recent research

High-risk/high-reward research can yield breakthroughs, produce new technologies, and allow the surrounding region to remain economically relevant. However, the scientific community remains concerned that research and development-focused policies, both in the U.S. and elsewhere, continue to be conservative with their goals by only encouraging incremental growth that can yield tangible results in shorter amounts of time. These concerns, and potential policy solutions, are explored in a recently published research paper by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Building on top of the notion that diversity of industry is central to a region’s entrepreneurial success, recent research has noted that the personalities of people living throughout a region also play an important role in local knowledge spillover and the economic diversity of the area. The report, Entrepreneurship in Cities by Sam Tavassoli, Martin Obschonka, and David B.

“The Achilles Heel of Reputable VCs,” a recent paper by Nuri Ersahin et al., finds that the most successful venture capital (VC) funds make fewer and smaller investments in states after investment tax credits go into effect. These VCs also co-invest with fewer firms, are less likely to invest in “serial” entrepreneurs and experience fewer positive exits after the introduction of the tax credit.

Having interdisciplinary teams of scientists and relationships with “star” entrepreneurs are factors that can influence the chances for academic discoveries to reach the commercialization stage. While proximity to capital has traditionally been viewed as the core stimulus for academic commercialization, a recently released working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research reexamines the variables that play a role in the commercialization of academic sciences, and provides new insight into the importance of team composition throughout the commercialization process.

Discussions surrounding automation’s power and the effect it could have on jobs have only increased over time. The current pandemic adds to the debate of whether automation and robotics, which are unaffected by viruses and have the potential for cost savings, could offer a safer bet for industries than human labor. Such are the debates the authors of a new working paper considered in their research examining jobs that were identified in the past as being at risk of elimination through automation.

A working paper from the Innovation Growth Lab (IGL) series featuring researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition provides causal evidence on the effectiveness of innovation vouchers and adds to the argument for implementing small-scale government funding mechanisms like innovation vouchers.

A recent study exploring the science underlying all 356 pharmaceutical drugs approved by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research since 2010, found each drug is based on life science investments the public sector has made through the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The early days of vaccinating against the coronavirus might not be the most receptive time to raise issues of antitrust in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, but a November 2020 Barcelona GSW Working Paper raises several concerns about the degree and effect of common ownership within big pharma. Does this explain the resistance of drug prices to fall? Should Congress take on the likes of brand firms Johnson & Johnson, Merck and Pfizer, in addition to already challenging the tech giants, in 2021?

Disruptive technology, or innovations that radically alter the way consumers, industry, or businesses operate, have long been thought to be the primary way emerging small firms can leapfrog competition and compete against large industry titans. Through innovations such as internal IT systems or logistical improvements, small firms can acquire a decisive competitive advantage over their rivals. Or so the traditional theory holds. In a new paper out of Boston University School of Law, Bessen et al.

In a recently revised working paper from the Center for International Development at Harvard University, the contemporary rise of populism is explained in a new light, that of unfair economic outcomes, often in the form of low social mobility.