Asymmetric information as a barrier to knowledge spillovers in expert markets

Abstract

This paper investigates barriers to effective knowledge spillovers for markets in which the product can be characterized as a credence good, i.e. its complexity impedes the evaluation of quality by customers both ex-ante and ex-post. We focus on the German market for energy efficiency consultants, as an emerging and subsidized sector in which the service offered has strong credence good properties. Based upon in-depth interviews with stakeholders, we analyze the determinants and barriers to knowledge spillovers. We find that the incentive to foster spillovers to increase suppliers’ knowledge is limited by the difficult commercialization of additional capabilities. The implementation of a public certification scheme has failed to increase the sectoral knowledge spillovers. By contrast, the participation in formal knowledge networks has been more effective in prompting companies to foster knowledge spillovers, which has also led to a higher degree of specialization. We conclude that access to certification schemes should be further restricted to increase market transparency and private networks should be supported to achieve the aim of increasing knowledge spillovers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    For recent extensive literature reviews on the results of the KSTE, see Acs et al. (2013) and Ghio et al. (2015).

  2. 2.

    To our knowledge, EECs have been only analyzed according to their function as an economic policy instrument. The results mainly highlighted the low effectiveness of increasing the rate of retrofit (e.g. Mahapatra et al. 2011; Palmer et al. 2013; Virkki-Hatakka et al. 2013).

  3. 3.

    In one case, recording was not possible due to technical problems. Therefore, an extensive memo was written immediately after the interview.

  4. 4.

    Most interviewees emphasized that misconceptions are widespread and that false information is used and willfully spread in the EEC-market, as: “in some parts, even outright misinformation is going on” (interviewee #B). Interviewees connected the obvious uncertainty on the customer side to this diffusion of false information.

  5. 5.

    The connection of these problematic factors often leads to misinformed choices on the customers’ side, which is emphasized by most interviewees. Consequently, inappropriate retrofit choices are made, based on substantially limited knowledge by customers who fail to acknowledge relevant pieces of information. As interviewee #H states: “Of course, the energy efficiency consultant is only contacted afterwards, once they have their problem with mold. Then I always say ‘well, why didn’t you make a proper ventilation concept beforehand, you would have needed to figure out what would happen once you seal your windows!’ Of course, that’s how it works.

  6. 6.

    Upon receipt of the certificate, the access to subsidies is granted via a public web list. To be included in the web list, a minimum of 70 h of training and 16 h of additional training every two years is required (KfW 2014).

  7. 7.

    As interviewee #H stated: “There is of course some difference between energy efficiency consultants who just call themselves as such and those that are listed. The ones on the lists at least have to show some very basic minimum levels of quality.” This statement can be considered a representative view among interviewees: certification does provide some information, but is still considered as a very low threshold of expert knowledge without substantial additional information.

  8. 8.

    In this context, interviewee #P, employed in an EEC-network, emphasizes that “energy efficiency consultants, if they are serious and are doing their business properly, are building and using networks”. Across interviews, there is a widespread understanding that quality is a major concern for the existing private networks.

  9. 9.

    Interviewee #J sums up this policy by stating “In our region, we do know each other somewhat, you know, you participate in the network and if you know about someone who does EEC work but has messed up a couple of projects and things regularly go wrong with him, we just wouldn’t let him into the network.” Further, the same interviewee states that “the network is also working as a kind of quality-network, so that only firms with quality can get in. And if one can provide references, to which the board says ‘yes, this is good’, only then can one get in.”

  10. 10.

    The increase in information spillovers is acknowledge by most interviewees; as one network representative puts it: “And through the network, we offer the opportunity for each energy efficiency consultant to learn and improve in his work” (Interviewee #J).

  11. 11.

    The increased cooperation can be illustrated by one consultant’s statement, who – in response to a question about the occurrence and advantages of cooperation in situations of unplanned overcapacities – states that: “I always try to react with colleagues, using our network. I can always find someone there, I initiate an appeal for help and that’s why we’re organized, among other things. Maybe there is one or another who says, you know, I just happen to have a shift in my plans here, I can help you out.” (Interviewee #I)

  12. 12.

    For studies providing an overview and critical assessment of the contemporary German labor market with regard to wage and hiring rigidity, we refer to Moeller (2010); Eichhorst (2015); Burda (2016).

