Innovation paradoxes: a review and typology of explanations

References

• Acs, Z. and Varga, A. (2002) ‘Geography, endogenous growth, and innovation’, International Regional Science Review, 25, 1, pp.132–48. doi:10.1177/016001702762039484
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aghion, P. and Howitt, P. (1992) ‘A model of growth through creative destruction’, Econometrica, 60, 2, pp.323–51. doi:10.2307/2951599
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albarrán, P., Crespo, J., Ortuno, I. and Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2010) ‘A comparison of the scientific performance of the US and the European Union at the turn of the 21st century’, Scientometrics, 85, 1, pp.329–44. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0223-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Archibugi, D. and Coco, A. (2005) ‘Is Europe becoming the most dynamic knowledge economy in the world?’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 43, 3, pp.433–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asheim, B. and Gertler, M. (2005)‘The geography of innovation: regional innovation systems’ in Fagerberg, J., et al. (eds) Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Audretsch, D. (2009a) ‘From knowledge to innovation: resolving the “European paradox”’ in Marklund, G., Vonortas, N. and Wessner, C. (eds) Innovation Imperative: National Innovation Strategies in the Global Economy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
   Google Scholar
• Audretsch, D. (2009b) ‘The entrepreneurial society’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 3, pp.245–54. doi:10.1007/s10961-008-9101-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Audretsch, D. and Keilbach, M. (2008) ‘Resolving the knowledge paradox: knowledge-spillover entrepreneurship and economic growth’, Research Policy, 37, 10, pp.1697–705. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.08.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, A. (2003) ‘Biotechnology’s growth–innovation paradox and the new model for success’, Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 9, 4, pp.286–88. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jcb.3040038
   Google Scholar
• Bitard, P., Edquist, C., Hommen, L. and Rickne, A. (2008) ‘Reconsidering the paradox of high R&D input and low innovation: Sweden’ in Edquist, C. and Hommen, L. (eds) Small Country Innovation Systems: Globalization, Change and Policy in Asia and Europe, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
   Google Scholar
• Bogers, M. (2011) ‘The open innovation paradox: knowledge sharing and protection in R&D collaborations’, European Journal of Innovation Management, 14, 1, pp.93–117. doi:10.1108/14601061111104715
   Google Scholar
• Bonaccorsi, A. (2007) ‘Explaining poor performance of European science: institutions versus policies’, Science and Public Policy 34, 5, pp.303–16. doi:10.3152/030234207X229411
   Google Scholar
• Bonaccorsi, A. (2011) ‘European competitiveness in information technology and long-term scientific performance’, Science and Public Policy, 38, 7, pp.521–40. doi:10.3152/030234211X12960315268010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breznitz, D. and Ornston, D. (forthcoming) ‘The politics of partial success: fostering innovation in innovation policy in an era of heightened public scrutiny’, Socio-Economic Review.
   Google Scholar
• Brynjolfsson, E. (1993) ‘The productivity paradox of information technology: review and assessment’, Communications of the ACM 36, 12, pp.66–77. doi:10.1145/163298.163309
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caracoustas, P. and Soete, L. (1997) ‘The building of cross-border institutions in Europe: towards a European system of innovation?’ in Edquist, C. (ed.) Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, Pinter, London.
   Google Scholar
• Castellacci, F. (2007) ‘Evolutionary and new growth theories. Are they converging?’, Journal of Economic Surveys, 21, 3, pp.585–627. doi:10.1111/joes.2007.21.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castellacci, F. (2008) ‘Innovation in Norway in a European perspective’, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, 34, pp.1–42.
   Google Scholar
• Chaminade, C., Zabala, J. and Treccani, A. (2010) The swedish national innovation system and its relevance for the emergence of global innovation networks, Working Paper 2010/09, Centre for Innovation, Research and Competence in the Learning Economy, Lund University, available at http://wp.circle.lu.se/upload/CIRCLE/workingpapers/201009_Chaminade_Zabala_Treccani.pdf [accessed July 2018].
   Google Scholar
• Christopherson, S. and Clark, J. (2007) Remaking Regional Economies: Power, Labor, and Firm Strategies in the Knowledge Economy, Routledge, London.
   Google Scholar
• Cirera, X. and Maloney, W. (2017) The Innovation Paradox: Developing-Country Capabilities and the Unrealized Promise of Technological Catch-Up, World Bank Publications, Washington DC.
