Abstract
Using recent data drawn from the European Working Conditions Survey for 32 European countries, we explore the relationship between two indicators of knowledge diffusion processes —country-level R&D and individual-level ICT usage at work by entrepreneurs—, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), and individual-level entrepreneurial performance as measured by earnings. Our results show that country-level expenditures on R&D, entrepreneurs’ ICT use frequency at work, and IPR are all positively associated with earnings (and hence the quality) of individual entrepreneurs. However, we also find two intriguing moderation effects in the sense that IPR reduces both the positive relationship between country R&D and entrepreneurial earnings and the positive relationship between ICT usage and earnings. This suggests that too strict IPR legislation may hamper the diffusion of knowledge created by R&D, as well as limit the facilitating role of ICT usage in the exploitation of knowledge spillovers. Hence, governments need to carefully consider the level of IPR they want to install.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For a more extensive discussion on innovation and R&D policy in Europe, we refer to Van Stel et al. (2019).
- 2.
This figure varies substantially across European countries and is correlated with the level of economic development of the country’s economy. Thus, this figure rises above 2.5% in countries like Sweden, Austria, Germany, Denmark, and Finland. By contrast, this figure lies below 1% in countries such as Poland, Turkey, and Slovakia, Romania and Latvia (OECD 2019). This large cross-country variation can also be observed in Table 8.1.
- 3.
See Table 8.1
- 4.
Note that the present chapter focuses on high-income (i.e. European) countries.
- 5.
This Foundation is an autonomous body of the European Union (EU), created to assist in the formulation of future policy on social and work-related matters. Further information can be found at www.eurofound.europa.eu
- 6.
This set includes the EU-28 together with 5 candidate countries (Albania, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey) and 2 EFTA countries (Norway and Switzerland).
- 7.
The interviewer is asked to explain, if necessary, that net monthly earnings are the earnings at one’s disposal after taxes and social security contributions.
- 8.
PPS is the technical term used by Eurostat for the common (artificial) currency in which national accounts aggregates are expressed when adjusted for price level differences using PPPs. Thus, PPPs can be interpreted as the exchange rate of the PPS against the €.
- 9.
The WEF-EOS draws on the views of over 14,000 executives in over 140 economies and captures valuable information on a broad range of factors that are critical for a country’s competitiveness and sustainable development, and for which data sources are scarce or, frequently, non-existent on a global scale. Among several examples of otherwise unavailable data are the quality of the educational system, indicators measuring business sophistication, and labor market variables such as flexibility in wage determination. The Survey results are used in the calculation of the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) and other indexes of the WEF. Further information about WEF can be found at https://www.weforum.org. Further information about the GCI can be found at https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitiveness-report-2017-2018
- 10.
Results concerning the situation when the IPP indicator is above 4.62 can be achieved by adding marginal effects associated with GERD and the interaction term in Model 3 (i.e. 6.83–3.54).
- 11.
Results concerning the situation when the IPP indicator is above 4.62 can be achieved by adding marginal effects associated with ICT use and the interaction term in Model 3 (i.e. 2.58–2.57).
- 12.
Further information about the EFW index can be found at https://www.fraserinstitute.org/economic-freedom/approach. Further information about the Fraser Institute can be found at https://www.fraserinstitute.org
References
Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. The American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369–1401. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.5.1369.
Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. (2002). Reversal of fortune: Geography and institutions in the making of the modern world income distribution. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(4), 1231–1294. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355302320935025.
Acs, Z. J. (2006). How is entrepreneurship good for economic growth? Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(1), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1162/itgg.2006.1.1.97.
Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2013). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 757–774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9505-9.
Aerts, K., & Schmidt, T. (2008). Two for the price of one? Additionality effects of R&D subsidies: A comparison between Flanders and Germany. Research Policy, 37(5), 806–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.011.
Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1998). Endogenous growth theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2004). Entrepreneurship capital and economic performance. Regional Studies, 38(8), 949–959. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340042000280956.
Autio, E., & Acs, Z. (2010). Intellectual property protection and the formation of entrepreneurial growth aspirations. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(3), 234–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.93.
Bayo-Moriones, A., Billón, M., & Lera-López, F. (2013). Perceived performance effects of ICT in manufacturing SMEs. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 113(1), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571311289700.
Browne, C., Di Battista, A., Geiger, T., & Gutknecht, T. (2014). The Executive Opinion Survey: The voice of the business community. In K. Schwab (Ed.), The global competitiveness report 2014–2015 (pp. 85–96). Geneva: World Economic Forum.
Burke, A., & Fraser, S. (2012). Self-employment: the role of intellectual property right laws. Small Business Economics, 39(4), 819–833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9336-5.
