Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Innovation and Performance in Manufacturing Industries: a Comparison of the Nordic Countries
KTH, Superseded Departments, Industrial Economics and Management.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5871-8571
2001 (English)In: SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance, ISSN 1402-9928, Vol. Aug, no 457Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The availability of new internationally-harmonized innovation survey data collected from OECD countries has created some interesting opportunities for studying the following two key areas: (1) the determinants of innovation behavior at firm level, and (2) innovation as an important factor contributing to the economic growth. This paper looks at the relationship between innovation and productivity in Finland, Norway and Sweden at the firm level.

Although these countries enjoy a high degree of political, social and cultural similarities, they differ largely from one another in their productivity growth and national innovation systems.

The main objective here has been to examine how an identically-specified econometric model might work when the survey sampling and questionnaire are identical but the national data sets are estimated separately. Findings from the micro-based data in Europe known as Community Innovation Survey (CIS) data were subsequently investigated to see whether or not they contributed to explaining the presence of cross-country differences in aggregated productivity growth. Results reveal major discrepancies between the estimated firm-level results and the aggregated figures. Differences in the country regression results were investigated to see whether they were due to data errors, the econometric model, model specifications, estimation methods or unobservable country-specific effects. The tentative conclusion is that the representativeness of the respondent firms, the model specification and unobservable country specific effects may partly account for the deviations between macro and micro levels.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2001. Vol. Aug, no 457
Keyword [en]
Community Innovation Survey, CIS, cross-country comparisons, innovation, manufacturing, firms
National Category
Production Engineering, Human Work Science and Ergonomics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-13107OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-13107DiVA: diva2:320900
Note
QC 20100527Available from: 2010-05-27 Created: 2010-05-27 Last updated: 2010-05-27Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. The Knowledge Production Function: Evidence from New Micro Data
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The Knowledge Production Function: Evidence from New Micro Data
2002 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other scientific)
Abstract [en]

This doctoral thesis consists of five self-contained essays.Common themes that unify the essays are the conditions for innovative engagements and the effort to endogenize innovations into the explanation of profitability, productivity and growthin manufacturing and service production. The purpose is to explore the importance of innovation in explaining heterogeneity in the performance of firms. The traditional analysis of the relationship between research and developmentand productivity is extended and developed by using, on the onehand, firm-level data not previously available and, on theother, a modern state-of-the-art econometric framework.

Essay I. Methods and results are reviewed and stylized facts presented regarding the return on innovation. The limitations of the data and methods used in mainstream literature are discussed. A set of firm-level observations recently made available and a multiple knowledge production function analysis have been used to clarify the role of innovation in explaining performance heterogeneity among manufacturing firms inSweden.

Essay II. The relationships between innovation and productivity among manufacturing firms in Finland, Norway and Sweden are studied. The main purpose is to investigate the contributions of firm-level innovation in creating the large observed differences in aggregated productivity growth between Norway on the one hand and Finland and Sweden on the other.

Essay III. The focus of this essay is threefold. One, since innovation has been found to be a major contributor to productivity growth in manufacturing, we seek to find whether there is any evidence for the notion that service industrie shave a lower propensity to be innovative or that they are less efficient in deriving benefits from innovations. Second, we consider what real productivity growth does, and what the measurement methods do to produce the reported weak growthrates in services. Third, given that intermediate services have been found to be one of the fastest growing input factors inmanufacturing, largely reflecting the replacement of internally provided activities by externally produced outputs, we examine what the impact of outsourcing is on productivity growth in manufacturing. The essay brings a comparative perspective to these issues by analyzing the firm-level data on innovativeactivities and economic performance in knowledge-intensive manufacturing and service firms in Sweden.

Essay IV.This essay investigates the sensitivity of estimated relationships between innovation and firm performance. The essay compares the sensitivity of results with regards to different types of models, estimation methods, measures of firm performance, classification of firms, type of innovations and data sources. The analyses are performed on both the level and growth rate of firm performance, and theinfluence of outliers is explored.

Essay V. The role of capital structure and external financing in innovation and production is studied. Results from different model specifications are explored. A preferred dynamic model with flexible adjustment is used for an inter-country and an intra-country comparison of the determinants of the optimal mix between debt and equity as wellas the rate of change towards an optimal capital structure.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: KTH, 2002. 25 p.
Series
TRITA-IEO, ISSN 1100-7982 ; 2002:2
Keyword
Knowledge capital, performance heterogeneity, innovation, manufacturing, srvices, Community Innovation Survey, cross-country comparisons, outsosurcing, capital structure, dynamic adjustment, panel data
National Category
Production Engineering, Human Work Science and Ergonomics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-3301 (URN)91-7283-250-9 (ISBN)
Public defence
2002-02-22, 00:00 (English)
Note

QC 20100526

Available from: 2002-02-07 Created: 2002-02-07 Last updated: 2017-01-20Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

S-WoPEc

Authority records BETA

Lööf, Hans

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Lööf, HansHeshmati, Almas
By organisation
Industrial Economics and Management
Production Engineering, Human Work Science and Ergonomics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 485 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf