Behavioural foundations of innovation surveys

Beckenbach, Frank; Daskalakis, Maria

doi:10.1504/ijfip.2008.017576

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The last five editions of CIS have been a bastion of innovation policy research during the last decade. Despite this, CIS has been criticised for not having an umbrella framework that unifies its different underpinnings to explain what drives innovation to actual innovation and economic outcomes (Beckenbach and Daskalakis, 2008;Bloch, 2007). The issue of scientific validity in science and technology indicators is a long standing problem.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent advances in the fields of psychological economics and the economics of innovation have provided approaches that establish sound causality paths between innovation drivers and innovation performance based on behavioural science (e.g., Ajzen 2005;Wehn 2003, Montalvo 2006, Beckenbach and Daskalakis, 2008. In this working paper, following Montalvo (2006) we propose a framework that enables the theoretical and empirical linkage between drivers of innovation to innovation performance via the integration of core features determining innovative behaviour into a single composite.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Entrepreneurial Technology Opportunism and Its Impact on Business Sustainability with the Moderation of Government Regulations

Asim

Cai

Makhdoom

2019

EBER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

TNO Working Paper SeriesThe TNO Working Paper series is intended to convey the preliminary results of ongoing research conducted at the TNO cluster of Strategy and Policy. Topics spread across issues related to science, technology and innovation studies, system innovation and societal transitions, regional economics, spatial economics, complex governance, ecoinnovation policies and strategies and sustainable consumption and production. Ideally, the outcome of TNO research is intended to provide policy advice on industrial, innovation, energy, environment, cohesion, economic, and sustainability policies.The content of these papers reflects the output of original research tasks of TNO staff. It has been reviewed by the TNO editorial board. Nevertheless, the views expresses in these papers are those of the authors and not necessarily reflect the views of TNO, or any of its clients.The reader is encouraged to provide the authors with feedback, questions and/or constructive critics. Abstract:Innovation is currently seen as a cornerstone not only for economic development but also as an intrinsic human activity that could help to face the great challenges of human kind. Given the importance of innovation in the new European 2020 Strategy, measuring progress but also monitoring what drives innovation becomes crucial for policy development. Following upon this strategy the new European flag initiative "Innovation Union" called for a new "single" indicator on innovation. Currently the information infrastructure on innovation in Europe contains a number of indicators. Most of the current indicators at the national or sector levels use a performance theoretical framework based on an efficiency model of inputs and outputs. The last five editions of CIS have been a bastion of innovation policy research during the last decade. Despite this, CIS has been criticised for not having an umbrella framework that unifies its different underpinnings to explain what drives innovation to actual innovation and economic outcomes. In this paper we propose a framework that enables the theoretical and empirical linkages between the drivers of innovation to innovation performance via the integration of core features determining innovative behaviour in to a single composite. This index enables to assess the total propensity of firms to innovate and assess the relative innovation performance at the sector and country level. The approach adopted here to create the index overcomes long standing theoretical and methodological issues related to the reduction of complexity in a meaningful form, scope, aggregation, normalisation and validation of innovation composites. The empirical demonstration of the index was done using CIS4 data and the results validate the theoretical structure and robustness of the proposed model. This enables its replication for innovation policy analysis in different settings. The model underlying the proposed index provides not only a depiction of the efficiency of the innovation system but also a link to economic performance...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Entrepreneurial Technology Opportunism and Its Impact on Business Sustainability with the Moderation of Government Regulations

Asim

Cai

Makhdoom

2019

EBER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Boundedly rational entrepreneurs, managers, investors and consumers regularly populate models of the innovation process (Earl, 2003;Dosi et al, 2005). It should therefore seem uncontentious to advance a behavioural innovation economics as an application of behavioural economics of 'heuristics and biases' in the context of innovation processes and systems, particularly that of innovation difficulties and failures (Vromen, 2001;Dopfer, 2004;Earl and Potts, 2004a;Shiller, 2005;Beckenbach and Daskalakis, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can behavioural biases in choice under novelty explain innovation failures?

Potts

2010

Prometheus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes a new framework of 'behavioural innovation economics' as a synthesis of behavioural economics and innovation economics in the context of choice under novelty. The standard heuristics and biases framework of behavioural economics is applied to map and analyze systematic choice failures in the innovation process by distinguishing between choice under uncertainty and choice under novelty. Behavioural biases that affect choice under novelty are then elaborated. The paper then suggests 10 ways in which choice under novelty is behaviourally hard, rendering innovation subject to characteristic failure along these behavioural dimensions.

show abstract

Multi-agent Modeling of Economic Innovation Dynamics and Its Implications for Analyzing Emission Impacts

Beckenbach¹,

Briegel²

2011

International Economics of Resource Efficiency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavioural foundations of innovation surveys

Cited by 5 publications

References 35 publications

Entrepreneurial Technology Opportunism and Its Impact on Business Sustainability with the Moderation of Government Regulations

Entrepreneurial Technology Opportunism and Its Impact on Business Sustainability with the Moderation of Government Regulations

Can behavioural biases in choice under novelty explain innovation failures?

Multi-agent Modeling of Economic Innovation Dynamics and Its Implications for Analyzing Emission Impacts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About