1,720,991 research outputs found
Italy
No full textThe preponderance of small firms is a well-known characteristic of the Italian economy. One of the most important pillars of the economy is the production of high-quality products such as in the machinery, textiles, industrial designs, alimentary and furniture sectors. Italy is performing well with regards to GDP per capita as compared to Regional and EU-28 mean. With regards to the total number of new PhD graduates in the total share of the active population, Italy stands slightly better than the EU-28, while only equal to the Regional mean. Consistent with the Adriatic Region as a whole, Italian SMEs show a relatively poor level of internationalisation, with the dominant presence being on the national market, followed by the presence in Western, Central and Eastern Europe. The level of received support through innovation incentives from the government, Regional authorities and the EU is low for all measured forms of financing in both Italy and the Adriatic Region as a whole. In most cases, financial support came from local or Regional authorities
Italy
No full textThe preponderance of small firms is a well-known characteristic of the Italian economy. One of the most important pillars of the economy is the production of high-quality products such as in the machinery, textiles, industrial designs, alimentary and furniture sectors. Italy is performing well with regards to GDP per capita as compared to Regional and EU-28 mean. With regards to the total number of new PhD graduates in the total share of the active population, Italy stands slightly better than the EU-28, while only equal to the Regional mean. Consistent with the Adriatic Region as a whole, Italian SMEs show a relatively poor level of internationalisation, with the dominant presence being on the national market, followed by the presence in Western, Central and Eastern Europe. The level of received support through innovation incentives from the government, Regional authorities and the EU is low for all measured forms of financing in both Italy and the Adriatic Region as a whole. In most cases, financial support came from local or Regional authorities
Italy
No full textThe preponderance of small firms is a well-known characteristic of the Italian economy. One of the most important pillars of the economy is the production of high-quality products such as in the machinery, textiles, industrial designs, alimentary and furniture sectors. Italy is performing well with regards to GDP per capita as compared to Regional and EU-28 mean. With regards to the total number of new PhD graduates in the total share of the active population, Italy stands slightly better than the EU-28, while only equal to the Regional mean. Consistent with the Adriatic Region as a whole, Italian SMEs show a relatively poor level of internationalisation, with the dominant presence being on the national market, followed by the presence in Western, Central and Eastern Europe. The level of received support through innovation incentives from the government, Regional authorities and the EU is low for all measured forms of financing in both Italy and the Adriatic Region as a whole. In most cases, financial support came from local or Regional authorities
The effect of local and global linkages on the innovativeness in ICT SMEs: does location-specific context matter?
No full textCountries differ significantly with regard to the location-specific contexts in which they are embedded. The aim of this paper is to extend the discussion on the effects of local and global innovation collaborations on the degree of novelty of innovation by considering this context. Our main question is: Does embeddedness in the developed or emerging country context affect the likelihood of benefiting from local or global linkages for innovations with higher novelty?
The paper is based on data gathered through a survey of firms in the ICT sector in an emerging economy (India) context and from two Scandinavian countries (Sweden and Norway). The findings of this study show that global linkages do indeed impact the degree of novelty of innovation. However, country context does have a moderating effect. While the effect of global linkages is highly positive on the innovativeness of Scandinavian firms, for the Indian SMEs, the linkages that give novel innovations are the regional ones
Interestingness in entrepreneurship research: international isomorphism and/or contextual heterogeneity?
No full textOver the last five decades entrepreneurship research has grown from a small isolated group of scholars, mainly from the USA, to a global scholarly community. The globalization has had significant consequences for research, not least when it comes to what scholars in different parts of the world perceive as interesting. Based on the partly contradictory arguments regarding an “international isomorphism” versus a “contextual heterogeneity” in entrepreneurship research, the aims of the present study are to (1) explore how entrepreneurship scholars in different geographic regions perceive interestingness and (2) discuss the consequences of the perception of interestingness for the future development of the field. The study is based on a unique database and web-based responses from 915 entrepreneurship scholars. In the study we find a strong “international isomorphism” among entrepreneurship scholars, i.e., entrepreneurship scholars around the world tend to perceive interestingness in a rather similar way. The “international isomorphism” can be explained by increased field- and academic-related institutionalization, and we provide some suggestions for how to balance the contradiction between contextual heterogeneity in reality and academic internationalization in entrepreneurship research
“That’s Interesting!” in Entrepreneurship Research
No full textIn order for a work on entrepreneurship to be published and attract attention, it must be interesting. The aims of this study are to understand why entrepreneurship scholars perceive entrepreneurship studies as interesting, what they consider interesting, and how they distinguish themselves from management scholars in their perception of interestingness. The study is based on responses from 915 entrepreneurship scholars. Our results contribute to empirically nuancing the dimensions that scholars perceive as interesting, and also to identifying groups of entrepreneurship scholars that perceive interestingness in different ways, and to demonstrating the similarities and differences between entrepreneurship and management scholars
Entrepreneurship: Exploring the knowledge base
No full textEntrepreneurship research has a long tradition and since the 1980s the field has grown significantly. In this study we identify the ‘knowledge producers’ who have shaped the field over time and their core entrepreneurship research works. A unique database consisting of all references in twelve entrepreneurship ‘handbooks’ (or state-of-the-art books) has been developed. The chapters in these handbooks were written by experts within the field, and it can be assumed that the most frequently cited references represent ‘core knowledge’ with relevance to entrepreneurship research.
