Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:35:13.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Les incitations á l'innovation dans le secteur privé

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2015

Bonnard Claire
Get access

Résumé

L'innovation est devenue un facteur clé de la croissance économique. La question des incitations à l'innovation au sein des entreprises est donc primordiale. Dans ce papier, nous nous intéressons au type d'incitations monétaires reçues par les inventeurs au sein des entreprises avec une attention particulière à la mobilité inter-entreprise de ces derniers. Les résultats montrent un rendement salarial positif pour les inventeurs, celui-ci est plus important pour les inventeurs ayant connu une mobilité inter-entreprise, ce qui pourrait suggérer que les entreprises sont prêtes à payer les connaissances acquises par les inventeurs au sein des autres entreprises. Par contre, l'utilisation de stock-options comme incitation pour les inventeurs semble moins répandue dans les entreprises françaises que dans les entreprises étrangères.

Summary

Summary

Innovation has become a key factor for economic growth. The issue of incentives as to boost innovation within firms is thus essential. In this paper, we are interested to discriminate the type of monetary incentives received by the inventors in firms; with particular attention to inter-firm mobility of the professional. The results show a significant positive wage premium for the inventors, this one is more important for inventors who have experienced past mobility events, which might suggest that firms are willing to pay the specific knowledge gained by the inventors before in other firms. Additionally we show that incentive stock options for inventors seem less common in firms located in France than abroad.

Keywords

Incitationinventorpropensity scoreJ33O31O32Incitationinventeurscore de propensionJ33O31O32
Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 79 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 45 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

IREDU-CNRS UMR 5225, University of Bourgogne, Pôle AAFE - Esplanade Erasme - B.P. 26513F - 21065 Dijon Cedex (France), Tel: 00 (0)3 80 39 54 58, Fax: 00 (0)3 80 39 54 79, Mail: claire.bonnard@u-bourgogne.fr

References

Aakvik, A. (2001), “Bounding a matching estimator: the case of a norwegian training program”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 1, n° 63, pp. 115–143.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. (1996), Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity, Boulder, Westview Press.Google Scholar
Andreosso-O'Callaghan, M.B. (2000), “Taxation and Innovation in the European Union”, Korean Journal of EU Studies, Vol. 5, n° 1, pp. 121–145.Google Scholar
Anton, J., Yao, D. (2005), “Little patents and big secrets: managing intellectual property”, Rand Journal of Economics, Vol. 35, n° 1, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Backer, G.P., Jensen, M.C., Murphy, K.J. (1988), “Compensation and Incentives: Practice vs. Theory”, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 43, n° 3, pp. 593–616.Google Scholar
Bains, W. (2005), “How academics can make (extra) money out of their science”, Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, Vol. 11, n° 4, pp. 353–363.Google Scholar
Balkin, D.B., Gomez-Mejia, L.R. (1984), “Determinants of R and D compensation strategies in the high tech industry”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 37, pp. 635–650.Google Scholar
Becker, S.O., Caliendo, M. (2007), “Sensitivity analysis for average treatment effects”, The Stata Journal, Vol. 7, n° 1, pp. 71–83.Google Scholar
Bénabou, R., Tirole, J. (2003), “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation”, Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 70, n° 3, pp. 489–520.Google Scholar
Bonnard, C., Bourdon, J., Paul, J.J. (2011), “ Travailler dans la recherche privée au sortir d'une école d'ingéieur: est-ce la bonne stratégie? ”, Revue d'économie industrielle, Vol. 133, pp. 9–30.Google Scholar
Brodaty, T., Crépon, B., Fougère, D. (2007), “ Les méthodes micro-économétriques d'évaluation et leurs applications aux politiques actives de l'emploi ”, Économie et Prévision, Vol. 1, n° 177, pp. 93–118.Google Scholar
Burhop, C., Lübbers, T. (2010), “Incentives and innovation? R&D management in Germany's chemical and electrical engineering industries around 1900”, Explorations in Economic History, Vol. 47, pp. 100–111.Google Scholar
Caliendo, M., Kopeinig, S. (2008), “Some practical Guidance for the Implementation of propensity score matching”, Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 22, n° 1, pp. 31–72.Google Scholar
Crépon, B., Duguet, E., Mairesse, J. (1998), “Research, innovation, and productivity: an econometric analysis at the firm level”, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 7, n° 2, pp. 115–158.Google Scholar
Dahl, M. (2002), “Embedded knowledge flows through labor mobility in regional clusters in Denmark”, Presented at DRUID's New Economy Conference, Copenhagen, June 2002.Google Scholar
Deci, E.L. (1975), Intrinsic motivation, New York, Plenum press.Google Scholar
Ederer, F., Manso, G. (2009), “Is pay-for performance detrimental to innovation?”, Working Paper, MIT Sloan School of Management.Google Scholar
Fama, E. (1980), “Agency problems and the theory of the firm”, Journal Political Economy, Vol. 88, pp. 288–307.Google Scholar
Ferrary, M. (2008), “Strategic spin-off: a new incentive contract for managing R&D researchers”, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 33, n° 6, pp. 600–618.Google Scholar
Francis, B., Hasan, I., Sharma, Z. (2009), “Do incentives create innovation? Evidence from CEO compensation contracts”, Working Paper, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.Google Scholar
Frey, B.S. (2007), “Awards as compensation”, European Management Review, Vol. 4, pp. 6–14.Google Scholar
Frey, B.S., Jegen, R. (2001), “Motivation Crowding Theory: a survey of empirical evidence”, Journal of Economics Survey, Vol. 15, n° 5, pp. 589–611.Google Scholar
Frey, B.S., Osterloh, M. (2002), Successful management by motivation. Balancing Intrinsic and Extrinsic Incentives, New York, Springer.Google Scholar
Frölich, M. (2007), “Propensity score matching without conditional independence assumption-with an application to the gender wage gap in the United Kingdom”, Econometrics Journal, Vol. 10, n° 2, pp. 359–407.Google Scholar
George, G., Zahra, S.A., Wood, D.R. (2002), “The effects of business-university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: a study of publicly traded biotechnology companies”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 17, pp. 577–609.Google Scholar
Gersbach, H., Schmultzler, A. (2003), “Endogenous technical spillovers: causes and consequences”, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, Vol. 12, n° 2, pp. 179–205.Google Scholar
Gibbs, M., Levenson, A. (2002), “The economic approach to personnel research”, Grossbard-Schechtman, dans S. et Clague, C. (eds.), The Expansion of Economics: Toward a More Inclusive Social Science, New York, M.E. Sharpe, pp. 99–139.Google Scholar
Giuri, , et al. (2007), “Inventors and invention processes in Europe: Results from the PatVal-EU survey”, Research policy, n° 36, pp. 1107–1127.Google Scholar
Griliches, Z. (1984), R&D, Patents and Productivity, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hall, B.J., Murphy, K.J. (2003), “The Trouble with Stock Options”, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 17, n° 3, pp. 49–70.Google Scholar
Harhoff, D., Hoisl, K. (2007), “Institutionalized incentives for ingenuity-patent value and the German employees' inventions Act”, Research Policy, Vol. 36, n° 8, pp. 1143–1162.Google Scholar
Heckman, J., Ichimura, H., Todd, P. (1997), “Matching as an Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job training Program”, Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 64, pp. 605–654.Google Scholar
Heckman, J., Ichimura, H., Todd, P. (1998), “Matching as an Econometric Evaluation Estimator”, Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 65, pp. 261–294.Google Scholar
Hoisl, K. (2007a), “A closer look at innovative output, the role of age and career paths”, Munich School of Management Discussion Paper N° 2007-12, Munich.Google Scholar
