(5), 1049–1070.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C. (ed.) (2011). Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C. (2013). Knowledge governance: Pecuniary knowledge externalities and total factor productivity growth. Economic Development Quarterly, 27(1), 62–70.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C. (2016). Technological congruence and the economic complexity of technological change. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 38(C), 15–24.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C. (2017a). Endogenous innovation: The creative response. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 26(8), 689–718.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C. (2017b). Endogenous Innovation: The Economics of an Emergent System Property. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C. (2018a). Knowledge exhaustibility and Schumpeterian growth. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(3), 779–791.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C. (2018b). Knowledge properties and economic policy: A new look. Science and Public Policy, 45(2), 151–158.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C. (2018c). The Evolutionary Complexity of Endogenous Innovation: The Engines of the Creative Response. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C. (2019a). Knowledge as an economic good: Exhaustibility versus appropriability? Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(3), 647–658. https://doi.org.10.1007/s10961-018–9665–5Google Scholar
Antonelli, C. (2019b). The Knowledge Growth Regime: A Schumpeterian Approach. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C. (2022a). The limited transferability of knowledge. In Audretsch, D., Link, A., Lehman, E. (eds.), Handbook of Technology Transfer, pp. 11–24. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C. (ed.) (2022b). Encyclopedia on the Economics of Knowledge and Innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C., Colombelli, A. (2015a). External and internal knowledge in the knowledge-generation function. Industry and Innovation, 22(4), 273–298.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C., Colombelli, A. (2015b). The knowledge cost function. International Journal of Production Economics, 168(C), 290–302.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C., Colombelli, A. (2017). The locus of knowledge externalities and the cost of knowledge. Regional Studies, 51(8), 1151–1164.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C., Crespi, F., Mongeau Ospina, C., Scellato, G. (2017). Knowledge composition, Jacobs externalities and innovation performance in European regions. Regional Studies, 51(11), 1708–1720.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C., Crespi, F., Quatraro, F. (2022). Knowledge complexity and the mechanisms of knowledge generation and exploitation: The European evidence. Research Policy, 51(8), 104081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104081Google Scholar
Antonelli, C., David, P. A. (eds.) (2016). The Economics of Knowledge and Knowledge Driven Economy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C., Fassio, C. (2011). Globalization and innovation in advanced economies. In Libecap, G. (ed.), Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth, vol. 22, pp. 21–46. Cambridge: Emerald.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C., Fassio, C. (2014). The economics of the light economy: Globalization, skill-biased technological change, and slow growth. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 87(C), 89–107.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C., Fassio, C. (2016). Globalization and the knowledge-driven economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 30(1), 3–14.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C., Feder, C. (2020). The new direction of technological change in the global economy. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 52(C), 1–12.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C., Feder, C. (2021a). A long-term comparative analysis of the direction and congruence of technological change. Socioeconomic Review, 19(2), 583–605.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C., Feder, C. (2021b). Knowledge appropriability and directed technological change: The Schumpeterian creative response in global markets. Journal of Technology Transfer, 46(3), 686–700.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C., Feder, C. (2021c). Schumpeterian loops in international trade: The evidence of the OECD countries. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 31(2), 799–820.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C., Feder, C. (2022a). Knowledge properties and the creative response in the global economy: The European evidence in the years 1990–2016. Journal of Technology Transfer, 47(2), 459–475.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C., Feder, C. (2022b). The foundations of the Schumpeterian dynamics: The European evidence. Journal of Evolutionary Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-022-00794-3Google Scholar
Antonelli, C., Gehringer, A. (2016). The cost of knowledge and productivity growth. In Link, A. N., Antonelli, C. (eds.), Strategic Alliances: Leveraging Economic Growth and Development, pp. 155–174. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C., Orsatti, G., Pialli, G. (in press). The knowledge intensive direction of technological change. Eurasian Business Review.Google Scholar
