Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:30:01.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of a Crisis on the Innovation Systems in Europe: Evidence from the CIS10 Innovation Survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2019

Katerina Toshevska-Trpchevska ,
Elena Makrevska Disoska ,
Dragan Tevdovski  and
Viktor Stojkoski
Katerina Toshevska-Trpchevska
Affiliation:
Faculty of Economics – Skopje, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Blvd. Goce Delchev 9V, Skopje, Republic of Northern Macedonia. Email: [email protected]
Elena Makrevska Disoska
Affiliation:
Faculty of Economics – Skopje, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Blvd. Goce Delchev 9V, Skopje, Republic of Northern Macedonia. Email: [email protected]
Dragan Tevdovski
Affiliation:
Faculty of Economics – Skopje, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Blvd. Goce Delchev 9V, Skopje, Republic of Northern Macedonia. Email: [email protected]
Viktor Stojkoski
Affiliation:
Macedonian Academy of Science and Arts, Skopje, North Macedonia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The varieties of the national innovation systems among European countries are reflected in the large differences, discrepancies and sometimes unexpected results in the innovation processes and their influence on labor productivity growth. The goal of this paper is to find the differences between the drivers of the innovation systems and their influence on growth of productivity between two groups of countries with different institutional settings in the period of the financial and economic crisis in Europe. The first group consists of a selection of CEE (Central and East European) countries. The second group consists of Germany, Norway, Spain and Portugal. In order to measure the role of innovation on productivity growth we use the CDM (Crépon, Duguet and Mairesse) model of simultaneous equations. The model directly links R&D engagement and intensity to innovation outcomes measured either as process or product innovation, and then estimates the effectiveness of the innovative effort leading to productivity gains. The company-level dataset is drawn from the Community Innovation Survey (CIS10). There is one common result for the two groups, that in general the probability for a typical firm to engage in innovation increases with its size. The other factors influencing the decision process differ. A firm’s productivity increases significantly with innovation output, but only with firms operating in Western Europe. The results for firms in Central and Eastern Europe indicate that these countries’ national innovation systems are vulnerable, and in periods of crises higher level of innovation output leads to lower labor productivity. Therefore, systemic faults in the national innovation systems result in their unsustainability, especially visible in periods of crises, as was the case in 2008–2010. When it comes to Western European countries, the financial and economic crisis did not have negative effects on their innovation systems as innovation activity resulted in higher levels of labor productivity. Regarding the CEE group of countries, the crisis influenced both the innovation process and labor productivity as a whole negatively.

Type
Articles
Information
European Review , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , October 2019 , pp. 543 - 562
Copyright
© Academia Europaea 2019 

