Overview
Aims and objectives
The promotion of innovation is high on the policy agenda in Europe as attempts are made to close the perceived gap in productivity performance with the USA. In the UK a wide range of policy initiatives have been undertaken to promote the commercialisation of scientific and technical knowledge. In the UK and the rest of Europe the role that small entrepreneurial firms can play has also been the subject of intense debate, not least because of the perception that the recent renaissance in US productivity and economic growth performance is associated with a high level of technology based entrepreneurial activity. As a result of a major collaborative effort across the governments of the European Union an increasing amount is known about the comparative extent of innovative behaviour and the determinants of innovative success across member countries, and across size classes of firms. Within this project this was extended to a comparison between the UK and the USA carried out using new surveys. These involved a comparison of the level of innovative activities, the process by which innovation takes place and the barriers to innovation. The benchmarking exercise consisted of a comparative analysis of the inputs into and outcomes of innovative activity. It included an analysis of the extent and nature of collaborative strategies in both countries and of the extent and nature of interactions with the science base.
Although the richness of the dataset will permit a wide range of issues to be addressed in the econometric analysis we will focus on 2 issues, both of which are of particular interest in the analysis of small and medium sized enterprises, and where an analysis of them in relation to larger enterprises in a comparative international context will be made possible by the dataset created. The first of these is a link between networking, inter-firm collaboration, access to the science base and innovation performance. This has been a significant issue in the development of an enterprise based industrial policy in Europe and the UK, where the comparative performance of the USA is frequently alluded to as a role model. The second is the link between innovation performance management strategy and the financial and growth performance of the firm.
Results and dissemination
During 2004 we carried out surveys by telephone in both the UK and the US. The UK telephone survey resulted in 1,972 interviews and the US survey resulted in 1,518 interviews. The survey instruments included questions on the following topics (a total of 44 questions and 295 variables):
- general characteristics of the company
- innovation and new technology
- principal products and competition
- finance and capital expenditure
The sectors were all manufacturing and the business services sectors, both sets being divided into high-tech and conventional sectors. Work has continued to explore the links between innovation and company performance and the differences between the two nations. The data have also been used to provide background information for the open innovation project which started in October 2009.
Project leader
- Andy Cosh
Other principal investigators
- Alan Hughes
- Richard Lester (MIT)
- Anna Bullock
- Xiaolan Fu
- Ana Siqueira
- Isobel Milner
Visiting fellow
Bronwyn Hall (University of California, Berkeley)
Project dates
2002-2009
Funding
Cambridge-MIT Institute (CMI)
Output
Discussion papers
UK, EU and US Innovation Comparison: Sources, Performances and Impacts
Innovation Benchmarking Methodology
Working papers and mimeos
Hughes, A. (2007) “Innovation policy as cargo cult: myth and reality in knowledge-led productivity growth.” Centre for Business Research Working Paper, No.348
Hughes, A. and Lee, J. (2006) “What’s in a name and when does it matter? The hot and cold market impacts on underpricing of certification, reputation and conflicts of interest in venture capital-backed Korean IPOs.” Centre for Business Research Working Paper, No.336
Hall, B.H., Lotti, F. and Mairesse, J. (2006) “R&D, innovation, and productivity: new evidence from Italian manufacturing microdata.” Bank of Italy, INSEE-CREST, UC Berkeley, and University of Maastricht, June 2006.
Hall, B.H. and MacGarvie, M. (2006) “The private value of software patents.” NBER Working Paper, No.12195
Hall, B.H., Cosh, A. and Hughes, A. (2006) Two countries divided by a single R&D-productivity-innovation relationship: a comparative study using a matched sample of UK and US firms.
Cosh, A., Fu, X. and Hughes, A. (2005) “How much does informality in management matter for SME innovation?” Winner, European Best Paper Award, 2005
Fu, X., Cosh, A. and Hughes, A. (2004) “Innovatability of manufacturing SMEs in the East of England: statistical analysis and econometric modelling’.” Report for the i10 MAPSME Plus project, 2003.
Fu, X., Cosh, A. and Hughes, A. (2004) “Exploring the middle market.” Report for the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI), 2003.
