Advertisement

The Review of Austrian Economics

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 295–320 | Cite as

The collaborative innovation bloc: A new mission for Austrian economics

  • Niklas ElertEmail author
  • Magnus Henrekson
Original Research

Abstract

We argue that scholars in the Austrian tradition of economics should incorporate the notion of a collaborative innovation bloc into their study of spontaneous market orders. We demonstrate how successful entrepreneurship depends on an innovation bloc of this kind, a system of innovation that evolves and within which activity takes place through time. The innovation bloc consists of five pools of economic skills from which people are drawn or recruited to form part of a collaborative team, which is necessary if innovation-based venturing is to flourish. The five skills are entrepreneurs, early- and later-stage-financiers, key personnel, and customers. Through real-world examples, we show how the application of the collaborative innovation bloc perspective could help make Austrian economics more concrete, relevant and persuasive, especially in regard to policy prescriptions.

Keywords

Austrian economics Entrepreneurship Innovation Institutions Schumpeterian entrepreneurship Spontaneous order 

JEL classification

B53 D20 G32 L23 L26 O33 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for useful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts from Niclas Berggren, Dan Johansson, Henrik Jordahl, and Victor Ahlqvist. We acknowledge financial support from the Jan Wallander and Tom Hedelius Foundation and the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation.