Antonelli, C., Pialli, G. (in press). Intangible assets and the productivity slow down. International Journal of Technology Management.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. (1962a). The economic implications of learning by doing. Review of Economic Studies, 29(3), 155–173.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. (1962b). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In Nelson, R. R. (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pp. 609–625. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press for NBER.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. (1969). Classificatory notes on the production and transmission of technical knowledge. American Economic Review, 59(2), 29–35.Google Scholar
Arundel, A., Geuna, A. (2004). Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13(6), 559–580.Google Scholar
Arvanitis, S. (2005). Modes of labour flexibility at firm level: Are there any implications for performance and innovation? Evidence for the Swiss economy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(6), 993–1016.Google Scholar
Atkinson, A. B., Stiglitz, J. E. (1969). A new view of technological change. Economic Journal, 79(315), 573–578.Google Scholar
Audretsch, D. B., Keilbach, M. C. (2007). The localisation of entrepreneurship capital: Evidence from Germany. Papers in Regional Science, 86(3), 351–365.Google Scholar
Audretsch, D. B., Keilbach, M. C., Lehmann, E. E. (2006). Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Autio, E. (2005). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2005 report on high-expectation entrepreneurship. www.gemconsortium.org/file/open?fileId=47110Google Scholar
Baldwin, R. E. (1971). Determinants of the commodity structure of U.S. trade. American Economic Review, 61(1), 126–146.Google Scholar
Baldwin, R. (2016). The Great Convergence Information Technology and the New Globalization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Baldwin, R., Lopez-Gonzalez, J. (2015). Supply-chain trade: A portrait of global patterns and several testable hypotheses. The World Economy, 38(11), 1682–1721.Google Scholar
Balland, P.-A., Boschma, R., Crespo, J., Rigby, D. L. (2019). Smart specialization policy in the European Union: Relatedness, knowledge complexity and regional diversification. Regional Studies, 53(9), 1252–1268.Google Scholar
Baughn, C. C., Neupert, K. E. (2003). Culture and national condition facilitating entrepreneurial start-ups. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1(3), 313–330.Google Scholar
Baughn, C. C., Sugheir, J., Neupert, K. E. (2010). Labor flexibility and the prevalence of high-growth entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 23(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Ben Hassine, H., Boudier, F., Mathieu, C. (2017). The two ways of FDI R&D spillovers: Evidence from the French manufacturing industry. Applied Economics, 49(25), 2395–2408.Google Scholar
Blanchflower, D. G., Oswald, A. J. (1998). What makes an entrepreneur? Journal of Labor Economics, 16(1), 26–60.Google Scholar
Bloom, N., Draca, M., Van Reenen, J. (2016). Trade induced technical change? The impact of Chinese imports on innovation, IT and productivity. Review of Economic Studies, 83(1), 87–117.Google Scholar
Bolton, M. K. (1993). Organizational innovation and substandard performance: When is necessity the mother of innovation? Organization Science, 4(1), 57–75.Google Scholar
Bos, J. W., Stam, E. (2014). Gazelles and industry growth: A study of young high-growth firms in the Netherlands. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(1), 145–169.Google Scholar
Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.Google Scholar
Boschma, R., Balland, P. A., Kogle, D. F. (2014). Relatedness and technological change in cities: The rise and fall of technological knowledge in US metropolitan areas from 1981 to 2010. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(1), 223–250.Google Scholar
Boschma, R., Frenken, K. (2011a). Technological relatedness and regional branching. In Bathelt, H., Feldman, M. P., Kogler, D. F. (eds.), Dynamic Geographies of Knowledge Creation and Innovation, pp. 64–81. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boschma, R., Frenken, K. (2011b). Technological relatedness, related variety and economic geography. In Cooke, P. (ed.), Handbook of Regional Innovation and Growth, pp. 187–197. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Boschma, R., Minondo, A., Navarro, M. (2013). The emergence of new industries at the regional level in Spain: A proximity approach based on product-relatedness. Economic Geography, 89(1), 29–51.Google Scholar
Braunerhjelm, P. (2008). Specialization of regions and universities: The new versus the old. Industry and Innovation, 15(3), 253–275.Google Scholar
Bresnahan, T. F., Trajtenberg, M. (1995). General purpose technologies “engines of growth”? Journal of Econometrics, 65(1), 83–108.Google Scholar
Bruneel, J., d’Este, P., Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858–868.Google Scholar
Calderini, M., Scellato, G. (2005). Academic research, technological specialization and the innovation performance in European regions: An empirical analysis in the wireless sector. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(2), 279–305.Google Scholar
Chang, Y., Yang, P., Chen, M. (2009). The determinants of academic research commercial performance: Towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Research Policy, 38(6), 936–946.Google Scholar
