Introduction: The new meanings of innovation

  • Massimiliano Granieri
  • Andrea Renda
Part of the Sxi — Springer for Innovation / Sxi — Springer per l’Innovazione book series (SXIINNO)


In this section we look at the changing meaning of innovation and innovation policy. We show that the modes of innovation have shifted from traditional, single-firm patterns to systemic and collaborative patterns; from proprietary to modular and granular models; from supply-led innovation to co-innovation and user innovation; and from closed to semi-open and (almost fully) open business models. We also explain the emerging governance of innovation policy for the 21st century, by describing the role of a wide variety of actors, from businesses to small firms, entrepreneurs, angel investors, venture capitalists, universities and research institutions, government and networked individuals. At the same time, we describe the emerging eco-systemic, holistic view of innovation, the changing role of government in innovation policy and the new “credos” of demand-side innovation policy, regional innovation systems, smart cities and smart specialisation.


Venture Capitalist Open Innovation Innovation Policy Smart City National Innovation System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Acemoglu D, Aghion P, Bursztyn L, Hemous D (2010) The environment and directed technical change. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Working Paper No. 482Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Acemoglu D, Aghion P, Lelarge C, Van Reenen J, Zilibotti F (2007) Technology, information, and the decentralization of the firm. Q J Econ 122:1759–1799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aghion P, Dewatripont M, Du L, Harrison A, Legros P (2011) Industrial policy and competition. GRASP Working Paper 17Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aghion P, Dewatripont M, Rey P (1999) Competition, financial discipline and growth. Rev Econ Stud 66:825–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aghion P, Howitt M (1996) Research and development in the growth process. J Econ Growth 1:49–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alchian AA, Demsetz H (1972) Production, information costs, and economic organization. Am Econ Rev 62:772–795Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Archibugi D, Denni M, Filippetti A (2009) The Global Innovation Scoreboard 2008: the dynamics of the innovative performances of countries.
  8. 8.
    Arrow KJ (1962) Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In: Nelson RR (ed) The rate and direction of inventive activities. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 609–625Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Atkinson RD, Stewart LA (2011) University research funding: theUnited States is behind and falling.
  10. 10.
    Audretsch DB, Feldman MP (1996) R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. Am Econ Rev 86:630–640Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baird D, Gertner R, Picker R (1994) Game theory and the law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baumol WJ (2002) The free market innovation machine: analyzing the growth miracle of capitalism. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Benkler Y (2006) The wealth of networks. How social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bessant J, Rush H (1995) Building bridges for innovation; the role of consultants in technology transfer. Res Policy 24:97–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boston Consulting Group (2011) The new rules of openness.
  16. 16.
    Brunswicker S, Vanhaverbeke W (2011) Beyond open innovation in large enterprises: how do small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) open up to external innovation sources?
  17. 17.
    Caragliu A, Del Bo C, Nijkamp P (2009) Smart cities in Europe. VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics, Series Research Memoranda 0048/2009Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Castro R (2011) Ex post liability rules in modern patent law. Intersentia, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chesbrough H (2004) Towards a dynamics of modularity: a cyclical model of technical advance. In: Prencipe A, Hobday M (eds) The business of systems integration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 174–198Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chesbrough H (2003) Open innovation. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Christensen CM, Bower JL (1996) Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Manag J 17:197–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Church J, Ware R (2001) Industrial economics: a strategic approach. McGraw-Hill, New York [22]Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clark BR (1998) Creating entrepreneurial universities. Organisational pathways of transformation. IAU Press, PergamonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clark BR (2004) Sustaining change in universities. Society for Research into Higher Education. Open University Press, Maidenhead, England [24]Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Coase RH (1937) The nature of the firm. Economica 4:386–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Coase RH (1960) The problem of social cost. J Law Econ 3:1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35:128–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cohen W, Levin R (1989) Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. In: Schmalensee R, Willig R (eds) Handbook of industrial organisation. North-Holland, London, pp 1060–1107Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    De Soto JH (2009) The theory of dynamic efficiency. Routledge, London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Demsetz H (2002) Toward a theory of property rights II: the competition between private and collective ownership. J Leg Stud 31:S653–S672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Diener K, Piller F (2009) The market for open innovation. RWTH TIM Group Aachen UniversityGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Doloreux D, Parto A (2005) Regional innovation systems: current discourse and unresolved issues. Technol Soc 27:133–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Drucker P (1985) Innovation and entrepreneurship. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Etzkowitz H (2003) Innovation in innovation: the triple helix of university-industrygovernment relations. Social Sci Inform 42:293–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (eds) (1997) Universities and the global knowledge economy: a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Continuum, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. European Commission (2008) Public procurement for a better environment, COM(2008) 400 final. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    European Commission (2007) Innovation clusters in Europe: a statistical analysis and overview of current policy. European Commission BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fennell LA (2009) Commons, anticommons and semicommons. In: Ayotte K, Smith HE (eds) Research handbook on the economics of property law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 57–74Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Foray D, David PA, Hall B (2009) Smart specialization — the concept. Knowledge Economist Policy brief n. 9.
  40. 40.
    Gawer A (2009) Platforms, markets and innovation. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Geradin D (2006) Standardization and technological innovation: some reflections on exante licensing, FRAND, and the proper means to reward innovators. TILEC Discussion Paper No. 2006-017Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gotze J, Pedersen C (2009) Government 2.0 and onwards. State of the eUnion.
  43. 43.
    Grimmelman J (2010) The Internet is a semicommons. Fordham Law Review 78:2799–2842Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Grossman SJ, Hart OD (1986) The costs and benefits of ownership: a theory of vertical and lateral integration. J Political Econ 94:691–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Heller MA (2008) The gridlock economy: how too much ownership wrecks markets, stops innovation, and costs lives. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Heller MA (1998) The tragedy of the anticommons: property in transition from Marx to markets. Harvard Law Rev 111:621–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Heller MA, RS Eisenberg (1998) Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280:698–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hilgers D, Ihl C (2010) Citizensourcing — Applying the Concept of Open Innovation to the Public Sector. International Journal of Public Participation 4:67–88Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hilgers D, Piller FT (2011) A government 2.0: fostering public sector rethinking by open innovation.
  51. 51.
    Howe J (2008) Crowdsourcing: why the power of the crowd is driving the future of business. Three Rivers Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Howells J (2006) Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Res Policy 35:715–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kastl J, Martimort D, Piccolo S (2008) Delegation and R&D spending. Evidence from Italy. CSEF Working Paper n. 192Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Katz ML, Shapiro C (1985) Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. Am Econ Rev 75:424–440Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Katz ML, Shapiro C (1986) Product compatibility choice in a market with technological progress. Oxford Economic Papers 38:146–165Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Katz ML, Shapiro C (1986) Technology adoption in the presence of network externalities. J Political Econ 94:822–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Katz ML, Shapiro C (1992) Product introduction with network externalities. J Industrial Econ 40:55–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Katz ML, Shapiro C (1994) Systems competition and network effects. J Econ Perspect 8:93–115[1]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kirzner I (1997) Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an Austrian approach. J Econ Lit 35:60–85Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kirzner I (1973) Competition and entrepreneurship. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Klein B, Crawford RG, Alchian AA (1978) Vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive contracting process. J Law Econ 21:297–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Knight F (1921) Risk, uncertainty and profit. Hart, Schaffner, and Marx, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Komninos N (2009) Intelligent cities: towards interactive and global innovation environments. Int J Innov Regional Dev 1:337–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Krugman P (1994) The age of diminishing expectations. MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lange A, Handler D, Vila J (2010) Next-generation clusters: creating innovation hubs to boost economic growth. Cisco White Paper.
  66. 66.
    Langlois RN (1992) External economies and economic progress: the case of the microcomputer industry Business History Rev 66:1–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Langlois RN (1998) Capabilities and the theory of the firm. In: Foss NJ, Loasby BJ (eds) Capabilities, coordination, and economic organization: essays in honour of George B Richardson. Routledge, London, pp 183–203Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Langlois RN (2002) Modularity in technology and organization. J Econ Behav Organization 49:19–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Leibenstein H (1966) Allocative efficiency vs. X-efficiency. Am Econ Rev 56:392–415Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Levmore S (2002) Two stories about the evolution of property rights. J Legal Stud 31:S421–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Lopez-Vega H (2009) How demand-driven technological systems of innovation work? The role of intermediaries organizations. Paper presented at the DRUID-DIME Academy Winter 2009 PhD Conference, Aalborg, Denmark, 22-24 January 2009Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Malmberg A, Maskell P (1997) Towards an explanation of regional specialization and industrial agglomeration. Eur Planning Stud 5:25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Manyika J, Chui M, Brown B et al (2011) Big data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity.
  74. 74.
    Maskell P, Malmberg A (1999) Localized learning and industrial competitiveness. Cambridge J Econ 23:167–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Mason CM, Harrison RT (2008) Measuring business angel investment activity in the United Kingdom: a review of potential data sources. Venture Capital 10:309–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Mathews JA, Tan H (2011) Progress towards a circular economy in China: the drivers (and inhibitors) of eco-industrial initiative. J Industrial Ecol 15:435–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    McCann P, Ortega-Argiles R (2011) Smart specialisation, regional growth and applications to EU cohesion policy. Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen Economic Geography Working Paper 2011Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Merges RP (1996) Contracting into liability rules: intellectual property rights and collective rights organizations. Calif Law Rev 84:1293–1393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Michelman FI (1982) Ethics, economics and the law of property In: Pennock JR, Chapamn JW (eds) Nomos XXIV: ethics, economics and the law. New York University Press, New York, pp 3–40Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Noveck B (2009) Wiki government: how technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    OECD (2011) Financing high-growth firms: the role of angel investors. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    OECD (2011) OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard 2011. OECD, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    OECD (2008) Open innovation in global networks. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Ozawa Y, Miyazaki K (2006) An empirical analysis of the valley of death: large-scale R&D project performance in a Japanese diversified company. Asian J Technol Innov 14:93–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Peritz RJR (2006) Patents and competition: toward a knowledge theory of progress. Paper presented at the 2006 ATRIP conference in Parma, Italy, 4–6 September 2006Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Porter ME (1990) The competitive advantage of nations. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Porter ME, Stern S (2002) National innovative capacity. In: World Economic Forum, The Global Competitiveness Report 2001-2002. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Renda A (2011) Law and economics in the RIA world. Intersentia, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Renda A (2011) Next generation innovation policy. A report for Ernst & Young and CEPS BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Robert A (2003) The information semicommons. Berkeley Technol Law J 18:1127–1189Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Rohlfs J (1974) A theory of interdependent demand for a communications service. Bell J Econ 10:141–156Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Schumpeter JA (1934) The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Schumpeter JA (1942) Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper & Brothers, New York[93]Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Shleifer A, Vishny R (1986) Large shareholders and corporate control. J Political Econ 94:461–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Smith H (2000) Semicommon property rights and scattering in the open fields. J Legal Stud 29:131–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Teece DJ (1994) Information sharing, innovation, and antitrust. Antitrust Law J 62:465–481Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Teece DJ (1986) Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing, and public policy. Res Policy 15:285–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Traitler H, Watzke HJ, Saguy IS (2011) Reinventing R&D in an open innovation ecosystem. J Food Sci 76: R62–R68. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01998.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Van Schewick B (2009) Internet architecture and innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Von Hippel E, Jin C (2009) The major shift towards user-centered innovation: Implications for China’s innovation policymaking. J Knowledge-based Innov China 1:16–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    White House (2011) Strategy for American innovation. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Williamson OE (1971) The vertical integration of production: market failure considerations. Am Econ Rev 61:112–123Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Williamson OE (1981) The modern corporation: origins, evolution, attributes. J Econ Lit 19:1537–1568Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Williamson OE (1985) The economic institutions of capitalism. Free Press New YorkGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Williamson OE (1988) The logic of economic organization. J Law Econ Organiz 4:65–93[1]Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Winter SG (2006) The logic of appropriability: from Schumpeter to Arrow to Teece. Res Policy 35:1100–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Massimiliano Granieri
    • 1
  • Andrea Renda
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of LawUniversity of FoggiaFoggiaItaly
  2. 2.Department of ManagementLUISS Guido CarliRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations