14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
156<br />
REFERENCES<br />
Chapter 1: Innovation, Risk and Government:<br />
Perspectives and principles from the social<br />
sciences<br />
A full bibliography can be found at the end of<br />
the reference list for this chapter.<br />
1. The authors would like to warmly thank<br />
Nick Crafts, David Newbery and John<br />
Vickers for their thoughtful comments and<br />
guidance. We have also benefited greatly<br />
from discussions with Tim Besley, Stefan<br />
Heck, Mark Schankerman and Cathy Zoi, and<br />
with the other contributing authors to this<br />
volume. We are grateful to the Grantham<br />
Research Institute on Climate Change & the<br />
Environment at the LSE for their support<br />
in producing this chapter. Any errors or<br />
omissions are our own.<br />
2. See Perez (2010) and Stoneman (1995).<br />
3. Hall & Rosenberg (2010) and Balconi et al.<br />
(2010).<br />
4. In addition, <strong>innovation</strong> applies to the<br />
understanding of <strong>innovation</strong> itself — and a host<br />
of other social processes and policy problems.<br />
Hall & Rosenberg (2010) point out “the topic<br />
of <strong>innovation</strong> systems and institutions is still in<br />
its infancy empirically”. Gallagher et al. (2012)<br />
point out that we need better measurement,<br />
modelling and theorising about <strong>innovation</strong>.<br />
This will allow better policy design, and a<br />
more powerful <strong>innovation</strong> system, in the<br />
future.<br />
5. Department for Business, Innovation & Skills<br />
(20<strong>14</strong>).<br />
6. Crafts & O’Rourke (20<strong>14</strong>).<br />
7. Crafts & O’Rourke (20<strong>14</strong>).<br />
8. Christensen (1997).<br />
9. In some cases, such as those of displaced<br />
workers, those who lose may deserve<br />
supportive policies; in other cases, like that<br />
of firms in a competitive market, the threat<br />
of being a loser is often what spurs further<br />
<strong>innovation</strong>.<br />
10. Sometimes strong stimulus for <strong>innovation</strong><br />
comes from threat and war, but not all<br />
resulting <strong>innovation</strong>s enhance human wellbeing.<br />
11. Perez (2010).<br />
12. Solow (1956); Swan (1956).<br />
13. See, e.g., European Commission (2001), 5, 11.<br />
Innovations increase productivity by using<br />
existing resources in new or more productive<br />
ways.<br />
<strong>14</strong>. Galasso & Schankerman (20<strong>14</strong>).<br />
15. Hall & Rosenberg 2010 p5.<br />
16. Other market failures that may be relevant to<br />
the incentives for <strong>innovation</strong> in certain sectors<br />
(e.g. the energy sector) include network<br />
infrastructure, coordination problems and<br />
inadequate information.<br />
17. Griliches (1992); Hall et al. (2009); Griffith et<br />
al. (2004).<br />
18. Galasso & Schankerman (20<strong>14</strong>).<br />
19. Jaffe, et al. (2005).<br />
20. For example, the political literacy and<br />
enculturation that results in stable institutions<br />
and a healthy society: see, e.g. Friedman (1962).<br />
21. E.g. see Moretti (2004) Lange and Topel (2006).<br />
22. Gallagher et al. (2012).<br />
23. Stern (1989) provides a list of reasons why<br />
government interventions can fail (at p. 616).<br />
24. Winston (2006).<br />
25. This concept draws on work of Schumpeter<br />
(1934) and later ‘evolutionary’ theorists of<br />
<strong>innovation</strong> (e.g. Nelson and Winter 1982).<br />
26. Freeman (1995); Lundvall (2010).<br />
27. Crafts & Hughes (2013). For example,<br />
numerous authors conceive of the state<br />
playing a role within <strong>innovation</strong> systems<br />
beyond merely fixing market failures and<br />
“facilitating” private sector <strong>innovation</strong>: see,<br />
e.g., Johnson (1982); Chang (2008); Mazzucato<br />
(2013).<br />
28. E.g. see Lundvall (2007); Dasgupta & David<br />
(1994).<br />
29. See Knight (1921).<br />
30. The Tick-Tock model is a chip technology<br />
roadmap, where every 12-18 months either<br />
a “tick” or “tock” is expected. A “tick”<br />
represents a shrinking of transistor size, and<br />
a “tock” represents a new microarchitecture<br />
taking advantage of that smaller size. This<br />
relative predictability is marketed to investors<br />
as an attractive feature of Intel’s model. http://<br />
www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/silicon<strong>innovation</strong>s/intel-tick-tock-model-general.html.<br />
31. Gallagher et al. (2012).<br />
32. See Grossman and Helpman (1991); Lipsey et<br />