Cohen, W. M., Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.Google Scholar
Collins, C. J., Smith, K. G. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academic Management Journal, 49(3), 544–560.Google Scholar
Colombelli, A. (2016). The impact of local knowledge bases on the creation of innovative start-ups in Italy. Small Business Economics, 47(2), 383–396.Google Scholar
Colombelli, A., De Marco, A., Paolucci, E., Ricci, R., & Scellato, G. (2021). University technology transfer and the evolution of regional specialization: the case of Turin. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46(4), 933–960.Google Scholar
Colombelli, A., Krafft, J., Quatraro, F. (2013). Properties of knowledge base and firm survival: Evidence from a sample of French manufacturing firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(8), 1469–1483.Google Scholar
Colombelli, A., Krafft, J., Quatraro, F. (2014). The emergence of new technology-based sectors at the regional level: A proximity-based analysis of nanotechnology. Research Policy, 43(10), 1681–1696.Google Scholar
Colombelli, A., Quatraro, F. (2014). The persistence of firms’ knowledge base: A quantile approach to Italian data. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 23(7), 585–610.Google Scholar
Cooke, P., Morgan, K. (1999). The Associational Economy: Firms, Regions, and Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coronado, D., Flores, E., Martínez, Á. (2017). The role of regional economic specialization in the production of university-owned patents. Annals of Regional Science, 59(2), 513–533.Google Scholar
Corrado, C., Hulten, C., Sichel, D. (2005). Measuring capital and technology: An expanded framework. In Corrado, C., Haltiwanger, J., Sichel, D. (eds.), Measuring Capital in the New Economy, pp. 11–46. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Corrado, C., Hulten, C., Sichel, D. (2009). Intangible capital and US economic growth. Review of Income and Wealth, 55(3), 661–685.Google Scholar
Crépon, B., Duguet, E., Mairesse, J. (1998). Research and development, innovation and productivity: An econometric analysis at the firm level. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 7(2), 115–158.Google Scholar
Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., Wright, P. M. (2005). Human resource management and labor productivity: Does industry matter? Academic Management Journal, 48(1), 135–145.Google Scholar
Dosi, G., Nelson, R. R. (2010). Technological change and industrial dynamics as evolutionary processes. In Hall, B. H., Rosenberg, N. (eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, pp. 51–127. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Erixon, L. (2016). Is firm renewal stimulated by negative shocks? The status of negative driving forces in Schumpeterian and Darwinian economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 40(1), 93–121.Google Scholar
Essletzbichler, J. (2015). Relatedness, industrial branching and technological cohesion in US metropolitan areas. Regional Studies, 49(5), 752–766.Google Scholar
Evans, D. S., Jovanovic, B. (1989). An estimated model of entrepreneurial choice under liquidity constraints. Journal of Political Economy, 97(4), 808–827.Google Scholar
Fazzari, S., Hubbard, R. G., Petersen, B. C. (1988). Financing constraints and corporate investment. Brookings Papers in Economic Activity, 78(2), 141–195.Google Scholar
Fleming, L., Sorenson, O. (2001). Technology as a complex adaptive system: Evidence from patent data. Research Policy, 30(7), 1019–1039.Google Scholar
Foster, J., Metcalfe, J. S. (2012). Economic emergence: An evolutionary economic perspective. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 82(2–3), 420–432.Google Scholar
Gibson, C., Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.Google Scholar
Goya, E., Vayá, E., Suriñach, J. (2013). Do spillovers matter? CDM model estimates for Spain using panel data. SEARCH Working Paper WP4/28. www.ub.edu/searchproject/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/WP_SEARCH-4.28.pdfGoogle Scholar
Graham, S. J. H., Merges, R., Samuelson, P., Sichelman, T. (2010). High technology entrepreneurs and the patent system: Results of the 2008 Berkeley patent survey. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 24(4), 1255–1328.Google Scholar
Griliches, Z. (1979). Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1), 92–116.Google Scholar
Griliches, Z. (1992). The search for R&D spillovers. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94(Supplement), 29–47.Google Scholar
Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., Alpkan, L. (2011). Effects of innovation types on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 133(2), 662–676.Google Scholar
Hall, B. H. (2005). Measuring the returns to R&D: The depreciation problem. Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, 79/80, 341–382.Google Scholar
Hall, B. H., Mairesse, J. (2006). Empirical studies of innovation in the knowledge driven economy. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(4/5), 289–299.Google Scholar
Hall, B. H., Mairesse, J., Mohnen, P. (2010). Measuring the returns to R&D. In Hall, B. H., Rosenberg, N. (eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, vol. 2, pp. 1033–1082. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hansen, M. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.Google Scholar