From our analysis, it appears that entrepreneurship is a rather changeable field of research, closely linked to disciplines such as ‘management studies’ and ‘economics’. Over time, the field has become more formalized with its own core knowledge, research specialities and an increasing number of ‘insider works’. However, it is still based on some fairly old theoretical frameworks imported from mainstream disciplines, although during the last decade we have seen the emergence of a number of new field-specific concepts and theories. We argue that to successfully develop entrepreneurship research in the future, we need to relate new research opportunities to earlier knowledge within the field, which calls for a stronger ‘knowledge-based’ focus. We would also like to see greater integration between the fields of entrepreneurship and innovation studies in the future
Exploring the relation between the degree of novelty of innovations and user-producer interaction across different income regions
No full textUser–producer interactions have been recognized as important for innovation. With the rapid growth of emerging economies’ markets, and an increasing degree of technological sophistication of both users and producers in those markets, user–producer interaction is becoming global. Using original firm-level data, this paper explores how collaboration with users in different income regions affects the degree of innovations’ novelty. We find that collaborating with international users is positively related to higher degrees of novelty. Furthermore, firms in low- and middle income countries will benefit more from south–south user collaboration than a south–north one
Innovation and entrepreneurship studies: one or two fields of research
No full textAs we have moved towards a more knowledge intensive society, innovation and industrial dynamics have grown in importance over the last 40-50 years. We are frequently using concepts such as innovation and entrepreneurship, and the way we perceive and define these concepts will to a high extent influence our way of thinking and acting. Depending on the way we define these concepts, we will tend to use different knowledge-bases when acting as policy-makers, or as researchers. Therefore, it becomes important to elaborate on the knowledge bases that we have within the fields of innovation and entrepreneurship. This study we elaborate on the question: Can innovation and entrepreneurship be seen as one or two fields of research? We will elaborate on this issue by comparing the core works in innovation and entrepreneurship studies respectively, as identified by Fagerberg et al. (Research Policy 41(7):1121–1131, 2012a) and Landström et al. (Research Policy 41(7):1154–1181, 2012), asking the questions: Who are the leading knowledge producers and the core works in the two fields? Are there overlaps in the literature used? and Can the existence or absence of overlaps tell us anything about to what extent innovation and entrepreneurship studies can be considered as two fields or parts of a single broader scientific field, sharing and contributing to the same knowledge base? The studies by Fagerberg et al. and Landström et al. are based on two unique databases consisting of all references in twelve “state-of-the-art” books in entrepreneurship studies and eleven books in innovation studies. The chapters in these “state-of-the-art” books are written by experts within the field, and it can be assumed that the most frequently cited references in these chapters represent “core knowledge” in entrepreneurship and innovation research. The study shows that we are talking about two more or less separate fields of research. Despite common roots in Schumpeter and some interrelated works, the two fields seem to have drifted apart over the last decades. However, there seems to be some elements of overlaps, for example, in the interest in the evolutionary approaches and in geographic differences in innovation and entrepreneurship, but also in an interest in topics such as innovation management (corporate entrepreneurship) and in technology-based ventures
Innovation and entrepreneurship studies: one or two fields of research?
Full text linkAs we have moved towards a more knowledge intensive society, innovation and industrial dynamics have grown in importance over the last 40-50 years. We are frequently using concepts such as innovation and entrepreneurship, and the way we perceive and define these concepts will to a high extent influence our way of thinking and acting. Depending on the way we define these concepts, we will tend to use different knowledge-bases when acting as policy-makers, or as researchers. Therefore, it becomes important to elaborate on the knowledge bases that we have within the fields of innovation and entrepreneurship. This study we elaborate on the question: Can innovation and entrepreneurship be seen as one or two fields of research? We will elaborate on this issue by comparing the core works in innovation and entrepreneurship studies respectively, as identified by Fagerberg et al. (Research Policy 41(7):1121–1131, 2012a) and Landström et al. (Research Policy 41(7):1154–1181, 2012), asking the questions: Who are the leading knowledge producers and the core works in the two fields? Are there overlaps in the literature used? and Can the existence or absence of overlaps tell us anything about to what extent innovation and entrepreneurship studies can be considered as two fields or parts of a single broader scientific field, sharing and contributing to the same knowledge base? The studies by Fagerberg et al. and Landström et al. are based on two unique databases consisting of all references in twelve “state-of-the-art” books in entrepreneurship studies and eleven books in innovation studies. The chapters in these “state-of-the-art” books are written by experts within the field, and it can be assumed that the most frequently cited references in these chapters represent “core knowledge” in entrepreneurship and innovation research. The study shows that we are talking about two more or less separate fields of research. Despite common roots in Schumpeter and some interrelated works, the two fields seem to have drifted apart over the last decades. However, there seems to be some elements of overlaps, for example, in the interest in the evolutionary approaches and in geographic differences in innovation and entrepreneurship, but also in an interest in topics such as innovation management (corporate entrepreneurship) and in technology-based ventures
- …
