Contenu du sommaire : Grassroots Innovation Processes

In this paper, we compare three kinds of innovation recently documented by the literature: frugal innovation, sustainable innovation, reverse innovation. We define, characterize, and discuss the role of these types of innovation. We examine the likely linkages that exist between them. We compare them in relation to their economic implications. We show that they are distinct notions as far as micro objectives, firm strategy, and macroeconomic growth are concerned. We consider frugal innovation as a new technological paradigm, sustainable innovation as relating to the directions taken by innovation efforts towards social needs, and environmental and reverse innovation as new flows of knowledge exemplifying changing trends in the global geography of innovation. Our review tends to confirm many aspects we find in the literature on innovation, but which were fragmented until now.JEL Codes: F23, O14, O19, O32

In this contribution, we focus on the role of technical standards – product certification or process certification – in the production and diffusion of frugal innovation. The rapid development of the phenomenon of frugal innovation, including reverse innovation, directly affects the competitiveness of firms in the most advanced countries by reducing or, in some cases, by destroying the advantage of an accumulated inventory of knowledge. It is therefore also important for the sustainability of their competitiveness that appropriate answers are found. In this paper, we show how the production of new technical standards could contribute to support the production and the diffusion of frugal innovations and we assess different options to achieve it. The two main options are the extension of the existing and related domains of standardization and the creation of a new field build around the concept of frugality.JEL Codes: O31, O33

Feeling doubts about the value of the hierarchical and linear model of innovation, scholars look for alternative models, finding a credible challenger in the frugal innovation framework. Frugal innovation is a way to do better and more with less. It is based on principles, explaining why we suggest labeling it as Frugalism. Despite its value, Frugalism pays too little attention to design, and especially to Abstract Design Paradigm (ADP), which is the current design paradigm in rich countries. We then gain an issue: can ADP be aligned to Frugalism? In this article, we give a positive answer. Our main hypothesis is that ADP already includes frugalist principles. There is then to consider inclusivity as a key driver, and to re-construe existing body of design knowledge to put frugal engineering and Design For Frugality (DFF) into practice.JEL Codes: O32

In this paper, we present a growing technological sector – additive manufacturing – and discuss its hidden potential as frugal innovation. Additive manufacturing, which is also known as three-dimensional (3D) printing, constitutes a recent manufacturing process that builds layers to create a three-dimensional solid object from a digital model. 3D printing technology has been identified as one aspect of the digital revolution that has the potential to revolutionize the industrial world. This topic has been surrounded with a lot of hype when predicting future application scope. In this paper, we focus on 3D printing as a technology that, under certain circumstances of technological transfer via community-operated organizations like fab labs, enables the development of frugal solutions targeting Base-of-the-Pyramid (BoP) population. At the same time, this paper aims to contribute to the discussion on Frugal Innovations in existing scholar literature.JEL Codes: O32, O35

The question of the determinants of innovation activities in the business sector is one of the issues that take the most attention in the theoretical and empirical researches in the economics of innovation field. This paper is probably the first study that develops an econometric approach to analyze firms' decisions to innovate in Lebanon. More precisely, we analyze the impact of firm characteristics, competition environment, human capital, R&D activities, partnership and technological transfer on good, process, organizational or marketing innovation. We use a survey of 478 industrial enterprises conducted by the local National Council for Scientific Research (CNRS) with support of the World Bank during 2011-2012. Using a probit model, the results confirm the Schumpeterian hypothesis stipulating that larger firms present a greater capability to innovate. At the same time, the market share has a positive but not significant effect on innovation. We also find significant statistical relationship between R&D activities, partnerships and technological transfers with innovation decision of Lebanese firms. In terms of policy recommendations, these results confirm the necessity to give incentives to rather large firms in order to boost innovation in the country and at the same time to implement new incentives to SMEs for the promotion of partnerships with universities, research centers and other firms, including firms in the same sector. Finally, our results confirm the point of view that the Schumpeterian hypothesis seems to suite better for small and open developing countries than developed ones.JEL Codes: O12, O3, C25

The aim of this article is to analyze the relationship between Environmental Management System (EMS) adoption and firms' organizational changes. The objective is to study the organizational changes associated with EMS adoption, and to shed light on the process of change and adaptation within the firm's internal organization, as well as between the firm and its external partners. We study organizational changes associated with EMS thanks to an unique nationwide database in France (Organizational Changes and Computerization survey of 2006). Results show that EMS adoption is associated with a tendency toward flatter hierarchies and the development of collective labor practices. They reveal a strong complementarity with the formalization of practices such as logistical arrangements and adoption of certification systems. It also involves informal modes of coordination with external partners rather than formal constraints.JEL Codes: Q55, L6, O3

This paper examines the determinants and compares the welfare implications of university intellectual property patenting and licensing strategies. A licensing strategy may be based on varying degrees of exclusivity granted to firms, from open, non-exclusive to exclusive licensing. We thus analyze how the nature of technology invented by the university might affect the choice of patenting (or publishing) and the licensing strategy as well as the performance of the transfer. We consider a model with one university and four firms in two different sectors. We show that if the invention is embryonic and specific, exclusive licensing is the only strategy allowing transferring it to industry. Further, if the invention is generic and embryonic exclusive licensing per field of use is the best way of transferring the invention. Finally, when the invention is mature, publishing is the optimal strategy. An important result is that at the equilibrium of the game, universities may not always automatically choose the strategy which maximizes social surplus.JEL Codes: O32, O33, O34

The production of science is often a collaborative activity. We call scientific connectivity the measure of such collaborative behavior, as reflected in the co-publication statistics. This article focus on the various forms of connectivity characterizing the scientific activities in Europe, viewed from a regional perspective. Are those networks local or global? Are they embedded in national systems? Is there an increasing tendency to collaborate between regions at European level? Such questions (and others) are addressed by constructing a typology of scientific connectivity in European regions (NUTS2) and observing its evolution over time (1999-2012). As a significant component of regional innovation systems (RIS), the types of scientific connectivity must be considered as a key issue for regional policies. Our results challenge political issues like specialization strategies, lock-in phenomenon, national and European policies for territorial development and cohesion, concentration of excellence, etc.JEL Codes: R21