Search

On behalf of the Deutsche Telekom Stiftung (Deutsche Telekom Foundation) and the Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrien (Federation of German Industries) DIW Berlin has investigated Germany's innovative capacity for the fifth time in an international comparison. The survey evaluates the ability of countries to create and transform knowledge into marketable products and services (i.e., innovations) using a system of indicators that provides an overall composite indicator of innovative capacity as well as a detailed profile of strengths and weaknesses. Of the seventeen leading industrial nations investigated under the survey Germany only ranked 9th thus remaining in the broad middle range. Relative to its most important competitors Germany looses ground. The US, followed by Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, headed up the list. Germany is particularly successful in its ability to network key participants in the innovation process as well as in international markets of high-technology sectors like mechanical engineering, chemical industry, vehicle manufacturing and medical instruments. Deficiencies in Germany's education and in the financing conditions for innovation and the founding of new companies, plus the regulation of product markets remain the country's greatest innovation system weaknesses.

An analysis of patent applications filed with the European Patent Office reveals that German companies primarily expand their research activities abroad in high-tech sectors in which they already conduct long-term intensive research. These sectors are: electrical engineering, control technology, engines, pumps, turbines, thermal processes, mechanical components, and transport. German R&D internationalization is thus founded on fields of research that are highly productive domestically. By contrast, there is cause for concern for Germany as a location for research in the fields of telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, and biotechnology. In these areas German companies have been intensifying their research activities abroad due to relative weakness at home. A particularly controversial topic in the political arena concerns the global competitiveness of Germany as a location for research. Empirical investigation of German research and its main competitors yields surprising results: Germany's competitors are almost exclusively Western European countries, particularly Austria, Switzerland, and France - all German neighbors. While the US continues to play a central role as a location for research funded by German companies, its importance has declined drastically since 1990.

Zur Beurteilung der Innovationsfähigkeit eines Landes ist nicht nur seine aktuelle Position im internationalen Vergleich interessant, sondern auch die Entwicklung über längere Zeiträume hinweg. Um die mittelfristige Dynamik des deutschen Innovationssystems im internationalen Vergleich zu untersuchen, wurde ein Vergleich des Innovationsindikators für das Jahr 2007 mit dem auf derselben Bauweise basierenden Indikator für das Jahr 1995 vorgenommen. Im Jahr 2007 hat Deutschland gegenüber 1995 zwar die Niederlande und Kanada überholt und sich so um zwei Rangplätze verbessert, nimmt jedoch nach wie vor nur eine mittlere Position ein. Das Mittelfeld ist allerdings näher zusammen- und auch dichter an die Spitzengruppe herangerückt. Der weiterhin deutliche Abstand Deutschlands zur Spitzengruppe ist nicht zuletzt auf die negative Entwicklung in den beiden zentralen Subindikatoren "Bildung" und "Forschung" zurückzuführen.

Innovationen sind neue Produkte und Verfahren, die erfolgreich in Märkte eingeführt worden sind. Sie entstehen durch die Generierung neuen Wissens aus Forschung und Entwicklung (FuE) und sind eine wichtige Quelle für wirtschaftliches Wachstum. Dieser Zusammenhang ist eine Begründung für die in Lissabon (2000) und Barcelona (2002) gefassten Beschlüsse des EU-Rates, die eine Erhöhung der (privaten und öffentlichen) Ausgaben für Forschung und Entwicklung (FuE) auf 3 % des Bruttoinlandsprodukts vorsehen, um Europa "zum wettbewerbsfähigsten und dynamischsten wissensbasierten Wirtschaftsraum der Welt zu machen - einem Wirtschaftsraum, der fähig ist, ein dauerhaftes Wirtschaftswachstum mit mehr und besseren Arbeitsplätzen und einem größeren sozialen Zusammenhalt zu erzielen". In Deutschland liegt die FuE-Intensität derzeit bei 2,5 %. Eine Erhöhung auf 3 % würde somit eine deutliche Ausweitung der privaten und/oder öffentlichen Ausgaben bedeuten. Jedoch wird die Steigerung der FuE-Ausgaben allein nicht zum gewünschten Ziel von Produktivitätszuwächsen und wirtschaftlichem Wachstum führen; auch die Rahmenbedingungen müssen richtig gesetzt sein. Ein gutes Bildungssystem ist ebenso eine notwendige Voraussetzung wie die Vernetzung der an Innovationsprozessen beteiligten Akteure und eine innovationsfreundliche Gestaltung der Faktor- und Produktmärkte. Damit sind Herausforderungen für die deutsche Innovationspolitik verknüpft.

El trabajo en anfibios y reptiles en la Reserva Biológica San Ramón inicia con una gira que realizó Douglas C. Robinson a la zona en 1986 como una actividad del curso de herpetología que él brindaba en la Universidad de Costa Rica, en la que participó Bolaños. A partir de esa fecha, son varias las personas que han participado en la recolecta de anfibios y reptiles, siendo Ehmcke el que realizó uno de los mayores esfuerzos y hasta recientemente se realizaba un proyecto para evaluar la dinámica de poblaciones coordinado por Bolaños.

This paper identifies the leading country-industry combinations that define the world technology frontier in manufacturing. Using a unique industry dataset compiled from EU KLEMS and PATSTAT, it explores which countries and industries reveal the most efficient innovation processes. We combine a traditional nonparametric frontier approach with super-efficiency and tests for return to scale properties using bootstrap procedures to derive consistent and robust efficiency estimates. Our analysis of 17 OECD countries and 13 industries between 2000 and 2004 shows that Germany, the United States, and Denmark have the highest R&D efficiency on average in total manufacturing. However, sector-specific efficiency scores reveal substantial variation across countries. The principal industries determining the technology frontier are electrical and optical equipment, machinery, and chemical and mineral products. Our results suggest that in case of limited resources, priority should be given to the industries that promise the largest output for the available amount of investment. Instead of generally increasing the R&D-to-GDP ratio--as suggested in the Lisbon Agenda--policymakers might target future R&D efforts to those industries that are economically important and reveal excellent performance.

We develop a composite indicator measuring the performance of national innovation systems. The indicator takes into account both “hard” factors that are quantifiable (such as R&D spending, number of patents) and “soft” factors like the assessment of preconditions for innovation by managers. We apply the methodology to a set of 17 industrialized countries on a yearly basis between 2007 and 2009. The indicator combines results from public opinion surveys on the process of change, social capital, trust and science and technology to achieve an assessment of a country’s social climate for innovation. After calculating and ranking the innovation indictor scores for the 17 countries, we group them into three classes: innovation leader, middle group and end section. Using multiple sensitivity analysis approaches, we show that the indicator reacts robustly to different weights within these country groups. While leading countries like Switzerland, the USA and the Nordic countries have an innovation system with high scores and ranks in every sub indicator, the middle group consisting among others of Germany Japan, the UK and France, can be characterized by higher variation within ranks. In the end section, countries like Italy and Spain have bad scores for almost all indicators.

We develop a composite indicator measuring the performance of national innovation systems. The indicator takes into account both hard factors that are quantifiable (such as R&D spending, number of patents) and soft factors like the assessment of preconditions for innovation by managers. We apply the methodology to a set of 17 industrialized countries on a yearly basis between 2007 and 2009. The indicator combines results from public opinion surveys on the process of change, social capital, trust and science and technology to achieve an assessment of a country's social climate for innovation. After calculating and ranking the innovation indictor scores for the 17 countries, we group them into three classes: innovation leader, middle group and end section. Using multiple sensitivity analysis approaches, we show that the indicator reacts robustly to different weights within these country groups. While leading countries like Switzerland, the USA and the Nordic countries have an innovation system with high scores and ranks in every sub indicator, the middle group consisting among others of Germany Japan, the UK and France, can be characterized by higher variation within ranks. In the end section, countries like Italy and Spain have bad scores for almost all indicators.