References

  1. Acosta, M., Coronado, D., & Flores, E. (2011). University spillovers and new business location in high-technology sectors: Spanish evidence. Small Business Economics, 36(3), 365–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1988). Innovation in large and small firms: an empirical analysis. American Economic Review, 78(4), 678–690.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Acs, Z. J., & Plummer, L. A. (2005). Penetrating the ``knowledge filter” in regional economies. The Annals of Regional Science, 39(3), 439–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Acs, Z. J., Anselin, L., & Varga, A. (2002). Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy, 31(7), 1069–1085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Braunerhjelm, P., & Carlsson, B. (2004). The missing link: the knowledge filter and endogenous growth (discussion paper). Stockholm: Center.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Acs, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009a). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Acs, Z. J., Plummer, L. A., & Sutter, R. (2009b). Penetrating the knowledge filter in “rust belt” economies. The Annals of Regional Science, 43(4), 989–1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Braunerhjelm, P., & Carlsson, B. (2012). Growth and entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 39(2), 289–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2013). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 757–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Agarwal, R., & Shah, S. K. (2014). Knowledge sources of entrepreneurship: firm formation by academic, user and employee innovators. Research Policy, 43(7), 1109–1133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Agarwal, R., Audretsch, D., & Sarkar, M. B. (2007). The process of creative construction: knowledge spillovers, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3–4), 263–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Howitt, P. (2005). Competition and innovation: an inverted-U relationship. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(2), 701–728.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Amara, N., & Landry, R. (2005). Sources of information as determinants of novelty of innovation in manufacturing firms: evidence from the 1999 statistics Canada innovation survey. Technovation, 25(3), 245–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity (pp. 609–626). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Audretsch, D. B. (1995). Innovation and industry evolution. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Audretsch, D. B., & Belitski, M. (2013). The missing pillar: the creativity theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 819–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2007). The theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1243–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2008). Resolving the knowledge paradox: knowledge-spillover entrepreneurship and economic growth. Research Policy, 37(10), 1697–1705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34(8), 1191–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Audretsch, D. B., & Stephan, P. E. (1999). Knowledge spillovers in biotechnology: sources and incentives. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 9(1), 97–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location. Research Policy, 34(7), 1113–1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Audretsch, D. B., Keilbach, M., & Lehmann, E. E. (Eds.) (2006). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Audretsch, D. B., Hülsbeck, M., & Lehmann, E. E. (2012). Regional competitiveness, university spillovers, and entrepreneurial activity. Small Business Economics, 39(3), 587–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Auriol, E., & Schilizzi, S. G. (2015). Quality signaling through certification in developing countries. Journal of Development Economics, 116, 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bartiaux, F., Gram-Hanssen, K., Fonseca, P., Ozoliņa, L., & Christensen, T. H. (2014). A practice–theory approach to homeowners’ energy retrofits in four European areas. Building Research & Information, 42(4), 525–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Beck, A., Kerschbamer, R., Qiu, J., & Sutter, M. (2014). Car mechanics in the lab––investigating the behavior of real experts on experimental markets for credence goods. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 108, 166–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bonaccorsi, A., Colombo, M. G., Guerini, M., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2013). University specialization and new firm creation across industries. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 837–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bonroy, O., & Constantatos, C. (2008). On the use of labels in credence goods markets. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 33(3), 237–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Braunerhjelm, P., Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2010). The missing link: knowledge diffusion and entrepreneurship in endogenous growth. Small Business Economics, 34(2), 105–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Brounen, D., & Kok, N. (2011). On the economics of energy labels in the housing market. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 62(2), 166–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Burda, M.C. (2016). The German Labor Market Miracle, 2003–2015: An Assessment. SFB 649 Discussion Paper 2016–005.

  32. Cappelli, R., Czarnitzki, D., & Kraft, K. (2014). Sources of spillovers for imitation and innovation. Research Policy, 43(1), 115–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Carlsson, B., Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Braunerhjelm, P. (2009). Knowledge creation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: a historical review. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1193–1229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Cho, I. K., & Kreps, D. M. (1987). Signaling games and stable equilibria. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102(2), 179–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cooke, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). Regional development in the knowledge-based economy: the construction of advantage. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. De Silva, D. G., & McComb, R. (2012). Research universities and regional high-tech firm start-up and exit. Economic Inquiry, 50(1), 112–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Diefenbach, N., Cischinsky, H., Rodenfels, M., Clausnitzer, K.-D., 2010. Datenbasis Gebäudebestand: Datenerhebung zur energetischen Qualität und zu den Modernisierungstrends im deutschen Wohngebäudebestand (neue Ausg.). Wohnen und Umwelt, Darmstadt.

  38. Dranove, D., & Jin, G. Z. (2010). Quality disclosure and certification: theory and practice. Journal of Economic Literature, 48(4), 935–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Driffield, N., & Love, J. H. (2005). Who gains from whom? Spillovers, competition and technology sourcing in the foreign-owned sector of UK manufacturing. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 52(5), 663–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Driffield, N., Love, J. H., & Yang, Y. (2014). Technology sourcing and reverse productivity spillovers in the multinational enterprise: global or regional phenomenon? British Journal of Management, 25, 24–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Dulleck, U., & Kerschbamer, R. (2006). On doctors, mechanics and computer specialists: the economics of credence goods. Journal of Economic Literature, 44(1), 5–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Dulleck, U., Kerschbamer, R., & Sutter, M. (2011). The economics of credence goods: an experiment on the role of liability, verifiability, reputation, and competition. American Economic Review, 101(2), 526–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. The Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1155–1179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Eichhorst, W. (2015). The unexpected appearance of a new German model. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 53(1), 49–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Eisenhardt, K., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Feldman, M. P. (1999). The new economics of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration: a review of empirical studies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 8(1–2), 5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Feser, D., Proeger, T., 2015. Knowledge-intensive business services as credence goods -- a demand-side approach. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. doi:10.1007/s13132-015-0320-1.

  49. Friege, J., & Chappin, E. (2014). Modelling decisions on energy-efficient renovations: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 39, 196–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ghio, N., Guerini, M., Lehmann, E. E., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2015). The emergence of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 44(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Gittleman, M., Klee, M.A., Kleiner, M.M. (2015). Analyzing the labor market outcomes of occupational licensing National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. w20961.

  52. Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Gram-Hanssen, K., Bartiaux, F., Jensen, O. M., & Cantaert, M. (2007). Do homeowners use energy labels? A comparison between Denmark and Belgium. Energy Policy, 35(5), 2879–2888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2014). Academics’ start-up intentions and knowledge filters: an individual perspective of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 43(1), 57–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Hayter, C. S. (2013). Conceptualizing knowledge-based entrepreneurship networks: perspectives from the literature. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 899–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Howden, C., & Pressey, A. D. (2008). Customer value creation in professional service relationships: the case of credence goods. The Service Industries Journal, 28(6), 789–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Huggins, R., & Thompson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurship, innovation and regional growth: a network theory. Small Business Economics, 45(1), 103–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Huggins, R., Johnston, A., & Thompson, P. (2012). Network capital, social capital and knowledge flow: how the nature of inter-organizational networks impacts on innovation. Industry & Innovation, 19(3), 203–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Jahn, G., Schramm, M., & Spiller, A. (2005). The reliability of certification: quality labels as a consumer policy tool. Journal of Consumer Policy, 28(1), 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Karnani, F. (2013). The university’s unknown knowledge: tacit knowledge, technology transfer and university spin-offs findings from an empirical study based on the theory of knowledge. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(3), 235–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. KfW, (2014). Die aktuellen KfW-Programme – was gibt es Neues? KfW-Regionalkonferenzen für die Wohnungswirtschaft 2014 https://www.kfw.de/PDF/Download-Center/F%C3%B6rderprogramme-%28Inlandsf%C3%B6rderung%29/PDF-Dokumente/Wohnungsunternehmen/Regionalkonferenz_Pr%C3%A4si_Merzbach.pdf).

  64. Kleiner, M. M. (2000). Occupational licensing. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(4), 189–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Klepper, S. (2007). Disagreements, spinoffs, and the evolution of Detroit as the Capital of the U.S. automobile industry. Management Science, 53(4), 616–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2004). Searching low and high: why do firms cite universities as a source of innovation? Research Policy, 33, 1201–1215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovative performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2014). The paradox of openness: appropriability, external search and collaboration. Research Policy, 43(5), 867–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Lundvall, B.-A. (Ed.) (1992). National Systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Maennig, W., & Ölschlaeger, M. (2011). Innovative Milieux and regional competitiveness: the role of associations and chambers of commerce and industry in Germany. Regional Studies, 45(4), 441–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Maennig, W., Ölschlaeger, M., & Schmidt-Trenz, H. J. (2015). Organisations and regional innovative capability: the case of the chambers of commerce and industry in Germany. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(4), 811–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Mahapatra, K., Nair, G., & Gustavsson, L. (2011). Swedish energy advisers’ perceptions regarding and suggestions for fulfilling homeowner expectations. Energy Policy, 39(7), 4264–4273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Mayring, P. (2004). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick, E. von Kardoff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (Vol. 1, pp. 266–269). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  74. McCluskey, J. (2000). A game theoretic approach to organic foods: an analysis of asymmetric information and policy. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 29(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Moeller, J. (2010). The German labor market response in the world recession – de-mystifying a miracle. Zeitschrift für ArbeitsmarktForschung, 42(4), 325–336.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Mueller, P. (2006). Exploring the knowledge filter: how entrepreneurship and university–industry relationships drive economic growth. Research Policy, 35(10), 1499–1508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Muench, S., Thuss, S., & Guenther, E. (2014). What hampers energy system transformations? The case of smart grids. Energy Policy, 73, 80–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Nelson, R. R. (Ed.) (1993). National Innovation Systems: a comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Palmer, K., Walls, M., Gordon, H., & Gerarden, T. (2013). Assessing the energy-efficiency information gap: results from a survey of home energy auditors. Energy Efficiency, 6(2), 271–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Pinto, H., Fernandez-Esquinas, M., & Uyarra, E. (2012). Universities and knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) as sources of knowledge for innovative firms in peripheral regions. Regional Studies, 1–19.

  81. Plummer, L. A., & Acs, Z. J. (2014). Localized competition in the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 121–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Rogers, M. (2004). Networks, firm size and innovation. Small Business Economics, 22, 141–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Romer, P. M. (1986). Retruns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Romer, P. M. (1994). The origins of endogenous growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Seefeldt, F., Offermann, R., Duscha, M., Brischke, L. A., Schmitt, C., Irrekt, W., Ansari, E., & Meyer, C. (2013). Marktanalyse und Marktbewertung sowie Erstellung eines Konzeptes zur Marktbeobachtung für ausgewählte Dienstleistungen im Bereich Energieeffizienz, Berlin, Heidelberg, Mühlheim a.d. Ruhr, downloaded from: http://www.bafa.de/bfee/informationsangebote/publikationen/studien/bafa_marktanalyse_endbericht.pdf. Downloaded on 15 Jan 2015.

  86. Schiller, D., & Diez, J. R. (2010). Local embeddedness of knowledge spillover agents: empirical evidence from German star scientists. Papers in Regional Science, 89(2), 275–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Schmidt, S. (2015). Balancing the spatial localisation ‘tilt’: knowledge spillovers in processes of knowledge-intensive services. Forthcoming: Geoforum.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Shapiro, C. (1986). Investment, moral hazard, and occupational licensing. The Review of Economic Studies, 53(5), 843–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Shu, C., Liu, C., Gao, S., & Shanley, M. (2014). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship in alliances. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(4), 913–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Smith, H. L., Romeo, S., & Virahsawmy, M. (2012). Business and professional networks: scope and outcomes in Oxfordshire. Environment and Planning A, 44(8), 1801–1818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Spencer, J. W. (2001). How relevant is university-based scientific research to private high-technology firms? A United States–Japan comparison. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 432–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Stam, E. (2013). Knowledge and entrepreneurial employees: a country-level analysis. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 887–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Stenholm, P., Acs, Z. J., & Wuebker, R. (2013). Exploring country-level institutional arrangements on the rate and type of entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(1), 176–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Stieß, I., & Dunkelberg, E. (2013). Objectives, barriers and occasions for energy efficient refurbishment by private homeowners. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 250–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Tang, J. (2006). Competition and innovation behaviour. Research Policy, 35(1), 68–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Tether, B. S., & Tajar, A. (2008). Beyond industry–university links: sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base. Research Policy, 37(6–7), 1079–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Thomä, J., & Bizer, K. (2013). To protect or not to protect?: modes of appropriability in the small enterprise sector. Research Policy, 42(1), 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Vega-Jurado, J., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A., Fernández-de-Lucio, I., & Manjarrés-Henríquez, L. (2008). The effect of external and internal factors on firms’ product innovation. Research Policy, 37(4), 616–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Virkki-Hatakka, T., Luoranen, M., & Ikävalko, M. (2013). Differences in perception: how the experts look at energy efficiency (findings from a Finnish survey). Energy Policy, 60, 499–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. White, M. D., & Marsh, E. E. (2006). Content analysis: a flexible methodology. Library Trends, 55(1), 22–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Wilson, C., Crane, L., & Chryssochoidis, G. (2015). Why do homeowners renovate energy efficiently? Contrasting perspectives and implications for policy. Energy Research & Social Science, 7, 12–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Yang, H., & Steensma, H. K. (2014). When do firms rely on their knowledge spillover recipients for guidance in exploring unfamiliar knowledge? Research Policy, 43(9), 1496–1507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Financial support for conducting the interviews from the iENG project (grant number 03EK3517A), funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Till Proeger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Feser, D., Proeger, T. Asymmetric information as a barrier to knowledge spillovers in expert markets. Int Entrep Manag J 13, 211–232 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-016-0404-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Credence goods
  • Knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship
  • Network

JEL Classification

  • D21
  • D82
  • H41
  • K23
  • L14