Economic Theory Of Innovation Research Articles

Entreprenøren som figur under neoliberalismen - Kapitalisme, individ og velfærdsorganisering

The article explores the central role of the entrepreneur in neoliberalism. It demonstrates how a displacement and a broadening of the concept of the entrepreneur occur in the neoliberal interpretation of the entrepreneur compared to Schumpeter’s economic innovation theory. From being a specific economic figure with a particular delimited function the entrepreneur is reinterpreted as, on the one hand, a particular type of subject, the entrepreneur of the self, and on the other, an ism, entrepreneurialism, which permeates individuals, society, and institutions. Entrepreneurialism is discussed as a movement of the economic into previously non-economic domains, such as the welfare state and society. Social entrepreneurship is an example of this in relation to solutions to social welfare problems. This can, on the one hand, be understood as an extension of the neoliberal understanding of the entrepreneur, but it also, in certain interpretations, resists the neoliberal understanding of economy and society.

Skal den offentlige sektor være innovativ?

The article unfolds a critical analysis and discussion of innovation as a concept of change in the public sector on the basis of the prevalent understandings of innovation found in research literature and political strategies. It is demonstrated that existing concepts of innovation deemphasize the particular public and democratic dimensions of the public sector, and it is argued that this is problematic from a democratic perspective. The article encourages a rethinking of the innovation concept in a way that breaks with the inheritance from economic innovation theory and a formulation of an innovation theory that has political philosophical concepts such as rights, due process and democracy in focus.

’Sandheden vil sætte os fri’ - Konspirationsteori som demokratisk praksis

The article unfolds a critical analysis and discussion of innovation as a concept of change in the public sector on the basis of the prevalent understandings of innovation found in research literature and political strategies. It is demonstrated that existing concepts of innovation deemphasize the particular public and democratic dimensions of the public sector, and it is argued that this is problematic from a democratic perspective. The article encourages a rethinking of the innovation concept in a way that breaks with the inheritance from economic innovation theory and a formulation of an innovation theory that has political philosophical concepts such as rights, due process and democracy in focus.

The innovative state and the intellectual property management of publicly developed environmentally sound technology in the EU

In this paper, we argue that the intellectual property (IP) management of publicly developed technology serves insufficiently the imperatives of climate change mitigation, which are understood to demand most efficient dissemination of environmentally sound technology (EST), and its development. Firstly, we outline some of the criticism of IPR for climate change mitigation. Then we explain the crucial role of public funding for EST by discussing economic theory of innovation based on the writings of Joseph Schumpeter and Mariana Mazzucato, and focus on the way in which the intellectual property rights (IPRs) of publicly funded EST have been managed in the most important areas of state innovation: public procurement for innovation (PPFI), the EU Pilot Horizon 2020 and university research. We outline the perceived problems with IP management of EST and where possible try to outline changes which could, in our view, provide a viable alternative to often proposed changes to the global IP regime in regard to climate change.

Актуальні концепти економічної теорії інновацій

Актуальні концепти економічної теорії інновацій

The foundations of innovation in modern societies: the displacement of concepts and knowledgeability

Our paper offers a contribution to the growing literature on the sociology of innovation rather than the still dominant economic theory of innovation. We suggest that innovation first and foremost represents a process of cognitive displacement whereby existing metaphorical frameworks are reconstituted to account for new phenomena in a process that changes both the metaphor’s and the new phenomenon’s compositions. We suggest that integral to this process is knowledgeability, or a bundle of social and cognitive competencies that emerge as one of the main prerequisites for innovative thinking. We conclude by examining the most important social and cognitive competencies that structure the possibilities for invention and innovation in the contemporary knowledge economy.

Christopher Freeman: the founder and doyen of the economics of innovation theory

It is not easy to do justice and write in a short article on Chris Freeman's enormous scientific contributions spanning over half a century of work since the late 1950s. The article begins with an exploration of some of the contributions of Chris Freeman to the economic theory of innovation. Second, Chris Freeman had been engaged in major debates, but he had a particular way of maintaining strong argument whilst treating those he argues with genuine respect without engaging in needless polemics due to the differences they have with him on scientific work. Finally the contribution of Chris Freeman to Africa and his role in the emerging globelics inspired effort to link innovation with development by building research and inter-researcher engagements between the North and South, and South with South will be explored.

The Market for Legal Innovation: Law and Economics in Europe and the United States

There have been a large number of innovations in scholarship in the U.S. academy over the past 25 or so years and very few from scholars in other parts of the world. For instance, because both of us work in the area of and we were both acutely aware of the large differences in the receptivity to and economics as between the U.S. and Europe. The U.S. academy has generously embraced and economics (and some other innovations), while Europe (and the rest of the world) has not. Why has the U.S. led the world in the production and adoption of scholarly innovations? This Article seeks to answer that question generally and with particular reference to and In Part II we deal with two definitional issues - what we mean by a legal and what counts as law and economics. The scholarly innovations on which we focus are new methods of looking at many areas of the law, such as feminist jurisprudence, or the articulation of the principles and boundaries of an entire new area of law, such as elder law. By law and economics, we mean the application of economic analysis to any of the area to which its application would not be obvious. Then in Part III we offer a series of anecdotes and empirical studies designed to show that and economics is much more prominent in U.S. scholarship than in European scholarship. We then seek, in Part IV, explanations for the differences between the U.S. and European academies in their production and adoption of scholarship innovations generally and with respect to and economics particularly. Our central claim is that it is the competitiveness of higher and education that is the principal explanation for the scholarly innovativeness of the U.S. and the lack of competition (and the consequent lack of an incentive to innovate) in European higher and education that explains the differences. We further hypothesize that the production and adoption of and economics are attractive only to those who have experienced a prior scholarly innovation - realism. We draw a clear line of intellectual heritage from realism to and Before settling on competition and realism as the principal explanations for the production and adoption of scholarship innovations, we canvass (and reject) a large number of alternative explanations, such as political ideology, money, the differences between common and civil systems, the structure of education, and more. In Part V we draw a connection between the standard economic theory of innovation and diffusion and our observations in the prior four sections of the Article. That economic theory of innovation and diffusion identifies three factors - demand, supply, and market structure - as determining the presence and pace of innovation and diffusion. We relate each of those factors to observable differences between the U.S. and Europe, showing that our explanation of the production and adoption of scholarly innovations follows the same factors as does the economic theory of innovation in production techniques.

Strategic paradigms as a frame of explanation of innovations: a theoretical synthesis

Innovation has mainly been analysed as a rather narrow phenomenon. This has been an obstacle to a more operationally useful understanding of innovation processes. Two main approaches to explain innovation exist, namely economic innovation theory and the theory of entrepreneurship. Both are criticized in the article, the economic innovation theory for being based on a technological reductionism, the entrepreneurship theory for being based on an individualistic determinism. The two theories have not been coordinated to form a more comprehensive synthesis. The concept of technological paradigm within the economic innovation theory and the concept of entrepreneurial networks within the entrepreneurship theory mark some improvement in establishing a broader understanding of innovation, but have not yet been synthesized. The idea of paradigms is used in the article for a broader, synthesizing conception of innovations as being determined by shifts in strategic paradigms. A theoretical model of factors causing s...