The history of capitalism from the Industrial Revolution onwards is one of increasing differences in productivity and living conditions across different parts of the globe. According to one source, 250 years ago the difference in income or productivity per head betwen the richest and poorest country in the world was approximately 5:1, while today this difference has increased to 400:1 (Landes 1998). However in spite of this long-run trend towards divergence in productivity and income, there are many examples of (initially) backward countries that–at different times–have manged to narrow the gap in productivity and income between themselves and the frontier countries, in other words, to "catch up". How did they do it? What was the role of innovation and diffusion in the process? These are among the questions we are going to discuss in this chapter.
Browse by title
Jan Fagerberg and Manuel M. Godinho
The Nordic countries are among the richest in Europe and globally. They are known for having a more equal distribution of income than elsewhere, for highly organized, regulated and inclusive labor markets, for universal welfare states and for well-developed and free education systems.
Jan Fagerberg and Koson Sapprasert
The term 'national innovation systems' surfaced for the first time during the late 1980s and, in the years that followed, several important contributions on this topic appeared. This paper investigates the role that this new literature plays within innovation studies and the world of science more generally and discusses the sources for its emergence.
Jan Fagerberg and Bart Verspagen
The European economy is currently in a slump, the worst since the 1930s, with high unemployment and deteriorating welfare conditions for exposed segments of the population in several European countries, espcially in the Southern parts of the continent. Although this is often seen as a consequence of the financial crisis that hit the capitalist world in 2007-8 this is only part of the story.
Jan Fagerberg, Staffan Laestadius and Ben R. Martin
Europe is confronted by an intimidating triple challenge—economic stagnation, climate change and a governance crisis. What is required is a fundamental transformation of the economy to a new "green" trajectory based on rapidly diminishing emission of greenhouse gases, the authors contend. Much greater emphasis on innovation in all its forms (not just technological) is an answer. Following this path would mean turning Europe into a veritable laboratory for sustainable growth, environmentally as well as socially.
Open innovation has developed into a bourgeoning area of innovation management research. Yet, despite the success of open innovation, research in that area has a much larger potential as an innovation framework if we broaden the scope of open innovation research. More specifically, I argue that open innovation practices should not only be related to new product development but to all possible strategic drivers such as new product development is less obvious in several businesses. Next, there is an increasing need to connect and integrate open innovation literature to new developments in other segments of the management literature: More specifically, I try to match open innovation to “The End of Competitive Advantage” of Rita McGrath.
Creativity and innovation are central to the competiveness of businesses and nations in the current era. Social interaction embedded in communities is increasingly recognized as a rich source of creative activity. Hence, communities are being nurtured and adopted by business organizations with the purpose of promoting and appropriating the creative and innovative potential that they offer. This chapter aims to critically examine the relationship between community, creativity and innovation to reveal how community can facilitate creative and innovative activity. The chapter begins by considering the concepts of community, creativity and innovation before going on to explore the creative potential of community through a review of the communities of practice approach to understanding and facilitating learning and knowledge generation. This is followed by an examination of different types of community as sites of creativity and innovation. The potential of communities to inhibit creativity and innovation is then considered before brief conclusions are drawn.
Patrick Cohendet and Laurent Simon
As a general paradigm for society, a dominant model of innovation drives and shapes the behaviours and decisions of policy-makers, economists, entrepreneurs, business managers and all sorts of economic agents. In the present contribution, to focus on the relationships between dominant models and constitutive disciplines, we have purposefully reduced the sequence of generations of dominant models to three main generations: 1) the linear and closed model of innovation (from World War I to the mid-1980s); 2) the interactive and closed model of innovation (from the mid-1980s to the first decade of the 21st century); and 3) the interactive and open model of innovation (starting from the first decade of the 21st century, which in our view has not yet reached its mature stage). For each generation of dominant model, we will summarise the main characteristics of the dominant model, to assess the contribution of each of the constitutive disciplines to the model, and to understand the replacement of a model by a new one.