   Google Scholar
• Conti, A. and Gaule, P. (2011) ‘Is the US outperforming Europe in university technology licensing? A new perspective on the European Paradox’, Research Policy, 40, 1, pp.123–35. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.10.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, H. (1988) ‘Organizing knowledge syntheses: a taxonomy of literature reviews’, Knowledge, Technology and Policy, 1, 1, pp.104–26. doi:10.1007/BF03177550
   Google Scholar
• David, P. (1990) ‘The dynamo and the computer: an historical perspective on the modern productivity paradox’, American Economic Review, 80, 2, pp.355–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dedrick, J. and Kraemer, K. (2015) ‘Who captures value from science-based innovation? The distribution of benefits from GMR in the hard disk drive industry’, Research Policy, 44, 8, pp.1615–28. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dosi, G., Llerena, P. and Labini, M. (2006) ‘The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: an illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called “European paradox”’, Research Policy, 35, 10, pp.1450–64. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dosi, G., Llerena, P. and Labini, S. (2009) ‘Does the “European paradox” still hold? Did it ever?’ in Delanghe, H., et al. (ed.) European Science and Technology Policy Towards Integration or Fragmentation? Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
   Google Scholar
• Edquist, C. (2005) ‘Systems of innovation: perspectives and challenges’ in Fagerberg, J., et al. (ed.) Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Edquist, C. (2010) The Swedish paradox: unexploited opportunities!, Working Paper 2010/05, Centre for Innovation, Research and Competence in the Learning Economy, Lund University, available at https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/38494199/the-swedish-paradox-a-unexploited-opportunities [accessed July 2018].
   Google Scholar
• Edquist, C. (2014) ‘Striving towards a holistic innovation policy in European countries - but linearity still prevails!’, STI Policy Review. 5, 2, pp.1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Edquist, C. and Hommen, L. (2008) Small Country Innovation Systems: Globalization, Change and Policy in Asia and Europe, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
   Google Scholar
• Edquist, C. and McKelvey, M. (1998) ‘High R&D intensity without high tech products: a Swedish paradox?’ in Nielsen, K. and Johnson, B. (eds) Institutions and Economic Change, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
   Google Scholar
• Edquist, C. and Zabala-Iturriagagoita, J. (2015) The Innovation Union Scoreboard Is Flawed: The Case of Sweden - Not the Innovation Leader of the EU, Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/27 CIRCLE, Lund University.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, K. (1989) ‘Building theories from case study research’, Academy of Management Review, 14, 4, pp.532–50. doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ejermo, O. and Kander, A. (2006) ‘The Swedish paradox’ paper presented at DRUID Summer Conference on Knowledge, Innovation and Competitiveness: Dynamics of Firms, Networks, Regions and Institutions, Copenhagen Business School, June.
   Google Scholar
• Ejermo, O. and Kander, A. (2009) ‘The Swedish paradox revisited’ in Karlsson, C., Johansson, B. and Stough, R. (eds) Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Functional Regions, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
   Google Scholar
• Ejermo, O. and Kander, A. (2011) ‘Swedish business research productivity’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 20, 4, pp.1081–118. doi:10.1093/icc/dtr023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ejermo, O., Kander, A. and Henning, M. (2011) ‘The R&D-growth paradox arises in fast-growing sectors’, Research Policy, 40, 5, pp.664–72. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Etchemendy, J. (1999) ‘Paradox’ in Audi, R. R. (ed.) Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.558–59.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (1995) Green Paper on Innovation, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2003) Third European Report on Science and Technology Indicators: Towards a Knowledge-based Economy, Directorate-General for Research, Luxembourg.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (2007) Improving Knowledge Transfer between Research Institutions and Industry across Europe, Directorate-General for Research, Luxembourg.
   Google Scholar
• Fagerberg, J. (2003) ‘Schumpeter and the revival of evolutionary economics: an appraisal of the literature’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 13, 2, pp.125–59, doi:10.1007/s00191-003-0144-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagerberg, J. (2005) ‘Innovation: a guide to the literature’ in Fagerberg, J., et al. (ed.) Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Fagerberg, J., Martin, B. and Andersen, E., (eds) (2013) Innovation Studies: Evolution and Future Challenges, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, M. (1999) ‘The new economics of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration: a review of empirical studies’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 8, 1–2, pp.5–25. doi:10.1080/10438599900000002
   Google Scholar
• Fogel, R. (1964) Railroads and American Economic Growth: Essays in Econometric History, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore MD.
