External Linkages and Intellectual Assets as Indicators of Firms' Innovation Activities : Results from the Czech Republic and Poland

• Autorzy: Aleksandra Zygmunt
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Research background: Firms' innovation activities play an important role in fostering firms' competitiveness and enhancing economic growth of regions and countries. Regarding the significance of the issue, it is essential to explore indicators of firms' innovation activities. Here, special attention was given to external linkages and intellectual assets. In the study, particular emphasis was put on firms from the Czech Republic and Poland as the countries distinguished by similar innovation performance.
Purpose of the article: The aim of this paper is to explore whether external linkages and intellectual assets impact on innovation activities of Czech and Polish firms.
Methods: In the study, the Cobb-Douglas function was employed. The study used data from the European Innovation Scoreboard 2018 with regard to firms' innovation activities. In particular, special stress was put on variables related to external linkages and intellectual assets such as: innovative SMEs collaborating with others, private co-funding of public R&D expenditures, PCT patent applications and trademark applications. The time period was 2008-2015.
Findings & Value added: This paper contributes to the existing literature by providing new insight on issues connected with indicators of firms' innovation activities. The results reveal statistical significance of selected variables connected with external linkages and intellectual assets on innovation activities of Czech and Polish firms. These findings have policy and practical implications. There is a need to further stimulate, among others, the linkages between firms and universities, research organisations, institutional environment. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Enterprise innovation; Intellectual capital

PL

Innowacyjność przedsiębiorstw; Kapitał intelektualny

• Czasopismo: Oeconomia Copernicana
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: 10
• Numer: nr 2
• Strony: 291--308

Twórcy

autor

Aleksandra Zygmunt

• Opole University of Technology, Poland

Bibliografia

• Allred, B. B., & Park, W. G. (2007). Patent rights and innovative activity: evidence from national and firm-level data. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(6).
• Ankrah, S., & AL-Tabbaa, O. (2015).Universities-industry collaboration: a systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31. doi: 10.1016/j.scaman.2015.02.003.
• Asheim, B., Moodysson, J., & Tӧdtling, F. (2011). Constructing regional advantage: towards state-of-the-art regional innovation system policies in Europe? European Planning Studies, 19(7). doi: 10.1080/09654313.2011.573127.
• Balcerzak, A. P., & Pietrzak, M. B. (2016). Quality of institutions for knowledge based economy within new institutional economics framework. Multiple criteria decision analysis for European Countries in the years 2000-2013. Economics & Sociology, 9(4), doi: 10.14254/2071-789X.2016/9-4/4.
• Barca, F. (2009). An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy. A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations. Brussels: European Commission.
• Bartosiewicz, S. (Ed.) (1980). Metody ekonometryczne. Przykłady i zadania. Warszawa: PWE.
• Borkowski, B., Dudek, H., & Szczęsny W. (2003). Ekonometria, wybrane zagadnienia. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
• Bronzini R., & Piselli, P. (2016). The impact of R&D subsidies on firm innovation. Research Policy, 45(2). doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.10.008.
• Cieślik, A., & Michałek, J. J. (2018). Process and product innovations, multiproduct status and export performance: firm-level evidence from V-4 countries, Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 13(2). doi: 10.24136/eq.2018.012.
• Edler, J., & Fagerberg, J. (2017). Innovation policy: what, why, and how. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1). doi: 10.1093/oxrep/grx001.
• Fritsch M., & Franke, G. (2004). Innovation, regional knowledge spillovers and R&D cooperation. Research Policy, 33. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00123-9.
• Huggins, R., &Thompson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurship, innovation and regional growth: a network theory. Small Business Economics, 41(5). doi: 10.1007/s11187-015-9643-3.
• Isaksen, A., Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2018). Innovation policies for regional structural change: combining actor-based and system-based strategies. In: A. Isaken, R. Martin & M. Trippl (Eds.). New avenues for regional innovation systems - theoretical advances, empirical cases and policy lessons. Cham: Springer.
• Isaksen, A., & Karlsen, J. (2013). Can small regions construct regional advantages? The case of four Norwegian regions. European Urban and Regional Studies, 20(2). doi: 10.1177/0969776412439200.
• Martin, R., & Moodysson, J. (2011). Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of knowledge sourcing in the regional innovation system of Scania, Sweden. European Urban and Regional Studies, 20(2). doi: 10.1016/10.1177/0969776411427326.
• Mendonça, S., Santos Pereira, T., & Mira Godinho, M. (2004).Trademarks as an indicator of innovation and industrial change. Research Policy, 33(9). doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2004.09.005.
• Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the 21st century. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J., & Bausch, A. (2011). Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(4). doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.12.002.
• The European Commission (2018a). European innovation scoreboard 2018.
• The European Commission (2018b). Entrepreneurship and small and mediumsized enterprises. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/ (12.11.2018).
• Tijssen, R. J. (2012). Co-authored research publications and strategic analysis of public-private collaboration. Research Evaluation, 21(3). doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvs013.
• Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2018). Regional innovation policies for new path development - beyond neo-liberal and traditional systemic views. European Planning Studies, 26(9). doi: 10.1080/09654313.2018.1457140.
• Tödtling, F., & Grillitsch, M. (2015). Does combinatorial knowledge lead to a better innovation performance of firms? European Planning Studies, 23(9). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1056773.
• Varis, M., & Littunen, H. (2012). SMEs and their peripheral innovation environment: reflections from a Finnish case. European Planning Studies, 20(4). doi: 10.1080/09654313.2012.665034.
• Wierzbicka, W. (2018). Information infrastructure as a pillar of the knowledgebased economy - an analysis of regional differentiation in Poland. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 13(1). doi: 10.24136/eq.2018.007.
• Wierzbicka, W. (2016). The innovation system as a pillar for a knowledge-based economy - an analysis of regional diversity in Poland. Olsztyn Economic Journal, 11(4).
• Yegros Yegros, A., Azagra Caro, J. M., López Ferrer, M. T., & Tijssen, R. J. (2016). Do university industry co-publication outputs correspond with university funding from firms? Research Evaluation, 25(2). doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvv045.
• Zygmunt, A. (2017). Innovation activities of Polish firms. Multivariate analysis of the moderate innovator countries. Oeconomia Copernicana, 8(4). doi: 10.24136/oc.v8i4.31.
• Zygmunt, J. (2018). Start-ups survival in a transition economy. In: O., Dvouletý, M., Lukeš & J., Mísař (Eds.). Proceedings of the 6th international conference innovation management, entrepreneurship and sustainability. Prague: University of Prague.
• Żelazny, R., & Pietrucha, J. (2017). Measuring innovation and institution: the creative economy index. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 12(1). doi: 10.24136/eq.v12i1.3.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.24136/oc.2019.015