We develop a composite indicator measuring the performance of national innovation systems. The indicator takes into account both 'hard' factors that are quantifiable (such as R&D spending, number of patents) and 'soft' factors like the assessment of preconditions for innovation by managers. We apply the methodology to a set of 17 industrialized countries on a yearly basis between 2007 and 2009. The indicator combines results from public opinion surveys on the process of change, social capital, trust and science and technology to achieve an assessment of a country's social climate for innovation. After calculating and ranking the innovation indictor scores for the 17 countries, we group them into three classes: innovation leader, middle group and end section. Using multiple sensitivity analysis approaches, weshow that the indicator reacts robustly to different weights within these country groups. While leading countries like Switzerland, the USA and the Nordic countries have an innovation system with high scores and ranks in every sub indicator, the middle group consisting among others of Germany Japan, the UK and France, can be characterized by higher variation within ranks. In the end section, countries like Italy and Spain have bad scores for almost all indicators.

This paper studies technological change in renewable energies, providing empirical evidence on the determinants of innovative activity with a special emphasis on the role of knowledge spillovers. We investigate two major renewable energy technologies-wind and solar - across a panel of 21 OECD countries over the period 1978 to 2004. Spillovers may occur at the national level, either within the same technology field or economic sector (intra-sectoral spillovers) or in related technologies or sectors (inter-sectoral spillovers), or at the international level. We find that innovation is strongly driven by knowledge spillovers, especially those occurring at the national level. Wind and solar technologies exhibit distinct innovation characteristics: both are stimulated by intra-sectoral spillovers, but respond differently to inter-sectoral spillovers, which are only influential in the case of wind technology. We also find evidence that public R&D stimulates innovation, particularly in solar technologies. May 2010 Updated Version

Boone (2008a) proposes a new competition measure based on Relative Profit Differences (RPD) with superior theoretical properties. However, the empirical applicability and robust-ness of the Boone-Indicator is still unknown. This paper aims to address that question. Using a rich, newly built, data set for German manufacturing enterprises, we test the empirical valid-ity of the Boone-Indicator using cartel cases. Our analysis reveals that the traditional regres-sion approach of the indicator fails to correctly indicate competition. A proposed augmented indicator based on RPDs performs better. The traditional Lerner-Index is still the only meas-ure that correctly indicates the expected competitive changes.

In an increasingly competitive environment, firms have to optimally adjust both their allocation of input factors and their technology portfolio. The latter determines economies of scope and scale in future research and production. The aim of this dissertation is to achieve better insight into the strategies that firms employ and the impact of these strategies on performance. Hence, this thesis can be seen as having two parts. Chapters 2 and 3 center on the question of outsourcing, market structure and productivity, while Chapters 4 and 5 focus on the strategic alignment of firms and the efficient use of inputs in the knowledge production process, given product market entry restrictions. In Chapter 2 I evaluate whether firms experience significant productivity gains which decide to rearrange their production process by subcontracting in-house activities to outside suppliers. Here, I focus on the influence of service outsourcing, measured by the costs of external contract work. The chapter is based on a unique micro dataset for the German manufacturing sector. My findings suggest that service outsourcing can contribute significantly to a better performance of firms. Firms starting to outsource exhibit a seven percentage points higher growth rate than firms that decide to continue all production activities in-house. Chapter 3 looks at specific market characteristics that favor the outsourcing decision of firms. I test two main hypotheses which I derive from both transaction costs and production costs considerations. My empirical analysis focuses on the German automobile industry, which offers a particularly interesting example in this context since German-car makers have played an active role in restructuring the industry by means of outsourcing. Chapter 4 aims to examine the supply side in greater detail. More specifically, I discuss the impact of a firm’s technology portfolio on its performance, measured in terms of its market value. Based on an expanded Tobin’s q approach, I present evidence for a negative relationship between the number of fields and the market value, combined with a counterbalancing effect of relatedness. Enlarging the technology portfolio in unrelated fields negatively influences the market value of a firm due to the fact that it reduces the ability to exploit future economies of scale and scope. In contrast, diversifying into related areas increases the possibility to benefit from economies of scope, which reduces future costs and thereby increase future profits. The last chapter – at least to some extent – turns back to the question of optimal input allocation and puts the knowledge production process at the center of the analysis. In contrast to Chapter 4, where the focus lies on the alignment of the technology portfolio and the market value of firms, Chapter 5 takes a macroeconomic perspective and assesses the relative efficiency of knowledge production on the country level. Countries are exposed to an increasingly competitive environment, both in domestic and foreign markets for innovative products and future technologies. This process forces nations to continuously update their technological capabilities. Thus, in a globalized world, the efficient usage of the scarce resources devoted to R&D becomes more and more important. While most of the empirical literature affirms a positive link between R&D expenditure, the number of researchers and innovative output, far less attention has been paid to the question of whether the input factors in the knowledge creation process are allocated to their most efficient use. In Chapter 5 I fill the gap in two ways: First, I calculate the relative efficiency of public and private R&D expenditures in the OECD using a nonparametric efficiency analysis approach, the data envelopment analysis (DEA) technique. Using country level R&D and patent information, I present efficiency scores based on intertemporal frontier estimation for the period 1995 to 2004. Secondly, I take a closer look at the different market structures of these countries. In particular, I test the hypothesis that regulation reduces competition by raising barriers to entry, thereby lowering competitive pressure and the incentives to innovate efficiently. I examine the impact of countries’ product market regulation on their relative R&D efficiency by applying a consistent two stage truncated regression approach proposed by Simar and Wilson (2007).

This paper assesses the relative efficiency of knowledge production in the OECD using a nonparametric DEA approach. Resources allocated to R&D are limited and should therefore be used efficiently given the institutional and legal constraints. This paper presents efficiency scores based on an intertemporal frontier estimation for the period 1995 to 2004 and analyzes the impact of the regulatory environment using the single bootstrap procedure suggested by Simar and Wilson (2007). The empirical evidence supports the hypothesis that barriers to entry, aimed at reducing competition, lower research efficiency by attenuating the incentive to innovate and to allocate resources efficiently.

Nach der Jahrtausendwende ist die Internationalisierung von Produktion und FuE in multinationalen Unternehmen nicht nur in Deutschland weitgehend zum Stillstand gekommen. Die FuE-Aufwendungen dieser Unternehmen im Ausland sind nicht mehr, wie noch in der zweiten Hälfte der 90er Jahre, schneller gestiegen als im Heimatland. Nach 2005 gab es zunächst Anzeichen für eine Wiederbelebung der Direktinvestitionstätigkeit im Ausland führender Industrieländer und in der Folge auch der Internationalisierung von FuE. Im Zuge der weltweiten Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise ist die Internationalisierung der Produktion jedoch im Jahr 2008 wiederum gestoppt worden. Anhand von Informationen über die räumliche Verteilung und technologische Orientierung der FuE-Aktivitäten multinationaler Unternehmen aus den Patentanmeldungen am Europäischen Patentamt (EPO) einschließlich der PCT-Anmeldungen im Zeitraum 1990 bis 2005 wurde untersucht, ob die Internationalisierung von FuE in deutschen Unternehmen Hinweise auf Schwächen des Forschungsstandorts Deutschland in dynamischen Technologiefeldern gibt.

This paper analyzes research efficiency at the industry level in manufacturing for 13 European member and four nonmember countries during 2000 and 2004. A unique dataset was compiled that matches patent applications at the European Patent Office (EPO) to industry-specific R&D inputs from EU KLEMS. We find that Germany, the United States, and Denmark have the highest efficiency scores on average in total manufacturing. The main industries that are at the technology frontier are those involved in electrical and optical equipment and machinery. Separate frontier estimations for these industries, conducted without the constraint of a constant technology frontier, provide additional support for our results.

This paper discusses the impact of a firm's technology portfolio on its market value. Two concepts are used to characterize a firm's portfolio: the number of technological fields and the degree of relatedness within the portfolio characterized by the amount of joint occurrences of patents in technological fields. Based on a theoretical framework using an expanded Tobin's q approach, it presents evidence for a negative influence of portfolio size on the market value caused by a diminishing potential to make use of economies of scale. This discount can be counterbalanced when the relevant fields share a common technological base which is measured by the degree of technological relatedness.