   Google Scholar
• Fragkandreas, T. (2013) ‘When innovation does not pay off: introducing the “European regional paradox”’, European Planning Studies, 21, 12, pp.2078–86. doi:10.1080/09654313.2012.741566
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeman, C. (1994a) ‘Innovation and growth’ in Dodgson, M. and Rothwell, R. (eds) Handbook of Industrial Innovation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, C. (1994b) ‘The economics of technical change’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 18, 5, pp.463–514. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035286
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gackstatter, S., Kotzemir, M. and Meissner, D. (2014) ‘Building an innovation-driven economy -the case of BRIC and GCC countries’, Foresight, 16, 4, pp.293–308. doi:10.1108/FS-09-2012-0063
   Google Scholar
• Geuna, A. and Rossi, F. (2011) ‘Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting’, Research Policy, 40, 8, pp.1068–76. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies of Qualitative Research, Wiedenfeld and Nicholson, London.
   Google Scholar
• Goldfarb, B. and Henrekson, M. (2003) ‘Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property’, Research Policy, 32, 4, pp.639–58. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00034-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granberg, A. and Jacobsson, S. (2006) ‘Myths or reality-a scrutiny of dominant beliefs in the Swedish science policy debate’, Science and Public Policy, 33, 5, pp.321–40. doi:10.3152/147154306781778894
   Google Scholar
• Grønning, T., Moen, S. and Olsen, D. (2008) ‘Low innovation intensity, high growth and specialized trajectories: Norway’ in Edquist, C. and Hommen, L. (eds) Small Country Innovation Systems, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
   Google Scholar
• Grossman, G. and Helpman, E. (1994) ‘Endogenous innovation in the theory of growth’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 1, pp.23–44. doi:10.1257/jep.8.1.23
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliwell, J. and Smith, W. (2011) ‘Paradox and potential: trends in science policy and practice in Canada and New Zealand’, Prometheus, 29, 4, pp.373–91. doi:10.1080/08109028.2011.641385
   Google Scholar
• Haour, G. (2004) Resolving the Innovation Paradox: Enhancing Growth in Technology Companies, Palgrave Mcmillan, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Hellström, T. and Jacob, M. (2005) ‘Taming unruly science and saving national competitiveness: discourses on science by Sweden’s strategic research bodies’, Science, Technology and Human Values, 30, 4, pp.443–67. doi:10.1177/0162243905276504
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henrekson, M. and Jakobsson, U. (2001) ‘Where Schumpeter was nearly right - the Swedish model and capitalism, socialism and democracy’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 11, 3, pp.331–58. doi:10.1007/s001910100082
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henrekson, M. and Rosenberg, N. (2001) ‘Designing efficient institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: lessons from the US and Sweden’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 3, pp.207–31. doi:10.1023/A:1011153922906
   Google Scholar
• Herranz, N. and Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2013) ‘The end of the European Paradox’, Scientometrics, 95, 1, pp.453–64. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0865-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobsson, S., Lindholm-Dahlstrand, Å. and Elg, L. (2013) ‘Is the commercialization of European academic R&D weak? A critical assessment of a dominant belief and associated policy responses’, Research Policy, 42, 4, pp.874–85. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.01.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobsson, S. and Rickne, A. (2004) ‘How large is the Swedish “academic” sector really? A critical analysis of the use of science and technology indicators’, Research Policy, 33, 9, pp.1355–72. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, C. (1995) ‘R&D-based models of economic growth’, Journal of Political Economy, 103, 4, pp.759–84. doi:10.1086/262002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kattel, R. and Primi, A. (2012) ‘The periphery paradox in innovation policy: Latin America and Eastern Europe compared’ in Boschi, R. and Santana, C. (eds) Development and Semi-Periphery: Post-Neoliberal Trajectories in South America and Central Eastern Europe, Anthem Press, London, pp.265–304.
   Google Scholar
• Kitagawa, F. and Woolgar, L. (2008) ‘Regionalisation of innovation policies and new university–industry links in Japan: policy review and new trends’, Prometheus, 26, 1, pp.55–67. doi:10.1080/08109020701846033
   Google Scholar
• Kline, S. and Rosenberg, N. (1986) ‘An overview of innovation’ in Landau, R. and Rosenberg, N. (eds) The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth, National Academy Press, Washington DC.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, T. (1997) Economics and Reality, Routledge, London.