Fu, X., Cosh, A. and Hughes, A. (2004) “SME growth trajectories.” Report for the Small Business Service, DTI, 2004.
Fu, X. (2004) “Exports, foreign direct investment and employment: the Case of China.” Centre for Business Research Working Paper, No.286
Fu, X. (2004) “Exports, technical progress and productivity growth in Chinese manufacturing industries.” Centre for Business Research Working Paper, No.278
Fu, X., Cosh, A. and Hughes, A. (2004) “Management characteristics, collaboration and innovation performance in the UK.”
Fu, X., Cosh, A. and Hughes, A. (2004) “How much does informality in management matters for SME innovation?”
Fu, X., Cosh, A. and Hughes, A. (2004) “Innovatability of small and medium enterprises, evidence from UK survey data.”
Fu, X., Cosh, A. and Hughes, A. (2004) “Management, human capital and SME growth.”
Fu, X, Cosh, A., Yang, Q. and Hughes, A. (2004) “Innovation in the UK, US and other OECD countries.”
Fu, X., Cosh, A. and Hughes, A. (2004) “Entrepreneurship, innovation and innovation potential: benchmarking performance in the regions.”
Fu, X., Cosh, A. and Hughes, A. (2004) “Innovation benchmarking: sampling frames and information sources (US).”
Fu, X., Cosh, A. and Hughes, A. (2004) “UK, EU and US innovation comparison: sources, performance and impacts.”
Journal articles
Hall, B.H. and Gambardella, A. (2006) “Proprietary vs. public domain licensing of software and research products.” Research Policy, 35(6): 875-892
Hall, B. and Oriani, R. (2006) “Does the market value R&D investment by European firms? Evidence from a panel of manufacturing firms in France, Germany, and Italy.” International Journal of Industrial Organization
Hall, B. and David, P.A. (2006) “Property and the pursuit of knowledge: IPR issues affecting scientific research.” Research Policy, 35(6)
Hall, B. and Mairesse, J. (2006) “Empirical studies of innovation in the knowledge driven economy: an introduction.” Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(4/5)
Hall, B. (2005) “Exploring the patent explosion.” Journal of Technology Transfer, 30: 35-48
Fu, X. (2004) “Limited linkages from growth engines and regional disparities in China’.” Journal of Comparative Economics, 32(1): 148-164
Hall, B. (2005) “Exploring the patent explosion.” Journal of Technology Transfer, 30: 35-48
Hall, B. and Harhoff, D. (2005) “Post-grant patent reviews in the United States: design choices and expected Impact.” Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 19: 989-1016
Books
Fu, X (2004) Exports, foreign direct investment and economic development in China. Palgrave Macmillan (ISBN 1-4039-3644-7).
Other
Connell, D. (2006) Secrets of the world’s largest seed capital fund. Centre for Business Research
Cosh, A., Hughes, A. and Lester, R.K. (2006) “Innovation efficiency: a transatlantic comparison.” In: UK plc: just how innovative are we? Cambridge-MIT Institute
Cosh, A., Hughes, A. and Fu, X. (2006) “SMEs and innovation.” In: Cosh, A. and Hughes, A. (eds.) British enterprises: surviving, thriving or dying. Centre for Business Research
Fu, X. (2005) “Innovation in the EU and the USA: evidence from linked survey data.” Centre for Business Research memo.
Cosh, A., Fu, X. and Hughes, A. (2005) “Determinates of innovation in small ICT companies.” Report to the i10 MAPSME II project (including web-tool design).
Bullock, A. (2004) Innovation benchmarking: UK survey. Centre for Business Research
Bullock, A. and Milner, I. (2003) Innovation benchmarking methodology. Centre for Business Research
Bullock. A., Fu, X., Milner, I. and Yang, Q.G. (2003) Innovation benchmarking: sampling frames and information sources (U.S). Centre for Business Research
Fu, X. and Yang Q.G. (2003) UK, EU and US innovation comparison: sources, performances and impacts. Centre for Business Research
16 February 2006: UK Plc: Just how innovative are we?
23 November 2005: How universities can support industrial innovation
25 November 2004: CBR research casts new light on UK innovation process