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

Freeman, C. (1987) Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan (London: Pinter).Google Scholar
Freeman, C. (1988) Japan: A new national system of innovation. In: Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G. and Soete, L. (Eds), Technical Change and Economic Theory (London: Pinter), pp. 330–348.Google Scholar
Lundvall, B.A. (1988) Innovation as an interactive process. In Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G. and Soete, L. (Eds), Technical Change and Economic Theory (London: Pinter), pp. 349–369.Google Scholar
Lundvall, B.A. (1993) National System of Innovation Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning (London: Pinter).Google Scholar
Nelson, R., Silverberg, G. and Soete, L. (Eds) (1988) Technical Change and Economic Theory (London: Pinter).Google Scholar
Nelson, R. (1990) Capitalism as an engine of progress. Research Policy, 19, pp. 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, R. (1993) National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Porter, M.E. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nation (London: Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, C. (1995) The ‘National System of Innovation’ in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), pp. 5–24.Google Scholar
Hall, P.A. and Soskice, D. (2001) Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, R. (2001) Making sense of institutions as a factor shaping economic performance. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 44(1), pp. 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, D.C. (2005) Understanding the Process of Economic Change (Princeton: Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Witteloostuijn, A. (2012) Why the European Union is not delivering. An essay on the role of diversity. European Review, 20(3), pp. 365–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Tunzelmann, N. and Nassehi, S. (2004) Technology policy, European Union enlargement and economic, social and political stability. Science and Public Policy, 31, pp. 475–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornai, J. (2010) Innovation and dynamism. Economic of Transition, 18(4), pp. 629–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillippeti, A. and Archibugi, D. (2011) Innovation in times of crisis: National Systems of Innovation, structure, and demand. Research Policy, 40(2), pp. 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archibugi, D. and Filippetti, A. (2011) Is the crisis impairing convergence in innovation in Europe? Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(6), pp. 1153–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izsak, K., Markianidou, P., Lukach, R. and Wastyn, A. (2013) The impact of the crisis on research and innovation policies. Study for the European Commission DG Research by Technopolis Group Belgium and Idea Consult.Google Scholar
Nowotny, H. (1995) The dynamics of innovation: On the multiplicity of the new. European Review, 3(3), pp. 209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission, European (2009) European Innovation Scoreboard 2008. Comparative Analysis of Innovation Performance (Brussels: European Commission, DG Enterprise and Industry).Google Scholar
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (2001) Science, Technology and Industry Outlook: Drivers of Growth – Information Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (Paris: OECD), http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/industry-and-services/science-technology-and-industry-outlook-2001_sti_outlook-2001-en (last accessed 16 April 2017).Google Scholar
Crépon, B., Duguet, E. and Mairesse, J. (1998) Research and development, innovation and productivity: An econometric analysis at the company level. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 7(2), pp. 115–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klomp, L. and Van Leeuwen, G. (2001) Linking innovation and company performance: A new approach. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 8(3), pp. 343–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Leeuwen, G. and Klomp, L. (2006) On the contribution of innovation to multi-factor productivity growth. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(4–5), pp. 367–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Criscuolo, C. and Haskell, J. (2003) Innovations and productivity growth in the UK: Evidence from CIS2 and CIS3, CeRiBA Discussion Paper No. EBPF03-3(10) (London: Centre for Research into Business Activity), http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/div/innokonf/3acriscuolo.pdf (last accessed 24 May 2017).Google Scholar
Janz, N., Lööf, H. and Peters, B. (2004) Company level innovation and productivity – is there a common story across countries? ZEW Discussion Papers, 03-26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parisi, M.L., Schiantarelli, F. and Sembenelli, A. (2006) Productivity, innovation creation and absorption, and R&D: Micro evidence for Italy. European Economic Review, 50, pp. 2037–2061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benavente, J.M. (2006) The role of research and innovation in promoting productivity in Chile. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(4–5), pp. 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohnen, P., Mairesse, J. and Dagenais, M. (2006) Innovativity: A comparison across seven European countries. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(4/5), pp. 391–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G., Huamao, B., Xiaojing, G. and Xiaoyun, Y. (2006) R&D performance in Chinese industry. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(4/5), pp. 345–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, R., Huergo, E., Mairesse, J. and Peters, B. (2006) Innovation and productivity across four European countries. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22(4), pp. 483–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bessler, W. and Bittelmeyer, C. (2008) Patents and the performance of technology firms: Evidence from initial public offerings in Germany. Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, 22(4), pp. 323–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chudnovsky, D., López, A. and Pupato, G. (2006) Innovation and productivity in developing countries: A study of argentine manufacturing firms behavior (1992–2001). Research Policy, 35, pp. 266–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lööf, H. and Heshmati, A. (2002) Knowledge capital and performance heterogeneity: A company level innovation study. International Journal of Production Economics, 76(1), pp. 61–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lööf, H. and Heshmati, A. (2006) Knowledge capital and heterogeneity in firm performance. A sensitivity analysis. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(4/5), pp. 317–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hashi, I. and Stojčić, N. (2013) The impact of innovation activities on company performance using a multi-stage model: Evidence from the Community Innovation Survey 4. Research Policy, 42(2), pp. 353–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stojčić, N. and Hashi, I. (2014) Company productivity and type of innovation: Evidence from the Community Innovation Survey 6. Croatian Economic Survey, 16(2), pp. 121–146.Google Scholar
Duguet, E. and Lelarge, C. (2006) Does patenting increase the private incentives to innovate? A microeconometric analysis. CREST Working Paper 2006–09.Google Scholar
Harrison, R., Jaumandreu, J., Mairesse, J. and Peters, B. (2008). Does innovation stimulate employment? A firm level analysis using comparable micro data from four European countries. NBER Working Paper 14206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, B.H., Lotti, F. and Mairesse, J. (2008) Employment, innovation and productivity: Evidence from Italian micro data. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(4), pp. 813–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polder, M., van Leeuwen, G., Mohnen, P. and Raymond, W. (2009) Productivity effects of innovation modes. Statistics Netherlands Working Paper 09033.Google Scholar
Roper, S., Du, J. and Love, J.H. (2008) Modelling the innovation value chain. Research Policy, 37, pp. 961–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masso, J. and Vather, P. (2008) Technological innovation and productivity in late-transition Estonia: Econometric evidence from innovation surveys. European Journal of Development Research, 20(2), pp. 240–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoevsky, G. (2005) Innovation and business performance of Bulgarian companies (structural econometric analysis at firm level). Economic Research and Projections Directorate Working Paper, Bulgarian National Bank.Google Scholar
Polona, D., Prasnikar, J. and Svejnar, J. (2008) How to increase R&D in transition economies? Evidence from Slovenia. Review of Development Economics, 12(1), pp. 193–208.Google Scholar
Tevdovski, D., Tosevska-Trpcevska, K. and Disoska, E.M. (2017) What is the role of innovation in productivity growth in Central and Eastern European countries? Economics of Transition, 25(3), pp. 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar