Pari Patel

Bio: Pari Patel is an academic researcher from University of Sussex. The author has contributed to research in topics: Anecdotal evidence & Value (economics). The author has an hindex of 25, co-authored 39 publications receiving 5937 citations. Previous affiliations of Pari Patel include Penn State Harrisburg & University of Brighton.

Large Firms in the Production of the World's Technology: An Important Case of “Non-Globalisation”

Abstract: US patenting by 686 of the world's largest manufacturing firms shows that their share of the world's production of technology is less than their share of R&D activities, and varies greatly amongst sectors. In most cases, the technological activities of these large firms are concentrated in their home country, the characteristics of which influence the volume and trends in their technological activities much more strongly then the international component of these activities. At the same time, these large firms are major elements in the volume and the pattern of sectoral specializations in their home countries' technological activities.

Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms

Abstract: A central part of the innovation process concerns the way firms go about organizing search for new ideas that have commercial potential. New models of innovation have suggested that many innovative firms have changed the way they search for new ideas, adopting open search strategies that involve the use of a wide range of external actors and sources to help them achieve and sustain innovation. Using a large-scale sample of industrial firms, this paper links search strategy to innovative performance, finding that searching widely and deeply is curvilinearly (taking an inverted U-shape) related to performance. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation

Abstract: Fabio Arcangeli, Paul David, Frank Engelman, Christopher Freeman, Massimo Moggi, Richard Nelson, Luigi Orsenigo, Nathan Rosenberg, Michele Salvati, G. N. von Tunzelman, two anonymous referees, and the participants at the meeting of the Committee on Distribution, Growth, and Technical Progress of the Italian National Research Council (CNR), Rome, November 16, 1985, have helped with various redraftings. A particularly grateful acknowledgment is for the insightful and patient help of Moses Abramovitz. This work has been undertaken at the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex, as part of the research program of the Designated Research Centre, sponsored by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). Earlier support to the research that led to this paper by the Italian National Research Council (CNR) is also gratefully acknowledged. The statistical research has been undertaken with the assistance of Stephano Brioschi, Ilaria Fornari, and Giovannu Prennushi.

Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer

Abstract: This paper examines interfirm knowledge transfers within strategic alliances. Using a new measure of changes in alliance partners' technological capabilities, based on the citation patterns of their patent portfolios, we analyze changes in the extent to which partner firms' technological resources ‘overlap’ as a result of alliance participation. This measure allows us to test hypotheses from the literature on interfirm knowledge transfer in alliances, with interesting results: we find support for some elements of this ‘received wisdom’—equity arrangements promote greater knowledge transfer, and ‘absorptive capacity’ helps explain the extent of technological capability transfer, at least in some alliances. But the results also suggest limits to the ‘capabilities acquisition’ view of strategic alliances. Consistent with the argument that alliance activity can promote increased specialization, we find that the capabilities of partner firms become more divergent in a substantial subset of alliances.

The ‘National System of Innovation’ in historical perspective

Abstract: Contrary to some recent work on so-called 'globalisation', this paper argues that national and regional systems of innovation remain an essential domain of economic analysis. Their importance derives from the networks of relationships which are necessary for any firm to innovate. Whilst external international connections are certainly of growing importance, the influence of the national education system, industrial relations, technical and scientific institutions, government policies, cul- tural traditions and many other national institutions is fundamental. The historical examples of Germany, Japan and the former USSR illustrate this point, as well as the more recent contrast between East Asian and Latin American countries. Introduction: The National System of Friedrich List According to this author's recollections, the first person to use the expression 'National System of Innovation' was Bengt-Ake Lundvall and he is also the editor of a highly original and thought-provoking book (1992) on this subject. However, as he and his colleagues would be the first to agree (and as Lundvall himself points out) the idea actually goes back at least to Friedrich List's conception of "The National System of Political Economy' (1841), which might just as well have been called 'The National System of Innovation'. The main concern of List was with the problem of Germany overtaking England and, for underdeveloped countries (as Germany then was in relation to England), he advocated not only protection of infant industries but a broad range of policies designed to accelerate, or to make possible, industrialisation and economic growth. Most of these policies were concerned with learning about new technology and applying it. The racialist and colonialist overtones of the book were in strong contrast to the inter- nationalist cosmopolitan approach of the classical free trade economists and List's belief that Holland and Denmark should join the German 'Bund' and acquire German nationality because of their 'descent and whole character' reads somewhat strangely in the European Community of today. Nevertheless, despite these unattractive features of his outlook, he clearly anticipated many contemporary theories. After reviewing the changing ideas of economists about development in the years since the Second World War, the World Bank (1991) concludes that it is intangible investment in knowledge accumulation which is decisive rather than physical capital investment, as was at one time believed (pages 33-35). The Report cites the 'New Growth Theory'