2024
Journal Articles
1.
Rikap, Cecilia
In: Review of inteRnational Political economy, 2024.
@article{Rikap2024,
title = {Varieties of corporate innovation systems and their interplay with global and national systems: Amazon, Facebook, Google and Microsoft’s strategies to produce and appropriate artificial intelligence},
author = {Cecilia Rikap},
url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09692290.2024.2365757},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2024.102087},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-06-24},
urldate = {2024-06-24},
journal = {Review of inteRnational Political economy},
abstract = {The widely accepted globalization of innovation entails two interrelated undertheorized aspects: (1) the capacity of certain firms to orchestrate transnational innovation systems appropriating successful results, which some have explained with the concept of corporate innovation systems (CIS), and (2) the co-existence of such globalization with those CIS and national innovation systems. I address these matters analysing US Big Tech artificial intelligence (AI) CIS showing that they combine multiple mechanisms to co-produce and appropriate AI. I propose ‘frenemy’ to describe Microsoft’s strategy because many Chinese organizations and even direct competitors integrate its CIS. ‘University’ symbolises Google’s strategy, given its focus on fundamental AI, its central place in the AI research field and appropriation mechanisms that are not translating into clear business advantages. ‘Secrecy’ defines Amazon’s strategy, maximizing knowledge inflows while minimizing outflows. Facebook, with the narrowest AI CIS, exhibits an ‘application-centred’ strategy. Ultimately, this paper contributes to understanding the multiple mechanisms used by leading corporations for controlling and shaping frontier transnational knowledge production and appropriation. By doing so, it advances our knowledge of the interplay between different innovation spheres (national, global and corporate) and highlights the dangers of CIS’s encroachment of national and global systems.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The widely accepted globalization of innovation entails two interrelated undertheorized aspects: (1) the capacity of certain firms to orchestrate transnational innovation systems appropriating successful results, which some have explained with the concept of corporate innovation systems (CIS), and (2) the co-existence of such globalization with those CIS and national innovation systems. I address these matters analysing US Big Tech artificial intelligence (AI) CIS showing that they combine multiple mechanisms to co-produce and appropriate AI. I propose ‘frenemy’ to describe Microsoft’s strategy because many Chinese organizations and even direct competitors integrate its CIS. ‘University’ symbolises Google’s strategy, given its focus on fundamental AI, its central place in the AI research field and appropriation mechanisms that are not translating into clear business advantages. ‘Secrecy’ defines Amazon’s strategy, maximizing knowledge inflows while minimizing outflows. Facebook, with the narrowest AI CIS, exhibits an ‘application-centred’ strategy. Ultimately, this paper contributes to understanding the multiple mechanisms used by leading corporations for controlling and shaping frontier transnational knowledge production and appropriation. By doing so, it advances our knowledge of the interplay between different innovation spheres (national, global and corporate) and highlights the dangers of CIS’s encroachment of national and global systems.
2023
Masters Theses
2.
Virta, Vera
Performance indicators in sustainability reporting: Evidence from Finland Masters Thesis
Utrecht University, 2023.
@mastersthesis{Virta2023,
title = {Performance indicators in sustainability reporting: Evidence from Finland},
author = {Vera Virta},
url = {https://studenttheses.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12932/44680/MASTER%20THESIS%20Vera%20Virta%202196433.pdf?sequence=1},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-06-30},
school = {Utrecht University},
abstract = {Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is increasingly gaining attention both among academia and the business world, as environmental concerns continue to take more critical turns. Legislation is tightening around the topic and sustainability reporting is becoming more mandatory. Disclosure requirements are extending to reach smaller corporations as well. Hence, many companies are in a situation where they need to start reporting about their sustainability for the first time. One significant aspect of these CSR reports is Sustainability Performance Indicators (SPI), which are also part of several reporting frameworks. SPIs are useful tools to transform qualitative information into quantitative. They are considered effective in communicating non-financial information, providing reliable and accurate results for stakeholders.
This thesis investigates the sustainability performance indicators disclosed in the Finnish context, solely focusing on indicators defined by Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). It aims to examine what indicators are companies currently including in their reports, whether there can be differences detected regarding company characteristics, and whether it is possible to assess the level of disclosure quality and completeness. The sample consists of 29 large listed companies with origins in Finland.
Text mining and content analysis are performed on the sample reports to examine the disclosed indicators and disclosure quality.
The results show that on average, companies include 40 out of the total 88 GRI indicators in their reports. Environmental and social indicators are highlighted over economic ones, and the most used indicators relate to emissions and energy usage. Larger companies, both in the sense of revenue and number of employees, use more indicators than smaller ones. Differences are detected between industries, suggesting that air transport uses the most indicators, while companies in finance, insurance,
programming, and consultancy use the least indicators. Regarding the indicator preferences, results show that manufacturing companies focus on material and water, while wholesale and retail companies find procurement practices, waste, and suppliers important. Finance etc. companies then highlight customer privacy over other indicators. Findings suggest that there is room for improvement regarding both completeness of the disclosures and their quality, referring to both report content such as completeness, as well as external qualifications such as clarity. Based on the results it can be stated that companies are under external pressure to disclose sustainability information and use multiple performance indicators, but the pressure does not impact the report quality.
This thesis adds to the literature on sustainability reporting and sustainability performance indicators. It provides new insights into the rather scarce literature on the topic by providing results in the context of Finland. The thesis contributes to the stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory, and institutional theory. The results have practical value as well, as can be used by other companies who are starting their sustainability reporting journey, as they can adopt the reporting manners of the larger companies and on the other hand learn from their aberrations.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {mastersthesis}
}
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is increasingly gaining attention both among academia and the business world, as environmental concerns continue to take more critical turns. Legislation is tightening around the topic and sustainability reporting is becoming more mandatory. Disclosure requirements are extending to reach smaller corporations as well. Hence, many companies are in a situation where they need to start reporting about their sustainability for the first time. One significant aspect of these CSR reports is Sustainability Performance Indicators (SPI), which are also part of several reporting frameworks. SPIs are useful tools to transform qualitative information into quantitative. They are considered effective in communicating non-financial information, providing reliable and accurate results for stakeholders.
This thesis investigates the sustainability performance indicators disclosed in the Finnish context, solely focusing on indicators defined by Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). It aims to examine what indicators are companies currently including in their reports, whether there can be differences detected regarding company characteristics, and whether it is possible to assess the level of disclosure quality and completeness. The sample consists of 29 large listed companies with origins in Finland.
Text mining and content analysis are performed on the sample reports to examine the disclosed indicators and disclosure quality.
The results show that on average, companies include 40 out of the total 88 GRI indicators in their reports. Environmental and social indicators are highlighted over economic ones, and the most used indicators relate to emissions and energy usage. Larger companies, both in the sense of revenue and number of employees, use more indicators than smaller ones. Differences are detected between industries, suggesting that air transport uses the most indicators, while companies in finance, insurance,
programming, and consultancy use the least indicators. Regarding the indicator preferences, results show that manufacturing companies focus on material and water, while wholesale and retail companies find procurement practices, waste, and suppliers important. Finance etc. companies then highlight customer privacy over other indicators. Findings suggest that there is room for improvement regarding both completeness of the disclosures and their quality, referring to both report content such as completeness, as well as external qualifications such as clarity. Based on the results it can be stated that companies are under external pressure to disclose sustainability information and use multiple performance indicators, but the pressure does not impact the report quality.
This thesis adds to the literature on sustainability reporting and sustainability performance indicators. It provides new insights into the rather scarce literature on the topic by providing results in the context of Finland. The thesis contributes to the stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory, and institutional theory. The results have practical value as well, as can be used by other companies who are starting their sustainability reporting journey, as they can adopt the reporting manners of the larger companies and on the other hand learn from their aberrations.
This thesis investigates the sustainability performance indicators disclosed in the Finnish context, solely focusing on indicators defined by Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). It aims to examine what indicators are companies currently including in their reports, whether there can be differences detected regarding company characteristics, and whether it is possible to assess the level of disclosure quality and completeness. The sample consists of 29 large listed companies with origins in Finland.
Text mining and content analysis are performed on the sample reports to examine the disclosed indicators and disclosure quality.
The results show that on average, companies include 40 out of the total 88 GRI indicators in their reports. Environmental and social indicators are highlighted over economic ones, and the most used indicators relate to emissions and energy usage. Larger companies, both in the sense of revenue and number of employees, use more indicators than smaller ones. Differences are detected between industries, suggesting that air transport uses the most indicators, while companies in finance, insurance,
programming, and consultancy use the least indicators. Regarding the indicator preferences, results show that manufacturing companies focus on material and water, while wholesale and retail companies find procurement practices, waste, and suppliers important. Finance etc. companies then highlight customer privacy over other indicators. Findings suggest that there is room for improvement regarding both completeness of the disclosures and their quality, referring to both report content such as completeness, as well as external qualifications such as clarity. Based on the results it can be stated that companies are under external pressure to disclose sustainability information and use multiple performance indicators, but the pressure does not impact the report quality.
This thesis adds to the literature on sustainability reporting and sustainability performance indicators. It provides new insights into the rather scarce literature on the topic by providing results in the context of Finland. The thesis contributes to the stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory, and institutional theory. The results have practical value as well, as can be used by other companies who are starting their sustainability reporting journey, as they can adopt the reporting manners of the larger companies and on the other hand learn from their aberrations.
Online
3.
Bensussan, Hannah; Durand, Cédric; Rikap, Cecilia
100 years of Corporate Planning. From Industrial Capitalism to Intellectual Monopoly Capitalism through the lenses of the Harvard Business Review (1922-2021) Online
2023.
@online{Bensussan2023,
title = {100 years of Corporate Planning. From Industrial Capitalism to Intellectual Monopoly Capitalism through the lenses of the Harvard Business Review (1922-2021)},
author = {Hannah Bensussan and Cédric Durand and Cecilia Rikap},
url = {https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:171107},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-08-30},
school = {University of Geneva},
abstract = {This paper reopens the question of Corporate Planning (CP) from a political economy perspective by analyzing its evolving role in capitalism. To account for the evolution yet persistent relevance of CP, we analyze the content of Harvard Business Review (HBR) since its foundation in 1922 until 2021 included, using text mining and network analysis techniques.
Our results show that CP found new venues but remains crucial in the process of capital circulation and accumulation. Through Industrial Capitalism, CP used to be conditioned by two types of means of planning identified as means of information and knowledge appropriation (MIKA) and means of spatio-temporal projection (MSTP). The former was used to capture relevant intangibles for the construction and assessment of the plan while the latter were used to deploy the plan and concretely control and organize the activity from production to consumption. From the 1980s on, in a context of ample socioeconomic changes, the spread of digital technologies and the growing relevance of (and capacity to capture) intangibles for large corporations led to a transformation in the temporal orientation of the plan and contributed to change not only the how managers plan but also the immediate purpose of planning. },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
This paper reopens the question of Corporate Planning (CP) from a political economy perspective by analyzing its evolving role in capitalism. To account for the evolution yet persistent relevance of CP, we analyze the content of Harvard Business Review (HBR) since its foundation in 1922 until 2021 included, using text mining and network analysis techniques.
Our results show that CP found new venues but remains crucial in the process of capital circulation and accumulation. Through Industrial Capitalism, CP used to be conditioned by two types of means of planning identified as means of information and knowledge appropriation (MIKA) and means of spatio-temporal projection (MSTP). The former was used to capture relevant intangibles for the construction and assessment of the plan while the latter were used to deploy the plan and concretely control and organize the activity from production to consumption. From the 1980s on, in a context of ample socioeconomic changes, the spread of digital technologies and the growing relevance of (and capacity to capture) intangibles for large corporations led to a transformation in the temporal orientation of the plan and contributed to change not only the how managers plan but also the immediate purpose of planning.
Our results show that CP found new venues but remains crucial in the process of capital circulation and accumulation. Through Industrial Capitalism, CP used to be conditioned by two types of means of planning identified as means of information and knowledge appropriation (MIKA) and means of spatio-temporal projection (MSTP). The former was used to capture relevant intangibles for the construction and assessment of the plan while the latter were used to deploy the plan and concretely control and organize the activity from production to consumption. From the 1980s on, in a context of ample socioeconomic changes, the spread of digital technologies and the growing relevance of (and capacity to capture) intangibles for large corporations led to a transformation in the temporal orientation of the plan and contributed to change not only the how managers plan but also the immediate purpose of planning.
2022
Journal Articles
4.
Franco, Sebastián Fernández; Graña, Juan M; Flacher, David; Rikap, Cecilia
Producing and using artificial intelligence: What can Europe learn from Siemens’s experience? Journal Article
In: Competition & Change, vol. 0, pp. 1–30, 2022.
@article{Franco2022,
title = {Producing and using artificial intelligence: What can Europe learn from Siemens’s experience?},
author = {Sebastián Fernández Franco and Juan M Graña and David Flacher and Cecilia Rikap},
url = {https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juan-Grana-2/publication/360759657_Producing_and_using_artificial_intelligence_What_can_Europe_learn_from_Siemens's_experience/links/62a739f955273755ebe9963b/Producing-and-using-artificial-intelligence-What-can-Europe-learn-from-Siemenss-experience.pdf},
doi = {10.1177/10245294221097066},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-06-10},
urldate = {2022-06-10},
journal = {Competition & Change},
volume = {0},
pages = {1–30},
abstract = {This paper examines the innovation strategy of Siemens, a key player in Europe’s digital economy, by performing network and lexical analyses using data derived from Siemens’s patents and scientific publications since 1998. We observe that the company’s innovation efforts evolved from a broader attempt to develop internal information and communication technology (ICT) capabilities – alongside its historical industrial priorities – to a strategy focused on developing artificial intelligence (AI) for sector-specific and niche applications (such as life and medical sciences). As a result, it became dependent on tech giants’ clouds for accessing more general AI services and digital infrastructure. We build on the intellectual monopoly literature focusing on the effects of tech giants on other leading corporations, to analyse Siemens’s experience. By abandoning the development of general ICT and given the emergence of tech giants as digital economy intellectual monopolies, we show that Siemens is risking its technological autonomy towards these big tech companies. Our results provide clues to understand the challenges faced by Europe and its firms in relation to US and Chinese tech giants.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This paper examines the innovation strategy of Siemens, a key player in Europe’s digital economy, by performing network and lexical analyses using data derived from Siemens’s patents and scientific publications since 1998. We observe that the company’s innovation efforts evolved from a broader attempt to develop internal information and communication technology (ICT) capabilities – alongside its historical industrial priorities – to a strategy focused on developing artificial intelligence (AI) for sector-specific and niche applications (such as life and medical sciences). As a result, it became dependent on tech giants’ clouds for accessing more general AI services and digital infrastructure. We build on the intellectual monopoly literature focusing on the effects of tech giants on other leading corporations, to analyse Siemens’s experience. By abandoning the development of general ICT and given the emergence of tech giants as digital economy intellectual monopolies, we show that Siemens is risking its technological autonomy towards these big tech companies. Our results provide clues to understand the challenges faced by Europe and its firms in relation to US and Chinese tech giants.
2021
Books
5.
Rikap, Cecilia; Lundvall, Bengt-Åke
The Digital Innovation Race : Conceptualizing the Emerging New World Order Book
2021, ISBN: 978-3-030-89442-9.
@book{Rikap2021b,
title = {The Digital Innovation Race : Conceptualizing the Emerging New World Order},
author = {Cecilia Rikap and Bengt-Åke Lundvall},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-89443-6},
isbn = {978-3-030-89442-9},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-12-01},
urldate = {2021-12-01},
abstract = {This book develops new theoretical perspectives on the economics and politics of innovation and knowledge in order to capture new trends in modern capitalism. It shows how giant corporations establish themselves as intellectual monopolies and how each of them builds and controls its own corporate innovation system. It presents an analysis of a new form of production where Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft, and their counterparts in China, extract value and appropriate intellectual rents through privileged access to AI algorithms trained by data from organizations and individuals all around the world.
These companies’ specific form of production and rent-seeking takes place at the global level and challenges national governments trying to regulate intellectual monopolies and attempting to build stronger national innovation systems. It is within this context that the authors provide new insights on the complex interplay between corporate and national innovation systems by looking at the US-China conflict, understood as a struggle for global technological supremacy. The book ends with alternative scenarios of global governance and advances policy recommendations as well as calls for social activism.
This book will be of interest to students, academics and practitioners (both from national states and international organizations) and professionals working on innovation, digital capitalism and related topics. },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
This book develops new theoretical perspectives on the economics and politics of innovation and knowledge in order to capture new trends in modern capitalism. It shows how giant corporations establish themselves as intellectual monopolies and how each of them builds and controls its own corporate innovation system. It presents an analysis of a new form of production where Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft, and their counterparts in China, extract value and appropriate intellectual rents through privileged access to AI algorithms trained by data from organizations and individuals all around the world.
These companies’ specific form of production and rent-seeking takes place at the global level and challenges national governments trying to regulate intellectual monopolies and attempting to build stronger national innovation systems. It is within this context that the authors provide new insights on the complex interplay between corporate and national innovation systems by looking at the US-China conflict, understood as a struggle for global technological supremacy. The book ends with alternative scenarios of global governance and advances policy recommendations as well as calls for social activism.
This book will be of interest to students, academics and practitioners (both from national states and international organizations) and professionals working on innovation, digital capitalism and related topics.
These companies’ specific form of production and rent-seeking takes place at the global level and challenges national governments trying to regulate intellectual monopolies and attempting to build stronger national innovation systems. It is within this context that the authors provide new insights on the complex interplay between corporate and national innovation systems by looking at the US-China conflict, understood as a struggle for global technological supremacy. The book ends with alternative scenarios of global governance and advances policy recommendations as well as calls for social activism.
This book will be of interest to students, academics and practitioners (both from national states and international organizations) and professionals working on innovation, digital capitalism and related topics.
6.
Rikap, Cecilia
Capitalism, Power and Innovation: Intellectual Monopoly Capitalism Uncovered (1st ed.) Book
London, 2021, ISBN: 9780429341489.
@book{Rikap2021,
title = {Capitalism, Power and Innovation: Intellectual Monopoly Capitalism Uncovered (1st ed.)},
author = {Cecilia Rikap},
url = {https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780429341489/capitalism-power-innovation-cecilia-rikap},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429341489},
isbn = {9780429341489},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-03-29},
urldate = {2021-03-29},
address = {London},
abstract = {In contemporary global capitalism, the most powerful corporations are innovation or intellectual monopolies. The book’s unique perspective focuses on how private ownership and control of knowledge and data have become a major source of rent and power. The author explains how at the one pole, these corporations concentrate income, property and power in the United States, China, and in a handful of intellectual monopolies, particularly from digital and pharmaceutical industries, while at the other pole developing countries are left further behind.
The book includes detailed empirical mappings of how intellectual monopolies develop and transform knowledge from universities and open-source collaborations into intangible assets. The result is a strategy that combines undermining the commons through privatization with harvesting from the same commons. The book ends with provoking reflections to tilt the scale against intellectual monopoly capitalism and arguing that desired changes require democratic mobilization of workers and citizens at large.
This book represents one of the first attempts to capture the contours of an emerging new era where old perspectives lead us astray, and the old policy toolbox is hopelessly inadequate. This is true for the idea that the best, or only, way to promote innovation is to transform knowledge into private property. It is also true for anti-trust policies focusing exclusively on consumer prices. The formation of global infrastructures that lead to natural monopolies calls for public rather than private ownership.