Hausmann, R., Hidalgo, C. A. (2009). The building block of economic complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(26), 10570–10575.Google Scholar
Hausmann, R., Hidalgo, C. A. (2013). The Atlas of Economic Complexity: Mapping Paths to Prosperity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Holtz-Eakin, D., Joulfaian, D., Rosen, H. S. (1994). Sticking it out: Entrepreneurial survival and liquidity constraints. Journal of Political Economy, 102(1), 53–75.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. (1969). The Economy of Cities. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A. B. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits, and market value. American Economic Review, 76(5), 984–1001.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598.Google Scholar
Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., Lundvall, B. A. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36(5), 680–693.Google Scholar
Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., Lundvall, B. A. (2002). Why all this fuss about codified and tacit knowledge? Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(2), 245–262.Google Scholar
Jones, C. (1995.) R&D based models of economic growth. European Journal of Political Economy, 103(4), 759–784.Google Scholar
Kalleberg, A., Mardsen, P. (2005). Externalizing organizational activities: Where and how U.S. establishments use employment intermediaries. Socioeconomic Review, 3(3), 389–415.Google Scholar
Katz, L. F., Autor, D. H. (1999). Changes in the wage structure and earnings inequality. In Ashenfelter, O., Card, D. E. (eds.), Handbook of Labor Economics, vol. 3, pp. 1463–1555. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kremer, M. (1993). The O-ring theory of economic development. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 551–575.Google Scholar
Kruse, D. L. (1992). Profit sharing and productivity: Microeconomic evidence from the United States. Economic Journal, 102(410), 24–36.Google Scholar
Laursen, K., Reichstein, T., Salter, A. (2011). Exploring the effect of geographical proximity and university quality on university–industry collaboration in the United Kingdom. Regional Studies, 45(4), 507–523.Google Scholar
Lazonick, W. (1990). Competitive Advantage on the Shop Floor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lazonick, W. (1991). Business Organization and the Myth of Market Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lazonick, W. (1992). Organization and Technology in Capitalist Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Lazonick, W. (2010). The Chandlerian corporation and the theory of innovative enterprise. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(2), 317–349.Google Scholar
Leontief, W. (1953). Domestic production and foreign trade: The American capital position re-examined. Proceedings of the American Philosophycal Society, 97(4), 332–349.Google Scholar
Lhuillery, S. (2011). Absorptive capacity, efficiency effect and competitors spillovers. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 21(4), 649–663.Google Scholar
Link, A. N. (1980). Firm size and efficient entrepreneurial activity: A Reformulation of the Schumpeter hypothesis. European Journal of Political Economy, 88(4), 771–782.Google Scholar
Link, A., Siegel, D. (2007). Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Technological Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Liu, D., Gong, Z. J., Huang, J. C. (2017). Human resource systems, employee creativity, and firm innovation: The moderating role of firm ownership. Academic Management Journal, 60(3), 1164–1188.Google Scholar
Malcomson, J. M. (1997). Contracts, hold-up, and labour markets. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(4), 1916–1957.Google Scholar
Mansfield, E., Lee, J. (1996). The modern university: Contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Research Policy, 25(7), 1047–1058.Google Scholar
Mansfield, E., Schwartz, M., Wagner, S. (1981). Imitation costs and patents: An empirical study. Economic Journal, 91(364), 907–918.Google Scholar
Martínez-Sánchez, A., Vela-Jiménez, M. J., Pérez-Pérez, M., de-Luis-Carnicer, P. (2011). The dynamics of labour flexibility: Relationship between employment type and innovativeness. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 715–736.Google Scholar
Matusik, S. F., Hill, C. W. L. (1998). The utilization of contingent work, knowledge creation, and competitive advantage. Academic Management Review, 23(4), 680–697.Google Scholar
Manzaneque, M., Rojo-Ramírez, A. A., Diéguez-Soto, J., Martinez-Romero, M. J. (2020). How negative aspiration performance gaps affect innovation efficiency. Small Business Economics, 54(1), 209–233.Google Scholar
Massenot, B., Pettinicchi, Y. (2018). Can firms see into the future? Survey evidence from Germany. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 145(C), 66–79.Google Scholar
Merton, R. (2013). Innovation risk. Harvard Business Review, 91(4), 48–56.Google Scholar
Milgrom, P., Roberts, J. (1994). Complementarities and systems: Understanding Japanese economic organization. Estudios Economicos, 9(1), 3–42.Google Scholar
Mokyr, J. (1990). The Lever of Riches. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Montresor, S., Quatraro, F. (2017). Regional branching and key enabling technologies: Evidence from European patent data. Economic Geography, 93(4), 367–396.Google Scholar
Munoz, F. F., Encinar, M. I. (2014). Intentionality and the emergence of complexity: An analytical approach. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 24(2), 317–334.Google Scholar
