Innovation In “Low-Tech” Industries

Tunzelmann, Nick von; Acha, Virginia

doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.003.0015

Cited by 171 publications

(139 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

124

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some authors (Klevorick et al, 1995) have pointed out that the difference between low and high-tech industries did not depend on science but on the number of scientific fields they depend upon. Therefore, differences among industries in relation to the scientific contents are questionable (von Tunzelmann and Acha, 2005).…”

Section: Oecd Classificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

R versus D: estimating the differentiated effect of research and development on innovation results

Barge‐Gil¹,

López²

2014

Industrial and Corporate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

R&D is considered to be the main source of innovation. We argue that R&D is too broad a measure, including activities differing in purposes, culture, people, management and other features. However, empirical studies have not analyzed them separately, mainly due to the lack of data. Using firm-level data, the aim of this paper is to estimate the differentiated effect of research and development on different innovation outputs. Results show that both research and development activities are important. However, we find that development activities are more important for product innovation, while the effect of research activities is higher on process innovation. Moreover, we analyze differences by technological intensity of the sector. When analyzing product and process innovations, we find evidence supporting the existence of higher payoffs to development and, especially to research in low-tech sectors when compared with high-tech ones.

show abstract

Section: Oecd Classificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

R versus D: estimating the differentiated effect of research and development on innovation results

Barge‐Gil¹,

López²

2014

Industrial and Corporate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The sectors that have experienced the most rapid pace of TFP growth are quite diverse, and belong to both manufacturing and services and to both high-and medium-low-tech branches of the economy: food and beverages, leather and footwear, basic metals, motor vehicles, other transport equipment, recycling, radio and TV, wholesale trade, air transport and telecommunication. This would suggest that the process of technological transformation has not only played a relevant role for the most technologically advanced branches of the economy, but also for some of the mature sectors that have traditionally constituted a stronghold of the Norwegian industrial system (Von Tunzelmann and Acha, 2005).…”

Section: < Table 1 Here >mentioning

confidence: 99%

Technological regimes, Schumpeterian patterns of innovation and firm-level productivity growth

Castellacci

Zheng

2010

Industrial and Corporate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper investigates the relationships between technological regimes and firm-level productivity performance, and it explores how such a relationship differs in different Schumpeterian patterns of innovation. The analysis makes use of a rich dataset containing data on innovation and other economic characteristics of a large representative sample of Norwegian firms in manufacturing and service industries for the period 1998-2004. First, we decompose TFP growth into technical progress and efficiency changes by means of data envelopment analysis. We then estimate an empirical model that relates these two productivity components to the characteristics of technological regimes and a set of other firm-specific factors. The results indicate that: (1) TFP growth has mainly been achieved through technical progress, while technical efficiency has on average decreased; (2) the characteristics of technological regimes are important determinants of firm-level productivity growth, but their impacts on technical progress are different from the effects on efficiency change; (3) the estimated model works differently in the two Schumpeterian regimes. Technical progress has been more dynamic in Schumpeter Mark II industries, while efficiency change has been more important in Schumpeter Mark I markets.

show abstract

“…Evidence of a possible reviving interest in this type of innovation was the special issue of Research Policy journal on 'Innovation in Low-and Medium-Technology Industries' that was published in April 2009. The increasing attention possibly derived from growing criticism of the 'high-tech myopia' which makes us assume that economic growth results primarily from high-tech sectors and innovation in these sectors driven by R&D (Von Tunzelmann & Acha, 2005). Using evidence from case studies of 43 LT/LMT sectors in 9 EU countries Hirsch-Kreinsen (2008b) suggests that these sectors are mostly characterized by incremental or continuous innovation and the presence of small firms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Individual’s Influence on Low-Technology Innovation: A Critical Realism Based Case Study on North-West Pakistan’s Marble Sector

Nouman¹,

Taj²,

Gul³

2017

BER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Innovation In “Low-Tech” Industries

Cited by 171 publications

References 0 publications

R versus D: estimating the differentiated effect of research and development on innovation results

R versus D: estimating the differentiated effect of research and development on innovation results

Technological regimes, Schumpeterian patterns of innovation and firm-level productivity growth

The Individual’s Influence on Low-Technology Innovation: A Critical Realism Based Case Study on North-West Pakistan’s Marble Sector

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About