No abstract

The relationship between financing constraints, investments in research and development (R&D) and innovative performances has recently attracted renewed attention in the aftermath of a financial crisis that has led to problems of access to the credit on which innovation activities crucially rely. In spite of past developments in the theoretical analysis and in the data and methodologies for empirical investigation, some issues have remained unexplored to date. In this introduction to the special issue, we examine the contribution of the papers it contains, which provide new conceptualisations and empirical evidence at the firm level for Europe. Most previous research results, which were mainly based on extending models of financing constraints and physical investments to R&D investments, are confirmed, while new insights about this relationship are uncovered, in terms of the structural characteristics of the constrained firms, of the industries in which they operate, of their innovative activities and of the innovation outcomes they achieve. ARTICLE HISTORY

No abstract

Taxation Papers are written by the staff of the European Commission's Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, or by experts working in association with them. Taxation Papers are intended to increase awareness of the work being done by the staff and to seek comments and suggestions for further analyses. These papers often represent preliminary work, circulated to encourage discussion and comment. Citation and use of such a paper should take into account of its provisional character. The views expressed in the Taxation Papers are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.

No abstract

We provide a broad discussion of the dark side of innovation, before introducing the papers of the special issue. We start with a critical reply to optimists, complementing the list of indicators showing steady human progress with a list of indicators that show sustained deterioration (largely due to innovation). We then outline some relevant dimensions of harmful innovation, before distinguishing between the types of harm brought on by innovation. We conclude with an overview of the SI papers.

This paper explores the specialisation of European Union (EU) regions in key enabling technologies (KETs) and assesses whether or not being specialised in these technological areas has an effect on regional growth. The evidence presented shows that regions specialised in KETs are concentrated in central Europe; however, over the period taken into account (1996â\u80\u932011), less innovative and peripheral EU regions have been increasing their specialisation in these technological areas at the expense of the most advanced regions. There is also evidence that (spatial) diffusion of KETs often occurs across regions contiguous to each other. The results of the econometric estimations show that being specialised in KETs affects regional economic growth (per capita gross domestic product) and that this effect is stronger in the case of less innovative EU regions. Overall, these results hint at the pervasive nature and enabling role of KETs and demonstrate the importance for EU regions to target these technologies as part of their smart specialisation strategies

This paper investigates the effects of multinationality on firm productivity, and contributes to the literature in two respects. First, we argue that multinationality affects productivity both directly and indirectly through higher incentives to invest in R&D. Second, we maintain that the multinational depth and breadth have different direct effects on productivity and R&D. Using data from the top R&D investors in the world, we propose an econometric model with an R&D and a productivity equation that both depend on multinationality. We find: i) multinational depth has a positive effect on productivity, while the effect of multinational breadth is negative; ii) multinationality (along both dimensions) has a positive effect on R&D intensity, translating into an indirect positive effect on productivity; iii) the positive indirect effect is however not large enough to compensate the negative direct effect of multinational breadth