Muscio, A., Vallanti, G. (2014). Perceived obstacles to university–industry collaboration: Results from a qualitative survey of Italian academic departments. Industry and Innovation, 21(5), 410–429.Google Scholar
Neffke, F., Hartog, M., Boschma, R., Henning, M. (2018). Agents of structural change: The role of firms and entrepreneurs in regional diversification. Journal Economic Geography, 94(1), 23–48.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. (1982). The role of knowledge in R&D efficiency. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 97(3), 453–470.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R., Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Nooteboom, B. (2000). Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Quatraro, F. (2009). Diffusion of regional innovation capabilities: Evidence from Italian patent data. Regional Studies, 43(10), 1333–1348.Google Scholar
Quatraro, F. (2010). Knowledge coherence, variety and economic growth: Manufacturing evidence from Italian regions. Research Policy, 39(10), 1289–1302.Google Scholar
Quatraro, F. (2012). The Economics of Structural Change in Knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Qian, H., Jung, H. (2017). Solving the knowledge filter puzzle: Absorptive capacity, entrepreneurship and regional development. Small Business Economics, 48(1), 99–114.Google Scholar
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.Google Scholar
Revest, V., Sapio, A. (2012). Financing technology-based small firms in Europe: What do we know? Small Business Economics, 39, 179–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-010-9291-6Google Scholar
Rigby, D. L. (2015). Technological relatedness and knowledge space: Entry and exit of US cities from patent classes. Regional Studies, 49(11), 1922–1937.Google Scholar
Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), S71–S102.Google Scholar
Romer, P. M. (1994). The origins of endogenous growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 3–22.Google Scholar
Saviotti, P. P. (2007). On the dynamics of generation and utilisation of knowledge: The local character of knowledge. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 18(4), 387–408.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. (1928). The instability of capitalism. Economic Journal, 38(151), 361–386.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. (1911–1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. (1947). The creative response in economic history. Journal of Economic History, 7(2), 149–159.Google Scholar
Shapiro, C., Stiglitz, J. E. (1984). Equilibrium unemployment as a worker discipline device. American Economic Review, 74(3), 433–444.Google Scholar
Scitovsky, T. (1954). Two concepts of external economy. Journal of Political Economy, 62(2), 143–151.Google Scholar
Söderblom, A., Samuelsson, M., Wiklund, J., Sandberg, R. (2015). Inside the black box of outcome additionality: Effects of early-stage government subsidies on resource accumulation and new venture performance. Research Policy, 44(8), 1501–1512.Google Scholar
Stiglitz, J. E. (1974). Alternative theories of wage determination and unemployment in LDCs: The labor turnover model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 88(2), 194–227.Google Scholar
Stiglitz, J. E. (1987). Learning to learn, localized learning and technological progress. In Dasgupta, P., Stoneman, P. (eds.), Economic Policy and Industrial Performance, pp. 125–144. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Storey, J., Quintas, P., Taylor, P., Fowle, W. (2002). Flexible employment contracts and their implications for product and process innovation. International Journal of Human Resources Management, 13(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Storey, D. J., Tether, B. S. (1998). Public policy measures to support new technology-based firms in the European Union. Research Policy, 26(9), 1037–1057.Google Scholar
Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing, and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.Google Scholar
Tushman, M., O’Reilly, C. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–29.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323.Google Scholar
Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., François, D. (2009). The cost factor in patent systems. Journal of Industrial Competition and Trade, 9(4), 329–355.Google Scholar
Von Hippel, E. (1988). The Sources of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Von Hippel, E. (1994). Sticky information and the locus of problem-solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40(4), 429–439.Google Scholar
Von Hippel, E. (1998). Economics of product development by users: The impact of sticky local information. Management Science, 44(4), 629–644.Google Scholar
Weitzman, M. L. (1996). Hybridizing growth theory. American Economic Review, 86(2), 207–212.Google Scholar
Weitzman, M. L. (1998). Recombinant growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(2), 331–360.Google Scholar
Zhou, H., Dekker, R., Kleinknecht, A. (2011). Flexible labor and innovation performance: Evidence from longitudinal firm-level data. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(3), 941–968.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Creative Response
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Creative Response
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Creative Response
Available formats
×