Hoisl, K. (2007b), “Tracing mobile inventors, the causality between inventor mobility and inventor productivity”, Research Policy, Vol. 36, pp. 619–636.Google Scholar
Holmstrom, T.P. (1979), “Moral hazard and observability”, Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 10, pp. 74–91.Google Scholar
Honig-Haftel, S., Martin, L. (1993), “The Effectiveness of Reward Systems on Innovative Output: An Empirical Analysis”, Small Business Economics, vol. 5, n° 4, pp. 261–269.Google Scholar
Jones, C.I. (2005), “Growth and Ideas”, Aghion, dans P. et Durlauf, S.N. (eds). Handbook of Economic Growth, Amsterdam, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kim, B., Oh, H. (2002), “An effective R&D performance measurement: survey of Korean R&D researchers”, Omega, Vol. 30, pp. 19–31.Google Scholar
Kreps, D.M. (1997), “Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Incentives”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 87, n° 2, pp. 359–364.Google Scholar
Lacetera, N., Zirulia, L. (2008), “Knowledge spillovers, Competition, and Taste for Science in a Model of R&D Incentive Provision”, Working Paper, Universitàdi Bologna.Google Scholar
Leuven, E, Sianesi, B. (2003), “PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing”, http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html.Google Scholar
Lerner, J., Wulf, J. (2007), “Innovation and incentives: Evidence from corporate R&D”, the Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 89, n° 4, pp. 634–644.Google Scholar
Mariani, M., Romanelli, M. (2007), “‘Stacking’ and ‘picking’ inventions: the patenting behavior of European inventors”, Research Policy, Vol. 36, pp. 1128–1142.Google Scholar
Mairesse, J., Mohnen, P. (2005), “The importance of R&D for innovation: a reassessment using French survey data”, The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 30, n° 1-2, pp. 183–197.Google Scholar
McMillan, G.S. (2009), “Gender differences in patenting activity: an examination of the US biotechnology industry”, Scientometrics, Vol. 80, n° 3, pp. 683–691.Google Scholar
Mendez, A. (2006), « Vers une globalisation de la gestion des ressources humaines? », Cahiers Français, n° 333, pp. 38–43.Google Scholar
Moen, J. (2005), “Is mobility of technical personnel a source of R&D spillovers?”, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 23, n° 1, pp. 81–114.Google Scholar
National Scientific Board (2010), Science and Engineering Indicators, New York, NSF.Google Scholar
Observatoire de la Propriété intellectuelle (2008), Enquête sur la rémunération des inventeurs salariés, INPI.Google Scholar
Oyer, P., Schaefer, S. (2005), “Why do some firms give stock options to all employees?: An empirical examination of alternative theories”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 76, n° 1, pp. 99–133.Google Scholar
Prendergast, C. (1999), “The provision of incentives in Firms”, Journal of economic literature, Vol. 37, n° 1, pp. 7–63.Google Scholar
Radhakrishnan, S., Ronen, J. (1999), “Job challenge as a motivator in a principal-agent setting”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 115, pp. 138–157.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P., Rubin, D. (1983), “The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects”, Biometrika, Vol. 70, pp. 41–55.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. (2002), Observational studies, New York, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Rossman, J. (1931), “The Motives of Inventors”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 45, n° 3, pp. 522–528.Google Scholar
Rothaermel, F.T., Hess, A.M. (2007), “Building dynamic capabilities: innovation driven by individual, firm, and network-level effects”, Organization Science, Vol. 18, n° 6, pp. 898–921.Google Scholar
Salop, S.C. (1979), “A model of the natural rate of unemployment”, American Economic Review, Vol. 69, pp. 117–125.Google Scholar
Sauermann, H., Cohen, W. (2010), “What makes them tick? Employee Motives and Industrial Innovation”, Management Science, Vol. 56, n° 12, pp. 2134–2153.Google Scholar
Shapiro, C, Stiglitz, J.E. (1984), “Equilibrium Unemployment as a Worker Discipline Device”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 74, n° 3, pp. 433–444.Google Scholar
Smith, J., Todd, P. (2005), “Does Matching Overcome LaLonde's Critique of Nonexperimental Estimators?”, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 125, n° 1-2, pp. 305–353.Google Scholar
Titus, M.A. (2007), “Detecting selection bias, using propensity score matching, an estimating treatment effects: An application to the private retunes to a Master's Degree”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 48, n° 7, pp. 487–521.Google Scholar
Toivanen, O., Väänänen, L. (2011), “Returns to Inventors”, Review of Economics and Statistics, à paraître Google Scholar
Tosi, H.L., Gomez-Mejia, L.R. (1989), “The decoupling of CEO pay and performance: An agency theory perspective”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 34, pp. 169–189.Google Scholar
Traijtenberg, M. (2005), “Recombinant ideas: the mobility of inventors and the productivity of research”, CEPR-Conference, Munich, May 26-28, 2005.Google Scholar
Thursby, J., Jensen, R., Thursby, M.(2001), “Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: a survey of major U.S. universities”, The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 26, n° 1-2, pp. 59–72.Google Scholar
Whittington, K., Smith-Doerr, L. (2005), “Gender and commercial science: women's patenting in the life sciences”, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 30, pp. 355–370.Google Scholar
Zenger, T.R. (1994), “Explaining Organizational Diseconomies of Scale in R&D: Agency Problems and the Allocation of Engineering Talent, Ideas, and Effort by Firm Size”, Management Science, Vol. 40, n° 6, pp. 708–729.Google Scholar
Zenger, T.R., Lazzarini, S.G. (2004), “Compensating for innovation: Do small firms offer higher-powered incentives that lure talent and motive effort?”, Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 25, pp. 329–345.Google Scholar