Coe, D. T., & Helpman, E. (1995). International R&D spillovers. European Economic Review, 39(5), 859–887. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(94)00100-E.
Colombelli, A., & Quatraro, F. (2018). New firm formation and regional knowledge production modes: Italian evidence. Research Policy, 47(1), 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.006.
De Soto, H. (2000). The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the west and fails everywhere else. New York: Basic Books.
Deeds, D. L. (2001). The role of R&D intensity, technical development and absorptive capacity in creating entrepreneurial wealth in high technology start-ups. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 18(1), 29–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0923-4748(00)00032-1.
Denicoliò, V., & Franzoni, L. A. (2012). Weak intellectual property rights, research spillovers, and the incentive to innovate. American Law and Economics Review, 14(1), 111–140. https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahr017.
Easterly, W., & Levine, R. (1997). Africa’s growth tragedy: Policies and ethnic divisions. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), 1203–1250. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355300555466.
Elschner, C., Ernst, C., Licht, G., & Spengel, C. (2011). What the design of an R&D tax incentive tells about its effectiveness: A simulation of R&D tax incentives in the European Union. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 233–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-009-9146-y.
Erken, H., Donselaar, P., & Thurik, R. (2018). Total factor productivity and the role of entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(6), 1493–1521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9504-5.
Eurofound. (2012). Fifth European working conditions survey – Overview report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_document/ef1182en.pdf. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.
Eurofound. (2016). Sixth European working conditions survey – Overview report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_document/ef1634en.pdf. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.
Eurofound. (2018) European working conditions survey integrated data file, 1991–2015. [data collection]. 7th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 7363. https://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-7363-7
European Commission. (2017). The economic rationale for public R&I funding and its impact. Brussels: European Commission. https://op.europa.eu/es/publication-detail/-/publication/0635b07f-07bb-11e7-8a35-01aa75ed71a1. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.
Falvey, R., Foster, N., & Greenaway, D. (2006). Intellectual property rights and economic growth. Review of Development Economics, 10(4), 700–719. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9361.2006.00343.x.
Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 31(6), 899–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(01)00152-4.
Giotopoulos, I., Kontolaimou, A., Korra, E., & Tsakanikas, A. (2017). What drives ICT adoption by SMEs? Evidence from a large-scale survey in Greece. Journal of Business Research, 81, 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.08.007.
Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2019). Effectiveness of technology transfer policies and legislation in fostering entrepreneurial innovations across continents: an overview. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(5), 1347–1366.
Hall, B. H., Mairesse, J., & Mohnen, P. (2010). Measuring the returns to R&D. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (Vol. 2, pp. 1033–1082). Burlington: Academic. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7218(10)02008-3.
Haller, S., & Siedschlag, I. (2011). Determinants of ICT adoption: Evidence from firm-level data. Applied Economics, 43(26), 3775–3788. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036841003724411.
Hamilton, R. T. (2000). Does entrepreneurship pay? An empirical analysis of the returns to self-employment. Journal of Political Economy, 108(3), 604–631. https://doi.org/10.1086/262131.
Henrekson, M., & Sanandaji, T. (2018). Schumpeterian entrepreneurship in Europe compared to other industrialized regions. The International Review of Entrepreneurship, 16(2), 157–182.
Kao, C., Chiang, M.-H., & Chen, B. (1999). International R&D spillovers: An application of estimation and inference in panel cointegration. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(4), 693–711. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1691.
Kelly, R., & Kim, H. (2018). Venture capital as a catalyst for commercialization and high growth. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(6), 1466–1492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9540-1.
Krieger B, Licht G, & Pellens M (2018) New perspectives in European innovation policy. ZEW policy brief, No. 7/2018. Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung (ZEW), Mannheim. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/183222. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.
Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. (2018). Public cluster policy and performance. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(3), 558–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9626-4.
Liang, T., You, B., & Liu, C. (2010). A resource-based perspective on information technology and firm performance: A meta-analysis. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(8), 1138–1158. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571011077807.
Millán, J. M., Congregado, E., Román, C., van Praag, M., & van Stel, A. (2014). The value of an educated population for an individual’s entrepreneurship success. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(5), 612–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.09.003.
Millán, J. M., Lyalkov, S., Burke, A., Millán, A., & van Stel, A. (2021). ‘Digital divide’ among European entrepreneurs: Which types benefit most from ICT implementation? Journal of Business Research, 125, 533–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.034.
Millán, A., Millán, J. M., & Caçador-Rodrigues, L. (2020). Disclosing ‘masked employees’ in Europe: job control, job demands and job outcomes of ‘dependent self-employed workers’. Small Business Economics, 55(2), 461–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00245-7.
Mueller, P. (2007). Exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities: The impact of entrepreneurship on growth. Small Business Economics, 28(4), 355–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-9035-9.
OECD. (2015). The future of productivity. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264248533-en.
OECD. (2019) Gross domestic spending on R&D (indicator). https://doi.org/10.1787/d8b068b4-en. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.
Park, W. G., & Ginarte, J. C. (1997). Intellectual property rights and economic growth. Contemporary Economic Policy, 15(3), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1997.tb00477.x.
Parker, S. C. (2018). The economics of entrepreneurship. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316756706.
Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002–1037. https://doi.org/10.1086/261420.
Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. J Polit Econ, 98(5, Part 2), S71–S102. https://doi.org/10.1086/261725.
Schmitz, J. A., Jr. (1989). Imitation, entrepreneurship, and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 97(3), 721–739. https://doi.org/10.1086/261624.
Schneider, P. H. (2005). International trade, economic growth and intellectual property rights: A panel data study of developed and developing countries. Journal of Development Economics, 78(2), 529–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2004.09.001.
Shane, S. (2009). Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy. Small Business Economics, 33(2), 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9215-5.
Takalo, T. (2012). Rationales and instruments for public innovation policies. Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, 1, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-7092.2012.01.14.
Takalo, T., & Tanayama, T. (2010). Adverse selection and financing of innovation: is there a need for R&D subsidies? Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 16–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-009-9112-8.
Thompson, M. A., & Rushing, F. W. (1996). An empirical analysis of the impact of patent protection on economic growth. Journal of Economic Development, 21(2), 61–77. http://jed.or.kr/full-text/21-2/4.pdf. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.
Thompson, M. A., & Rushing, F. W. (1999). An empirical analysis of the impact of patent protection on economic growth: An Extension. Journal of Economic Development, 24(1), 67–76. http://jed.or.kr/full-text/24-1/thompson.PDF. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.
Tobin, J. (1958). Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica, 26(1), 24–36. https://doi.org/10.2307/1907382.
Van Praag, C. M. (2005). Successful entrepreneurship: Confronting economic theory with empirical practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Van Stel, A., Millán, J. M., & Román, C. (2014). Investigating the impact of the technological environment on survival chances of employer entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 43(4), 839–855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9565-5.
Van Stel, A., Millán, A., Millán, J. M., & Román, C. (2018). The relationship between start-up motive and earnings over the course of the entrepreneur’s business tenure. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 28(1), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-017-0499-3.
Van Stel, A., Lyalkov, S., Millán, A., & Millán, J. M. (2019). The moderating role of IPR on the relationship between country-level R&D and individual-level entrepreneurial performance. Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(5), 1427–1450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09731-2.
Xu, B., & Chiang, E. P. (2005). Trade, patents and international technology diffusion. The Journal of International Trade and Economic Development, 14(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/0963819042000333270.
Acknowledgments
All authors contributed equally to the manuscript. The authors would like to thank Andrew Burke and the book editors —Maribel Guerrero and David Urbano— for their insightful comments that contributed substantially to the development of this chapter. The current chapter is an extension of Van Stel et al. (2019), which is part of Serhiy Lyalkov’s doctoral dissertation (written in the framework of the Ph.D. Program in Economics, Business, Finance and Computer Science at the University of Huelva and the International University of Andalusia, Spain). The role of ICT use frequency at work by entrepreneurs in relation to IPR and entrepreneurial performance is the main novel element relative to the original publication. At the time of writing, Ana Millán was lecturer at the Department of Financial Economics and Accounting, Pablo de Olavide University, Sevilla, Spain. This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad) under research projects ECO2017-86305-C4-2-R and ECO2017-86402-C2-2-R; the Ministry of Economy and Knowledge of the Andalusian Regional Government (Junta de Andalucía-Consejería de Economía y Conocimiento) through Research Group SEJ-487 (Spanish Entrepreneurship Research Group – SERG), and Andalusia ERDF 2014–20 Operational Programme (Programa Operativo FEDER Andalucía 2014–20) under University of Huelva research project UHU-1265299; and University of Huelva through Research and Transfer Policy Strategies (Estrategias de Política de Investigación y Transferencia).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van Stel, A., Barrientos-Marín, J., Lyalkov, S., Millán, A., Millán, J.M. (2021). How IPR Can Shape Knowledge Diffusion Processes in Europe. In: Guerrero, M., Urbano, D. (eds) Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurial Innovations. International Studies in Entrepreneurship, vol 51. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70022-5_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70022-5_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-70021-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-70022-5
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)