A taxonomy of manufacturing and service firms in Luxembourg according to technological skills

El Joueidi, Sarah (2013): A taxonomy of manufacturing and service firms in Luxembourg according to technological skills. Forthcoming in: Economie et Statistiques: Working papers du STATEC No. 68 (September 2013)

Abstract

This study uses data on Luxembourg manufacturing and service firms, sourced from CIS, to illustrate empirical methods of firms’ classification according to pattern and intensity of innovation and the use of technology. This topic is of relevance to Luxembourg, as to date no such specific classification exists for this country. Existing classifications are industry-based rather than firm-based which appears inappropriate given the heterogeneity within Luxembourgish industries. Moreover, they neglect the financial services, of primary importance to Luxembourg.

Results show that cluster methods are well suited to classify firms for the case at hand. The analysis identifies four clusters exploiting information on the firms' innovation competencies, the technology used, and the human skills. Firms in the sample are classified into 4 groups, named respectively as i) high-technology, ii) medium-high-technology, iii) medium-lowtechnology, iv) low-technology. Characteristics of each group are discussed.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Innovation, classification, taxonomy, innovation surveys, cluster analysis.
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General > C10 - General; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C8 - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology ; Computer Programs; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O30 - General; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O31 - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O38 - Government Policy

References

P. Aghion, N. Bloom, R. Blundell, R. Griffith., and P. Howitt. Competition and innovation: An inverted u relationship. Quarterly Journal of Economics, CXX:701–28, 2005.

D. Archibugi. Pavitt’s taxonomy sixteen years on: a review article. Econ. Innov. New Techn., 10:415–25, 2000.

A-L. Asikainen. Innovation and productivity in Luxembourg. STATEC Working papers NO 23, 2008.

J. Baldwin and G. Gellatly. A Firm-Based Approach to Industry Classification: Identifying the Knowledge-Based Economy. L.-A. Lefebvre, E. Lefebvre and P. Mohnen (eds), Doing Business in a Knowledge-Based Economy. Facts and Policy Challenges. Kluwer Academic, Boston, Mass., 2000.

J. Baldwin and J. Johnson. Human Capital Development and Innovation: A Sectoral Analysis. The Implications of Knowledge-Based Growth for Micro-Economic Policies. Calgary: Calgary University Press., Oxford, 1996.

J. Bound, C. Cummins, B. Hall, and A. Jaffe. Who does R&D and who patents? 1984.

S. Davies and B. Lyons. Industrial organization in the European Union. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996.

B. Everitt and S. Rabe-Hesketh. A Handbook of Statistical Analyses Using Stata, Fourth Edition. Chapman Hall/CRC, 2007.

P-A. Geroski, J. Van Reenen, and C-F. Walters. How persistently do firms innovate? Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), 1997.

J. C. Gower. A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics, 27(4): 857–871, 1971.

J.C. Gower. Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika, 53:325–338, 1966.

R. Griffith, R. Harrison, and H. Simpson. Product market reform and innovation in the EU. The institute for fiscal studies. Working papers. WP06/17, 2006.

T. Hatzichronoglou. Revision of the high-technology sector and product classification. OECD Science, Technology and industry working papers, 02, OECD Publishing, 1997.

R.Z. Lawrence. Can America compete? The brookings Institution, Whashington D.C, 1984.

F. Malerba and L. Orsenigo. Technological entry, exit and survival: an empirical analysis of patent data. Research Policy, Elsevier, 28(6):643–660, 1999.

OECD. Oecd economis surverys. volume 2008/12, 2008.

K. Pavitt. Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research policy, 113:343–73, 1984.

M. Peneder. Industry classifications: Aim, scope and techniques. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 3(1):109–129, 2003.

C. Peroni. Productivity and competitiveness in luxembourg: Productivity & the crisis. Perspectives de Politique Economique, N 18, Ministere de l’économie et du commerce exterieur du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, 2012.

C. Peroni and I-G. Ferreira. Competition and innovation in luxembourg. Journal of Industry Competition and trade, 12:93–117, 2012.

P. Romer. Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98:71–102, 1991.

J.A. Schumpeter. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Allen and Unwin, London, 1943.

R. Solow. A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics,70(1):65–94, 1956.

STATEC. Répertoire systématique. Les entreprises luxembourgeoises, 2008.