Evidence-Based Leadership

Many nations' governments are requiring schools to bring about significant, systematic, and sustained change to improve student outcomes in all settings, and have imposed mandates to ensure that schools are providing quality education and running efficiently and effectively. Consequently, national and state testing programs, standards-based agendas, and reporting methodologies have been imposed on schools with significant demands and, in many cases, demoralizing outcomes (Hargreaves 2003). As a result of these processes, test questions have become the curriculum; teacher judgment has become undervalued; and evidence that is ill-informed, outdated, and incorrect has been used to drive school change.     

Currents and sub-currents in innovation flows: Explaining innovativeness using new-product announcements

The creation of new knowledge is a haphazard process: not every sector in an economy is equally involved. The effect of industry structure on innovativeness has been a focus of attention for a long time by both academics and policymakers. In a much quoted article, using unique data - new-product announcements - Acs and Audretsch [Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B., 1988. Innovation in large and small firms: an empirical analysis. American Economic Review 78(4), 678-690] identified several characteristics of industry structure and their effects on innovativeness. By analyzing a new and more consciously compiled database, we re-examine their original claims. Our results largely support their findings: industry concentration and degree of unionization for instance hamper innovation; skilled labor promotes it. Our findings diverge in one significant respect from theirs: we suggest that the large firms do not contribute more to an industry’s innovativeness than small firms. At the industry level, we find strong support for the Schumpeter Mark I perspective of creative destruction by small firms rather than creative accumulation by large firms. In addition, we show that less dedicated innovators prove more susceptible to firm-external industry factors than more committed innovators. An unfavorable competitive environment decreases the likelihood that less successful innovators will announce new products.