   Google Scholar
• Lawton Smith, H., Lindholm Dahlstrand, Å. and Baines, N. (2013) ‘Reconsidering the professor’s privilege: university technology transfer in Sweden and the UK’, paper presented to the Innovation, High-growth Entrepreneurship and Regional Development conference, Kansas, June.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, Z. and Laperche, B. (2015) ‘The knowledge capital of SMEs: the French paradox’, Journal of Innovation Economics and Management, 17, 2, pp.27–48. doi:10.3917/jie.017.0027
   Google Scholar
• Lundberg, E. (1985) ‘The rise and fall of the Swedish model’, Journal of Economic Literature, 23, 1, pp.1–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macdonald, S., Anderson, P. and Kimbel, D. (2000) ‘Measurement or management? Revisiting the productivity paradox of information technology’, Vierteljahrshefte Zur Wirtschaftsforschung, 69, 4, pp.601–17. doi:10.3790/vjh.69.4.601
   Google Scholar
• Makkonen, T. and Inkinen, T. (2013) ‘Innovative capacity, educational attainment and economic development in the European Union: causal relations and geographical variations’, European Planning Studies, 21, 12, pp.1958–76. doi:10.1080/09654313.2012.722968
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makkonen, T. and Mitze, T. (forthcoming) ‘Deconstructing the education-innovation-development nexus in the EU-28 using panel causality and poolability tests’, Journal of the Knowledge Economy.
   Google Scholar
• Marceau, J. (2000) ‘Innovation and industry development: a policy-relevant analytical framework’, Prometheus, 18, 3, pp.283–301. doi:10.1080/713692068
   Google Scholar
• Marklund, G., Nillson, R. and Sandgren, P. (2004) The Swedish National Innovation System 1970–2003: A Quantitative International Benchmarking Analysis, VINNOVA, Stockholm.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, R. (2012) ‘The evolution of science policy and innovation studies’, Research Policy, 41, 7, pp.1219–39. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, K. (2004) ‘The exaggerated death of geography: learning, proximity and territorial innovation systems’, Journal of Economic Geography, 4, 1, pp.3–21. doi:10.1093/jeg/4.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Belknap Press, Cambridge MA.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, K. (2003) ‘Social capital and the evaluation of innovation policies’, International Journal of Technology Management, 26, 2–4, pp.205–25. doi:10.1504/IJTM.2003.003370
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ortega-Argilés, R., Vivarelli, M. and Voigt, P. (2009) ‘R&D in SMEs: a paradox?’, Small Business Economics, 33, 1, pp.3–11. doi:10.1007/s11187-009-9187-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oughton, C., Landabaso, M. and Morgan, K. (2002) ‘The regional innovation paradox: innovation policy and industrial policy’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 27, 1, pp.97–110. doi:10.1023/A:1013104805703
   Google Scholar
• Pavitt, K. (2000) ‘Why European union funding of academic research should be increased: a radical proposal’, Science and Public Policy, 27, 6, pp.455–60. doi:10.3152/147154300781781779
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, R. and Valliere, D. (2008) ‘Entrepreneurship and national economic growth: the European entrepreneurial deficit’, European Journal of International Management, 2, 4, pp.471–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pianta, M.(2005) ‘Innovation and employment’ in Fagerberg, J., et al. (eds) Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, M. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Macmillan, London.
   Google Scholar
• Radicic, D. and Pugh, G. (2017) ‘R&D programmes, policy mix, and the ‘European paradox’: evidence from European SMEs’, Science and Public Policy, 44, 4, pp.497–512.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-Navarro, A. and Narin, F. (2018) ‘European paradox or delusion - are European science and economy outdated?’, Science and Public Policy, 41, 1, pp.14–23. doi:10.1093/scipol/scx021
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, E. (2003) Diffusion of Innovation, Free Press, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Romer, P. (1990) ‘Endogenous technological change’, Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1, pp.S71–102. doi:10.1086/261725
   Google Scholar
• Schumpeter, J. (1934 /2008) The Theory of Economic Development, Transaction Publishers, London.
   Google Scholar
• Solow, R. (1987) ‘We’d better watch out’, New York Review of Books, 36.
   Google Scholar
• Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2005) Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and organizational change, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Tijssen, R. and Van Wijk, E. (1999) ‘In search of the European paradox: an international comparison of Europe’s scientific performance and knowledge flows in information and communication technologies research’, Research Policy, 28, 5, pp.519–43. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00011-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Panne, G., Van Beers, C. and Kleinknecht, A. (2003) ‘Success and failure of innovation: a literature review’, International Journal of Innovation Management, 7, 3, pp.309–38. doi:10.1142/S1363919603000830
   Google Scholar
• Verspagen, B. (2005) ‘Innovation and economic growth’ in Fagerberg, J., et al. (eds) Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
   Google Scholar