Innovation and economic performance of the firms in the service sector: relevant issues and open problems

This thesis is a collection of essays related to the topic of innovation in the service sector. The choice of this structure is functional to the purpose of single out some of the relevant issues and try to tackle them, revising first the state of the literature and then proposing a way forward. Three relevant issues has been therefore selected: (i) the definition of innovation in the service sector and the connected question of measurement of innovation; (ii) the issue of productivity in services; (iii) the classification of innovative firms in the service sector. Facing the first issue, chapter II shows how the initial width of the original Schumpeterian definition of innovation has been narrowed and then passed to the service sector form the manufacturing one in a reduce technological form. Chapter III tackle the issue of productivity in services, discussing the difficulties for measuring productivity in a context where the output is often immaterial. We reconstruct the dispute on the Baumol’s cost disease argument and propose two different ways to go forward in the research on productivity in services: redefining the output along the line of a characteristic approach; and redefining the inputs, particularly analysing which kind of input it’s worth saving. Chapter IV derives an integrated taxonomy of innovative service and manufacturing firms, using data coming from the 2008 CIS survey for Italy. This taxonomy is based on the enlarged definition of “innovative firm” deriving from the Schumpeterian definition of innovation and classify firms using a cluster analysis techniques. The result is the emergence of a four cluster solution, where firms are differentiated by the breadth of the innovation activities in which they are involved. Chapter 5 reports some of the main conclusions of each singular previous chapter and the points worth of further research in the future.

The abuse of intellectual property rights and regulations in China: a law and economic analysis

From the institutional point of view, the legal system of IPR (intellectual property right, hereafter, IPR) is one of incentive institutions of innovation and it plays very important role in the development of economy. According to the law, the owner of the IPR enjoy a kind of exclusive right to use his IP(intellectual property, hereafter, IP), in other words, he enjoys a kind of legal monopoly position in the market. How to well protect the IPR and at the same time to regulate the abuse of IPR is very interested topic in this knowledge-orientated market and it is the basic research question in this dissertation. In this paper, by way of comparing study and by way of law and economic analyses, and based on the Austrian Economics School’s theories, the writer claims that there is no any contradiction between the IPR and competition law. However, in this new economy (high-technology industries), there is really probability of the owner of IPR to abuse his dominant position. And with the characteristics of the new economy, such as, the high rates of innovation, “instant scalability”, network externality and lock-in effects, the IPR “will vest the dominant undertakings with the power not just to monopolize the market but to shift such power from one market to another, to create strong barriers to enter and, in so doing, granting the perpetuation of such dominance for quite a long time.”1 Therefore, in order to keep the order of market, to vitalize the competition and innovation, and to benefit the customer, in EU and US, it is common ways to apply the competition law to regulate the IPR abuse. In Austrian Economic School perspective, especially the Schumpeterian theories, the innovation/competition/monopoly and entrepreneurship are inter-correlated, therefore, we should apply the dynamic antitrust model based on the AES theories to analysis the relationship between the IPR and competition law. China is still a developing country with relative not so high ability of innovation. Therefore, at present, to protect the IPR and to make good use of the incentive mechanism of IPR legal system is the first important task for Chinese government to do. However, according to the investigation reports,2 based on their IPR advantage and capital advantage, some multinational companies really obtained the dominant or monopoly market position in some aspects of some industries, and there are some IPR abuses conducted by such multinational companies. And then, the Chinese government should be paying close attention to regulate any IPR abuse. However, how to effectively regulate the IPR abuse by way of competition law in Chinese situation, from the law and economic theories’ perspective, from the legislation perspective, and from the judicial practice perspective, there is a long way for China to go!

Understanding the Combined Role of Internal and External Factors in New Service Development Process within the Professional Knowledge Intensive Business Service Firms

Our research asked the following main questions: how the characteristics of professionals service firms allow them to successfully innovate in exploiting through exploring by combining internal and external factors of innovation and how these ambidextrous organisations perceive these factors; and how do successful innovators in professional service firms use corporate entrepreneurship models in their new service development processes? With a goal to shed light on innovation in professional knowledge intensive business service firms’ (PKIBS), we concluded a qualitative analysis of ten globally acting law firms, providing business legal services. We analyse the internal and factors of innovation that are critical for PKIBS’ innovation. We suggest how these firms become ambidextrous in changing environment. Our findings show that this kind of firms has particular type of ambidexterity due to their specific characteristics. As PKIBS are very dependant on its human capital, governance structure, and the high expectations of their clients, their ambidexterity is structural, but also contextual at the same time. In addition, we suggest 3 types of corporate entrepreneurship models that international PKIBS use to enhance innovation in turbulent environments. We looked at how law firms going through turbulent environments were using corporate entrepreneurship activities as a part of their strategies to be more innovative. Using visual mapping methodology, we developed three types of innovation patterns in the law firms. We suggest that corporate entrepreneurship models depend on successful application of mainly three elements: who participates in corporate entrepreneurship initiatives; what are the formal processes that enhances these initiatives; and what are the policies applied to this type of behaviour.