References

  1. Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Audretsch, D. B., & Thurik, A. R. (2000). Capitalism and democracy in the 21st century: From the managed to the entrepreneurial economy. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10(1), 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Audretsch, D. B., Carree, M. A., van Stel, A. J., & Thurik, A. R. (2002). Impeded industrial restructuring: The growth penalty. Kyklos, 55(1), 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Audretsch, D. B., Keilbach, M. C., & Lehmann, E. E. (2006). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Autio, E. (2016). Entrepreneurship support in Europe: Trends and challenges. Technical report. London: Imperial College.Google Scholar
  6. Bakker, G. (2013). Money for nothing: How firms have financed R&D-projects since the industrial revolution. Research Policy, 42(10), 1793–1814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 893–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Begley, T. M., Tan, W.-L., & Schoch, H. (2005). Politico-economic factors associated with interest in starting a business: A multi-country study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(1), 35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bhidé, A. (2008). The venturesome economy: How innovation sustains prosperity in a more connected world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bhidé, A. (2017). Constraining knowledge: Traditions and rules that limit medical innovation. Critical Review, 29(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bloom, N., Sadun, R., & van Reenen, J. (2009). Do private equity-owned firms have better management practices? In A. Gurung & J. Lerner (Eds.), The globalization of alternative investments working papers volume 2: The global economic impact of private equity report 2009 (pp. 25–43). Geneva: World Economic Forum.Google Scholar
  12. Boettke, P. J. (2008). Austrian school of economics. Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. URL: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/AustrianSchoolofEconomics.html. Accessed 9 April 2019.
  13. Boettke, P. J., & Coyne, C. J. (2009). Context matters: Institutions and entrepreneurship. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 5(3), 135–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Böhm-Bawerk, E. (2010 [1891]). The positive theory of capital. Charleston: Nabu Press.Google Scholar
  15. Boldrin, M., & Levine, D. K. (2013). The case against patents. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Braunerhjelm, P. (2011). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: Interdependencies, irregularities and regularities. In D. B. Audretsch, O. Falck, & S. Heblich (Eds.), Handbook of research on innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 161–213). Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  17. Braunerhjelm, P., & Henrekson, M. (2016). An innovation policy framework: Bridging the gap between industrial dynamics and growth. In D. B. Audretsch & A. N. Link (Eds.), Essays in public sector entrepreneurship (pp. 95–130). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Buchanan, J. M. (1979). What should economists do? Indianapolis: Liberty Press.Google Scholar
  19. Buchanan, J. M., & Vanberg, V. J. (1991). The market as a creative process. Economics & Philosophy, 7(2), 167–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Busenitz, L. W., Plummer, L. A., Klotz, A. C., Shahzad, A., & Rhoads, K. (2014). Entrepreneurship research (1985–2009) and the emergence of opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(5), 981–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carlsson, B. (1999). Small business, entrepreneurship, and industrial dynamics. In Z. J. Acs (Ed.), Are small firms important? Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  22. Chandler, A. D. (1990). Scale and scope: The dynamics of industrial capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Chetty, R., & Saez, E. (2005). Dividend taxes and corporate behavior: Evidence from the 2003 dividend tax cut. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(3), 791–833.Google Scholar
  24. Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Conway, P., De Rosa, D., Nicoletti, G., & Steiner, F. (2006). Regulation, competition and productivity convergence. OECD Economics Department Working Paper 509. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  26. Cosgel, M., & Klamer, A. (1990). Entrepreneurship as discourse. Mimeo. Storrs: University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  27. Cumming, D. (2005). Agency costs, institutions, learning, and taxation in venture capital contracting. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(5), 573–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Da Rin, M., Nicodano, G., & Sembenelli, A. (2006). Public policy and the creation of active venture capital markets. Journal of Public Economics, 90(8–9), 1699–1723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dahmén, E. (1970). Entrepreneurial activity and the development of Swedish industry 1919–1939. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin for the American economic association. [English translation of Dahmén’s doctoral dissertation published in Swedish in 1950.]Google Scholar
  30. Davis, S. J., & Henrekson, M. (1997). Industrial policy, employer size and economic performance in Sweden. In R. B. Freeman, R. Topel, & B. Swedenborg (Eds.), The welfare state in transition (pp. 353–397). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Davis, S. J., & Henrekson, M. (1999). Explaining national differences in the size and industry distribution of employment. Small Business Economics, 12(1), 59–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. De Clercq, D., & Sapienza, H. J. (2001). The creation of relational rents in venture capitalist–entrepreneur dyads. Venture Capital, 3(2), 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Delmar, F., & Wennberg, K. (2010). Knowledge intensive entrepreneurship: The birth, growth and demise of entrepreneurial firms. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dopfer, K., & Potts, J. (2009). On the theory of economic evolution. Evolutionary and Institutional Economic Review, 6(1), 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Douhan, R., & Henrekson, M. (2010). Entrepreneurship and second-best institutions: Going beyond baumol’s typology. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 20(4), 629–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Du Rietz, G., Johansson, D., & Stenkula, M. (2015). Swedish capital income taxation (1862–2013). In M. Henrekson & M. Stenkula (Eds.), Swedish taxation: Developments since 1862 (pp. 123–178). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Elert, N., & Henrekson, M. (2016). Evasive entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 47(1), 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Elert, N., & Henrekson, M. (2017). Entrepreneurship and institutions: A bidirectional relationship. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 13(3), 191–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Elert, N., Henrekson, M., & Stenkula, M. (2017). Institutional reform for innovation and entrepreneurship: An agenda for Europe. Cham, CH and New York, NY: Springer International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Elert, N., Henrekson, M., & Sanders, M. (2019). The entrepreneurial society: A reform agenda for the European Union. Cham, CH and New York, NY: Springer International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Eliasson, G. (1996). Firm objectives, controls and organization: The use of information and the transfer of knowledge within the firm. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Eliasson, G. (2000). Industrial policy, competence blocs and the role of science in economic development. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10(1–2), 217–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Eliasson, G., & Eliasson, Å. (1996). The biotechnical competence bloc. Revue d’Économie Industrielle, 78(1), 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Erixon, L. (2011). Development blocks, malinvestment and structural tensions – The Åkerman-Dahmén theory of the business cycle. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(1), 105–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Erixon, F., & Weigel, B. (2016). The innovation illusion: How so little is created by so many working so hard. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  47. European Commission (2015). Upgrading the single market: More opportunities for business and people. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2015/EN/1-2015-550-EN-F1-1.PDF. Accessed 6 December 2016.
  48. European Union (2016). European innovation scoreboard 2016. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs.Google Scholar
  49. Fenn, G., Liang, N., & Prowse, S. (1995). The economics of the private equity market. Washington, D.C.: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.Google Scholar
  50. Foss, N. J. (1997). Austrian insights and the theory of the firm. In Advances in Austrian economics (vol. 4, pp. 175–198). Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
  51. Ghoshal, S., Moran, P., & Almeida-Costa, L. (1995). The essence of the megacorporation: Shared context, not structural hierarchy. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 151(4), 748–759.Google Scholar
  52. Gilson, R. J., & Schizer, D. M. (2003). Understanding venture capital structure: A tax explanation for convertible preferred stock. Harvard Law Review, 116(3), 874–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Gompers, P. A., & Lerner, J. (2001). The money of invention: How venture capital creates new wealth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Granstrand, O., & Alänge, S. (1995). The evolution of corporate entrepreneurship in Swedish industry – Was Schumpeter wrong. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 5(2), 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Grant Thornton. (2016). Konkurrenskraften i svensk ägarbeskattning. Stockholm: Confederation of Swedish Enterprise.Google Scholar
  56. Hall, R. E., & Woodward, S. E. (2010). The burden of the nondiversifiable risk of entrepreneurship. American Economic Review, 100(3), 1163–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530.Google Scholar
  58. Hayek, F. A. (1976). Law, legislation and liberty (Vol. 2: The mirage of social justice). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  59. Hayek, F. A. (1988). The fatal conceit: The errors of socialism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Henrekson, M., & Sanandaji, T. (2016). Owner-level taxes and business activity. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 12(1), 1–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Henrekson, M., & Sanandaji, T. (2018). Stock option taxation and venture capital activity: A cross-country study. Venture Capital, 20(1), 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Heyman, F., Norbäck, P. J., Persson, L., & Andersson, F. (2019). Has the Swedish business sector become more entrepreneurial than the U.S. business sector? Research Policy, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  63. Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., & Schuler, D. (2004). Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 30(6), 837–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ho, Y.-P., & Wong, P.-K. (2007). Financing, regulatory costs and entrepreneurial propensity. Small Business Economics, 28(2–3), 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Holmén, M., & Högfeldt, P. (2005). A law and finance analysis of initial public offerings. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 13(3), 324–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Huizinga, H., Laeven, L., & Nicodeme, G. (2008). Capital structure and international debt shifting. Journal of Financial Economics, 88(1), 80–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Johansson, D. (2009). The theory of the experimentally organized economy and competence blocs: An introduction. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 20(2), 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Jorgenson, D. W., & Landau, R. (Eds.). (1993). Tax reform and the cost of capital. An international comparison. Washington, D.C.: Brookings.Google Scholar
  69. Kasper, W., Streit, M. E., & Boettke, P. J. (2014). Institutional economics: Property, competition, and policies (2nd edition). Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  70. Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  71. Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An Austrian approachz. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 60–85.Google Scholar
  72. Klein, P. G. (2008). Opportunity discovery, entrepreneurial action, and economic organization. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(3), 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Klein, D. B. (2012). Knowledge and coordination: A liberal interpretation. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Kleiner, M. M. (2006). Licensing occupations: Ensuring quality or restricting competition? Kalamazoo: W.E. Upjohn Institute.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Klepper, S. (2016). Experimental capitalism: The nanoeconomics of American high-tech industries. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Knight, F. H. (1951). The economic organization. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  77. Lamoreaux, N. R., & Sokoloff, K. L. (2007). Inventors, firms, and the market for technology in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In N. R. Lamoreaux, D. M. G. Raff, & P. Temin (Eds.), Learning by doing in markets, firms, and countries. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  78. Landström, H., & Mason, C. (Eds.) (2016). Handbook of research on business angels. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  79. Lawton, T. A., McGuire, S., & Rajwani, T. (2013). Corporate political activity: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 86–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Lazear, E. P. (2004). Balanced skills and entrepreneurship. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 94(2), 208–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Lerner, J., & Tåg, J. (2013). Institutions and venture capital. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(1), 153–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (2015). Public sector entrepreneurship: U.S. technology and innovation policy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Lucas, D. S., & Fuller, C. S. (2017). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive — Relative to what. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 7, 45–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. MacMillan, I. C., Kulow, D. M., & Khoylian, R. (1989). Venture capitalists’ involvement in their investments: Extent and performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 4(1), 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Madhok, A., & Tallman, S. B. (1998). Resources, transactions and rents: Managing value through interfirm collaborative relationships. Organization Science, 9(3), 326–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Malcolmson, J. M. (1997). Contracts, hold-up, and labor markets. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(4), 1916–1957.Google Scholar
  87. Manish, G. P., & Powell, B. (2014). Capital theory and the process of inter-temporal coordination: The Austrian contribution to the theory of economic growth. Atlantic Economic Journal, 42(2), 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. McCloskey, D., & Klamer, A. (1995). One quarter of GDP is persuasion. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 85(2), 191–195.Google Scholar
  89. Metcalfe, J. S. (1998). Evolutionary economics and creative destruction. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Minniti, M., & Bygrave, W. (2001). A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(3), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Mises, L. (1981 [1922]). Socialism: An economic and sociological analysis. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  92. Mises, L. (1998 [1949]). Human action: A treatise on economics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Misher, N. (1984). Tax consequences of exercising an incentive stock option with stock of the granting corporation. The Tax Executive, July, 36, 357–363.Google Scholar
  94. Morck, R. K. (Ed.). (2005). A history of corporate governance around the world: Family business groups to professional managers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  95. Mowery, D. C. (2009). Plus ça change: Industrial R&D in the “third industrial revolution”. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(1), 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Niehof, J. (1999). Barriers for hiring personnel. Research Report 9807/E. Zoetermeer: EIM Business and Policy Research.Google Scholar
  97. OECD. (2003). The sources of economic growth in the OECD countries. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. OECD. (2010). The OECD innovation strategy: Getting a head start on tomorrow. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Phelps, E. S. (2007). Macroeconomics for a modern economy. 2006 Nobel prize lecture in economics. American Economic Review, 97(3), 543–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Piore, M., & Sabel, C. (1984). The second industrial divide. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  101. Pongracic, I. (2009). Employees and entrepreneurship: Co-ordination and spontaneity in non-hierarchical business organizations. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  102. Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Rodrik, D. (2007). One economics, many recipes: Globalization, institutions, and economic growth. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Rothbard, M. N. (2009 [1962]). Man, economy and state. Auburn: Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  105. Rubin, P. H. (2014). Emporiophobia (fear of markets): Cooperation or competition? Southern Economic Journal, 80(4), 875–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Sautet, F. (2000). An entrepreneurial theory of the firm. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Scarpetta, S., Hemmings, P., Tressel, T., & Woo, J. (2002). The role of policy and institutions for productivity and firm dynamics: Evidence from micro and industry data. OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 329. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  108. Schäfer, W., Kroneman, M., Boerma, W., van den Berg, M., Westert, G., Devillé, W., & van Ginneken, E. (2010). The Netherlands: Health system review. In Health systems in transition (vol. 12, no. 1). Copenhagen: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies.Google Scholar
  109. Schumpeter, J. A. (1989 [1949]). Economic theory and entrepreneurial history. In R. V. Clemence (Ed.), Essays on entrepreneurs, innovations, business cycles, and the evolution of capitalism (pp. 253–271). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.Google Scholar
  111. Skedinger, P. (2010). Employment protection legislation. evolution, effects, winners and losers. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  112. Smith, A. (1976 [1776]). An inquiry into the nature and the causes of the wealth of nations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  113. Södersten, J. (1984). Sweden. In M. A. King & D. Fullerton (Eds.), The taxation of income from capital. A comparative study of the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and West Germany (pp. 87–148). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  114. Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Stam, E., & Lambooy, J. (2012). Entrepreneurship, knowledge, space, and place: Evolutionary economic geography meets Austrian economics. In D. E. Andersson (Ed.), The spatial market process: Advances in Austrian economics (vol. 16, pp. 81–103). Bingley, UK: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Stigler, G. J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Tåg, J. (2012). In D. Cumming (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of private equity The real effects of private equity buyouts (pp. 271–299). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  118. van Stel, A., Storey, D. J., & Thurik, A. R. (2007). The effect of business regulations on nascent and young business entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 28(2–3), 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. von Hippel, E., Ogawa, S., & de Jong, J. P. J. (2011). The age of the consumer-innovator. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(1), 27–35.Google Scholar
  120. Wagner, R. E. (2014). Entangled political economy: A keynote address. In S. Horwitz & R. Koppl (Eds.), Entangled political economy. Advances in Austrian Economics, Volume 18. London: Emerald.Google Scholar
  121. Wennekers, S., & Thurik, A. R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 13(1), 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Witt, U. (1996). Innovations, externalities and the problem of economic progress. Public Choice, 89(1–2), 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN)StockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations