Itzhak Goldberg

Globalization and technology absorption in Europe and Central Asia : the role of trade, FDI, and cross-border knowledge flows

This study analyzes the extent of knowledge and technology absorption for firms in Europe and Central Asia (ECA), as well as the factors that influence absorption, using statistical analyses of various data sources, including the World Bank enterprise surveys, patent databases maintained by the United States (U.S.) and European patent offices, and case studies. The study addresses the following issues: (i) what can we learn from patents and patent citations about international knowledge flows and cross-national technological cooperation in ECA? (ii) How does openness to trade, participation in global supply networks, and investment in human capital, via on-the-job training, enhance knowledge and technology absorption in ECA-region manufacturing firms? How does foreign direct investment (FDI) stimulate acquisition of managerial and technical skills, new machinery and equipment, and market development?

Igniting innovation : rethinking the role of government in emerging Europe and Central Asia

This book builds on the lessons from public institutions and programs to support innovation, both successful and failed, from Europe and Central Asia (ECA) as well as China, Finland, Israel, and the United States. Field visits to these countries were hosted by the innovation and scientific agencies of the respective governments, strengthening the international experiences presented here. This book is a culmination of ten years of analytic and operational work led by the private and financial sector development department and the chief economists office of the ECA region of the World Bank. Several regional reports and country policy notes exploring these issues have been published over the years. The book also reflects the lively discussion in the ongoing series of flagship events to promote knowledge based economies in the region. The most recent knowledge economy forum was held in Berlin in 2010, hosted by the fraunhofer center for Central and Eastern Europe. The book identifies policies that have an adverse affect on innovation. It also identifies policy gaps that, if filled, could have a catalytic effect on private sector innovation.

Productivity, Ownership and the Investment Climate: International Lessons for Priorities in Serbia

This article uses data on 27,000 firms from 50 countries, half of which are transition economies, together with the specific case of Serbia to examine the relationship between productivity, the investment climate and private ownership of firms. As government capacity to address the investment climate constraints is limited, the prioritization of the constraints is critical. Identification of the relative effects of various investment climate constraints and ownership on productivity should serve as a guide for such prioritization. Although ownership has recently received less attention in policy decisions than previously, according to the econometric analysis of productivity reported in the paper, private ownership is an equally or more important determinant of productivity than other components of the investment climate. The importance of ownership shows that an unfinished privatization and restructuring agenda might have negative effects on productivity, in parallel to poor investment climate. Another important finding is that countries in which firms complain more about infrastructure tend to have less productive firms.

The"IPO-Plus": a new approach to privatization

Every approach to privatization entails tradeoffs. The chief advantage of case-by-case privatization -including sales for cash or initial public offerings (IPOs)- is efficiency. Case-by-case privatization generates revenues, gives shareholders control over managers, and provides access to capital and skills. But it is slow and does not promote widespread public participation. Voucher-based mass privatization programs, by contrast, are designed to promote equity in the distribution of wealth, through widespread participation. But they do not ensure efficiency because they may not generate revenues, bring in new capital or skills, or give shareholders control over managers. To promote equity and efficiency, the authors propose a new form of privatization -IPO-Plus- that incorporates key features of both case-by-case privatization and mass privatization. IPO-Plus promotes equity through widespread (but not mass) participation in privatization. It promotes efficiency by making privatization transparent, by fostering capital market development, and by creating independent financial institutions that would press companies to improve their financial performance. It relies not on vouchers but on the sale of low-priced public shares. It allows deferred payment for company shares as an incentive to purchase them as well as downwardly flexible share prices. Because the quality of the enterprises chosen for privatization is essential to the success of the IPO-Plus program, it is important that few enterprises targeted for IPO-Plus be published before the program is launched. This will motivate potential investors to join the program by setting up management companies, establishing public investment funds, and buying shares in them. IPO-Plus is more likely than mass privatization to create real owners. Investors in IPO-Plus are given a subsidy, but only in proportion to what they themselves choose to pay. The individual determines (up to a ceiling) how much to invest in the program. IPO-Plus is particularly appropriate where the objective is to encourage outside ownership rather than significant employee ownership. It encourages the emergence of market intermediaries and ensures the concentration of enterprise shares in investment funds. Outside ownership and concentration of share voting rights provide the basis for enterprise restructuring and economic growth.

Demand-Driven Innovation Policies in the European Union

The objective of the PICK-ME (Policy Incentives for Creation of Knowledge -- Methods and Evidence) research project is to provide theoretical and empirical perspectives on innovation which give a greater role to the demand-side aspect of innovation. The main question is how can policy make enterprises more willing to innovate? This task is fulfilled by identifying what we consider the central or most salient aspect of a demand-side innovation-driven economy, which is the small and entrepreneurial yet fast growing and innovative firm. We use the term -- Gazelle‖ to signify this type of firm throughout the paper. The main concern of policy makers should therefore be how to support Gazelle type of firms through various policies. The effectiveness of different policy instruments are considered. For example, venture capitalism is in the paper identified as an important modern institution that renders exactly the type of coordination necessary to bring about an innovation system more orientated towards the demand side. This is because experienced entrepreneurs with superior skills in terms of judging the marketability of new innovations step in as financiers. Other factor market bottlenecks on the skills side must be targeted through education policies that fosters centers of excellence. R&D incentives are also considered as a separate instrument but more a question for future research since there is no evidence available on R&D incentives as a Gazelle type of policy. Spatial policies to foster more innovation have been popular in the past. But we conclude that whereas the literature often finds that new knowledge is developed in communities of physically proximate firms, there is no overshadowing evidence showing that spatial policies in particular had any impact on generating more of the Gazelle type of firms.