Search

The aim of this paper is to investigate the hypothesis that there is a complex and bidirectional relation between collaboration and failure in innovation projects. On the one hand, collaboration in...

In this paper we study the robustness of the results found recently by Guzzini and Palestrini (J Econ Interact Coord 11:35–55, 2016). Since the original analysis was carried out in a static setting, we perform a dynamic panel analysis by using the same dataset. The inclusion of the lagged value of the endogenous variable, missing in the original paper, could be justified for several reasons. Firstly, the statistical relationship may have itself a dynamical nature; secondly the inclusion of lagged-endogenous variable is a way to mitigate the possibility of an omitted variable problem. We find that the results are only qualitatively the same, and we discuss the quantitative differences.

The main aim of this paper is to analyze the factors affecting the likelihood of the failure of innovation projects (delay or abandonment) and the relation between project failure and innovation performance. Specific emphasis is given to the role of collaboration in general, and to collaboration with universities and public research institutions (PRI) in particular. We use data about German firms for the period 2002–2005, merging the results of two successive Community Innovation Surveys. We show that collaboration is associated with the Delay and, to a lesser extent, the Abandonment of innovation projects. Collaboration with PRI does not increase either the likelihood of project failure or the innovation performance, compared to collaboration with firms. We also show that there is a positive relation between the delay of projects and the innovation performance of firms. The occurrence of delays can be considered as a sort of ‘necessary’ cost in order to raise the level of innovation performance.

La Smart Specialization Strategy richiede alle regioni di individuare le relazioni tra domini tecnologici all’interno della stessa regione (relatedness) e di indicare i potenziali collegamenti con domini di altre regioni (connectivity). Il presente lavoro, oltre a fornire un quadro degli ambiti di specializzazione individuati dalle regioni italiane, mostra che l’analisi della relatedness e della connectivity e stata in gran parte trascurata dalle regioni stesse. Tale sottovalutazione e, a nostro avviso, frutto della mancanza di una metodologia consolidata per rilevare la natura e l’intensita dei legami fra settori oltre che della carenza di dati e informazioni necessari all’analisi.

European guidelines for the smart specialization strategy (S3) required regions to identify synergies between technological domains within the same region (relatedness) and potential links of the chosen domains with other European regions (connectivity). The aim of this paper is to analyse if and to what extent regions have been able to implement such indications and the methodology adopted. The paper is based on a content analysis of the S3 documents approved by Italian regions. The empirical analysis reveals that only in a few cases regions considered relatedness and connectivity of technological domains. Moreover, the methods adopted by regions to detect potential links between the specialization domains is based more on anecdotal evidence than on the application of theoretically grounded methodologies. The paper suggests that the explanation for this omission is the absence of a consolidated methodology to deal with these issues and proposes some preliminary guidelines to overcome the problem.

The implementation of the Smart Specialisation Strategy (S3) has required European regions to identify the technological domains in which they show superior innovative capabilities. This choice should promote specialization and facilitate diversification into new sectors. Given that regional specialization shows path dependence, successful diversification can be achieved in domains closely related to the existing knowledge base. The paper provides a first empirical assessment of the coherence between the technological domains chosen by Italian regions and those in which they show actual innovative capabilities, as measured by their patenting activity.

In this paper we study the relevance of links among firms in explaining the mean and the auto-correlation property of the aggregate total factor productivity rate of growth (Solow residual). Our approach relies on the interaction between idiosyncratic shocks of firms and the network structure of firms. We study analytically this phenomenon using the adjacency matrix of a complete network and we present a simulation with more general random adjacency matrices. We also check empirically, using Italian data, the relationship between the network structure and the Solow residual. In particular, in the empirical part, we find two main results: Firstly, the relationship between the Solow residual and the measure of connectivity of firms is positive, in accordance with the analytical results. Secondly, we find that the measure of connectivity is pro-cyclical with the annual growth rate of industrial production.

This paper analyzes whether belonging to a business group enhances firms' propensity for and intensity of RD (b) it analyzes the role of RD and (c) it distinguishes between propensity for and intensity of R&D. We find that less diversified groups are more likely to centralize R&D, while in more diversified groups firms are more likely to be autonomous. We find that controlled companies are more likely to benefit from knowledge spillovers than firms at the head of the group. Finally, we find that R&D autonomy is significantly associated with both a higher propensity for and intensity of R&D in controlled companies.

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are supposed to be less likely to conduct formal RD (2) head and intermediate firms have a higher RD (3) the intensity of R&D depends on the ownership of controlled firms and on their size. Overall, the results of the empirical analysis are in accordance with the implications of the model.

In this paper we consider the Coase theorem in a non cooperative game framework. In particular, we explore the Coase theorem with respect to the final distribution of alienable property rights which constitutes, as far as we know, a less cultivated field of research. In our framework, in order to reach efficiency, agents have to stipulate binding contracts (temporary or permanent). We show under our payoff conditions the role of binding contracts (permanent and temporary) in the final attribution of individual rights.

This paper shows an impossibility result similar to the liberal paradox concerning two games, each of one with an efficient Nash equilibrium. We show that our result holds also in dictatorial games.

Nell’ambito della programmazione 2014-2020 la UE ha imposto alle regioni di dotarsi di piani per la ricerca e l’innovazione (Smart Specialization Strategy: S3) come elemento di condizionalità ex-ante per attingere ai fondi strutturali. Per le regioni si è trattato di un’importante occasione di riflessione sulle strategie di sviluppo a medio e lungo termine e di ridisegno delle politiche per la ricerca e l’innovazione. Scopo del presente lavoro è quello di fornire un primo quadro degli ambiti di specializzazione individuati dalle regioni italiane. Esso, inoltre, intende verificare la coerenza delle scelte di specializzazione con altre politiche nazionali per la ricerca e l’innovazione; in particolare i cluster tecnologici nazionali definiti nel 2012 dal MIUR. Il lavoro è basato sull’analisi dei piani dell’innovazione (S3) fin qui disponibili per le regioni italiane a fine 2014. In alcuni casi si tratta di documenti provvisori, ancora in attesa di ratifica formale da parte dei governi regionali.

Collaboration with firms and public research institutions (PRI) is expected to raise the innovative performance of firms. Collaboration is also likely to increase the cost of innovation because of leakages of strategic information, appropriability and coordination problems. When collaborating with PRI the latter problem is expected to be stronger thus raising the probability of project failure. The aim of this paper is to investigate if and to what extent collaboration in R&D projects raises the probability of failure: i.e. abandoning or delaying innovative projects. It also aims at verifying if and to what extent the collaboration with PRI increases the likelihood of failure. We use data from the fourth Italian Community Innovation Survey (CIS 4) which collected data for the three-year period 2002-2004. The empirical results support the hypothesis that collaboration significantly impacts the probability of abandoning or delaying innovative projects, thus raising the cost of innovation. Collaboration with PRI does not raise the likelihood of failure more than what observed for the collaboration with other partners. Moreover, delaying is influenced by cost factors (such as the lack of financial resources) and knowledge factors (such as the lack of qualified personnel); abandonment is significantly associated with market factors (such as uncertain demand).

Several empirical papers have shown that firms belonging to business groups have a higher propensity to engage in R&D. The purpose of the paper is to demonstrate that this higher propensity depends on the ownership share of controlled companies, besides the presence of co-ordination mechanisms. We develop an analytical model and we empirically test the predictions of the model using a dataset of Italian manufacturing firms. From the development of this model we derive three main implications: a) that there is no difference in R&D propensity between stand-alone firms and firms at the bottom of business groups; b) that head and intermediate firms have a higher R&D propensity compared to stand-alone and firms at the bottom of the group; c) that the intensity of R&D depends on the ownership shares in controlled companies. Overall the results of the empirical analysis are in accordance with the implications of the model.

The aim of this paper is to empirically verify the hypothesis of a U shaped relation between size and unrelated diversification. Specifically we test the so called “survivalist hypothesis” according to which unrelated diversification is observed not only in large firms but also in small firms as a result of poor performance in the initial business. We empirically test this hypothesis using a representative sample of Italian business groups. The empirical results confirm the presence of a U shaped relation between size and unrelated diversification. Small groups are more diversified than medium-sized groups. We think that this is an interesting result, since according to traditional theories of diversification (resource based view and agency view) we should expect a linear and positive relation between size and unrelated diversification. The second novelty of the paper is that of considering the group rather than the single legal entity as unit of analysis. This is specifically appropriate in this case as unrelated diversification is often carried out by setting-up or acquiring new companies.

Most theories seeking to explain why business groups are formed are focused on large firms, but in recent years there is growing interest on why business groups are formed in the small firms sector. In this paper we contrast two theoretical perspectives that may account for business group formation, both based on the idea that business groups allow entrepreneurs to differentiate the ownership structure of new activities from the established one(s). These are the financial perspective and the organizational/entrepreneurial perspective. Theoretical propositions derived from these perspectives are tested using data on Italian business groups. The empirical results show that the financial and the organizational perspectives can be seen as complementary in explaining business groups in the small business sector. Specifically, the financial explanation is in accordance with the data in predicting the prevalence of capital intensive firms in business groups while the organizational explanation is in accordance with the data in predicting the presence of knowledge intensive firms in business groups. Furthermore, the organizational perspective seems more appropriate when the diversification strategies of business groups are concerned and when explaining the ownership structure of controlled companies.

The paper contrasts two theoretical perspectives that account for business group formation in the small business sector: the financial perspective and the organizational/entrepreneurial perspective. Two main hypotheses are derived from these perspectives: the first hypothesis concerns capital and knowledge intensity required by the business; the second one refers to the entrepreneur’s ownership of firms in business groups. The empirical results show that the financial and the organizational perspectives are both relevant in explaining business groups in the small business sector, but the entrepreneurial perspective is more appropriate when explaining the ownership structure of firms within an entrepreneur’s business group.

A solution to the liberal paradox based on the conditional Pareto principle and the paretian epidemic is given. It is also shown a link between our solution and non-welfarist theories.