al. (2005); Ruttan (2006).<br />
33. Cohen (2010).<br />
34. Cohen (2010). Though of course, in the ICT<br />
sector, there are many large firms as well, such<br />
as Google, Apple, Microsoft and Facebook.<br />
35. Cohen (2010); Schumpeter (1934).<br />
36. Network linkages between firms and public<br />
sector agencies (e.g. universities) are also<br />
important and are discussed in the following<br />
section on firms and other institutions.<br />
37. Schilling and Phelps (2007); Nooteboom<br />
(1999).<br />
38. Coe and Helpman (1995).<br />
39. LSE Growth Commission (2013).<br />
40. Mazzucato (2013). Nicholas Stern was<br />
directly involved as Chief Economist in the<br />
1990s building principles and strategies for<br />
the investments of the EBRD, on the board<br />
preparing for the UK’s Green Investment<br />
Bank, as Chief Economist of the World Bank<br />
(2000-2003), and in the design and launch<br />
of the new BRICS-led development bank<br />
(announced on 15/7/20<strong>14</strong>).<br />
41. Cohen (2010).<br />
42. Cohen (2010).<br />
43. Bloom and Van Reenen (2006).<br />
44. i.e. innovators are unable to capture the full<br />
returns from their <strong>innovation</strong>.<br />
45. Baumol (2002).<br />
46. Galasso & Schankerman (20<strong>14</strong>).<br />
47. When patents are annulled, small firm<br />
<strong>innovation</strong> increases by a remarkable 520% on<br />
average: Galasso & Schankerman (20<strong>14</strong>).<br />
48. Foray and Lissoni (2010).<br />
49. Many studies find that the co-location of<br />
start-ups and universities has little effect upon<br />
<strong>innovation</strong> or the strength of cross-sectoral<br />
relationships: see Foray & Lissoni (2010) pp.<br />
303-305 and references there cited.<br />
50. Foray & Lissoni (2010)<br />
51. Azoulay et al. (2011); Editor (2009).<br />
52. Azoulay et al. (2011).<br />
53. E.g. see Etzkowitz, H. (2003).<br />
54. See Foray & Lissoni (2010); Agrawal and<br />
Henderson (2002).<br />
55. Dasgupta & David (1994)<br />
56. Foray & Lissoni (2010); Philpott et al. (2011).<br />
57. See Higgs (2013); Zimmer, M. (2009). GFP:<br />
from jellyfish to the Nobel prize and beyond.<br />
Chemical Society Reviews, 38(10), 2823-2832;<br />
and Azoulay et al. (2011).<br />
58. Kahneman & Tversky (1979).<br />
59. Chen and Miller (2007); Chen (2008).<br />
60. IEA (20<strong>14</strong>), Data Services Table. See public<br />
energy R&D spending from 1970s to<br />
the present day. http://wds.iea.org/WDS/<br />
TableViewer/tableView.aspx.<br />
61. This debate is framed as intrinsic motivation/<br />
extrinsic incentive in behavioural economics<br />
(e.g. see work by Swiss economist, Bruno Frey<br />
(1994 and 1997) on how intrinsic motivation<br />
can be crowded out by extrinsic incentives).<br />
Or for example, using financial incentives to<br />
improve teacher and student outcomes—<br />
one prerequisite for an effective <strong>innovation</strong><br />
system—can actually harm educational<br />
outcomes. E.g. Fryer (2010 and 2011).<br />
62. E.g. on soft vs. hard institutions see: Klein<br />
Woolthuis et al. (2005); Lundvall (2010).<br />
63. See, e.g., Kahneman (2011); Thaler and<br />
Sunstein (2008); Mullainathan and Shafir<br />
(2013).<br />
64. Johnson and Goldstein (2004).<br />
65. E.g. see Behavioural Insight Team (2012) Paper<br />
on Fraud, Error and Debt; Wenzel (2004).<br />
66. Camerer et al. (2003).<br />
67. Haynes et al. (2012).<br />
68. As countries “approach the frontier” of<br />
<strong>innovation</strong>, it “becomes more important<br />
to have high-quality education”: Crafts &<br />
O’Rourke (20<strong>14</strong>).<br />
69. See the above discussion on patents in section<br />
B(ii).<br />
70. Smits and Kuhlmann (2004).<br />
71. Azoulay, Graff Zivin and Manso (2011); Editor<br />
(2009). Further, we note that principal/<br />
agent issues would be relevant to how much<br />
freedom is needed to foster <strong>innovation</strong> and<br />
how such a system would be managed. At the<br />
same time, it would be beneficial to find the<br />
right balance between the micro-management<br />
of innovators and total freedom.<br />
72. Griliches (1992); Hall et al. (2009); Griffith et<br />
al. (2004).<br />
73. European Council for Nuclear Research, see<br />
http://home.web.cern.ch/.<br />
74. Mazzucato 2013.<br />
75. Abbate (1999); National Research Council<br />
[US] (1999); Mazzucato (2013).<br />
76. Motoyama et al. (2011). The US Government<br />
currently spends $1.8 billion across 13 state<br />
agencies on the National Nanotechnology<br />
Initiative: Mazzucato (2013); http://