Scholars and professionals from the social sciences and humanities (in particular economics, sociology, political science, geography, educational science and science and technology studies) will enjoy a clear and all-embracing depiction of innovation dynamics in contemporary capitalism, with a particular focus on asymmetries between actors, regions and topics. In fact, its topical issue broadens the book’s scope to those curious about how innovation networks shape our world.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
In contemporary global capitalism, the most powerful corporations are innovation or intellectual monopolies. The book’s unique perspective focuses on how private ownership and control of knowledge and data have become a major source of rent and power. The author explains how at the one pole, these corporations concentrate income, property and power in the United States, China, and in a handful of intellectual monopolies, particularly from digital and pharmaceutical industries, while at the other pole developing countries are left further behind.
The book includes detailed empirical mappings of how intellectual monopolies develop and transform knowledge from universities and open-source collaborations into intangible assets. The result is a strategy that combines undermining the commons through privatization with harvesting from the same commons. The book ends with provoking reflections to tilt the scale against intellectual monopoly capitalism and arguing that desired changes require democratic mobilization of workers and citizens at large.
This book represents one of the first attempts to capture the contours of an emerging new era where old perspectives lead us astray, and the old policy toolbox is hopelessly inadequate. This is true for the idea that the best, or only, way to promote innovation is to transform knowledge into private property. It is also true for anti-trust policies focusing exclusively on consumer prices. The formation of global infrastructures that lead to natural monopolies calls for public rather than private ownership.
Scholars and professionals from the social sciences and humanities (in particular economics, sociology, political science, geography, educational science and science and technology studies) will enjoy a clear and all-embracing depiction of innovation dynamics in contemporary capitalism, with a particular focus on asymmetries between actors, regions and topics. In fact, its topical issue broadens the book’s scope to those curious about how innovation networks shape our world.
The book includes detailed empirical mappings of how intellectual monopolies develop and transform knowledge from universities and open-source collaborations into intangible assets. The result is a strategy that combines undermining the commons through privatization with harvesting from the same commons. The book ends with provoking reflections to tilt the scale against intellectual monopoly capitalism and arguing that desired changes require democratic mobilization of workers and citizens at large.
This book represents one of the first attempts to capture the contours of an emerging new era where old perspectives lead us astray, and the old policy toolbox is hopelessly inadequate. This is true for the idea that the best, or only, way to promote innovation is to transform knowledge into private property. It is also true for anti-trust policies focusing exclusively on consumer prices. The formation of global infrastructures that lead to natural monopolies calls for public rather than private ownership.
Scholars and professionals from the social sciences and humanities (in particular economics, sociology, political science, geography, educational science and science and technology studies) will enjoy a clear and all-embracing depiction of innovation dynamics in contemporary capitalism, with a particular focus on asymmetries between actors, regions and topics. In fact, its topical issue broadens the book’s scope to those curious about how innovation networks shape our world.
2020
Journal Articles
7.
Rikap, Cecilia
Amazon: A story of accumulation through intellectual rentiership and predation Journal Article
In: Competition & Change, 2020.
@article{Rikap2020,
title = {Amazon: A story of accumulation through intellectual rentiership and predation },
author = {Cecilia Rikap},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1024529420932418},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-06-17},
journal = {Competition & Change},
abstract = {This article elaborates on intellectual monopoly theory as a form of predation and rentiership using Amazon as a case study. By analysing Amazon’s financial statements, scientific publications and patents, we show that Amazon’s economic power heavily relies on its systematic innovations and capacity to centralize and analyse customized data that orients its business and innovations. We demonstrate how Amazon’s innovation activities have evolved over time with growing importance of technologies related to data and machine learning. We also map Amazon’s innovation networks with academic institutions and companies. We show how Amazon appropriates intellectual rents from these networks and from technological cooperation with other intellectual monopolies. We argue that Amazon, as other data-driven monopolies, predates value from suppliers and third-party companies participating in its platform. One striking characteristic of Amazon is the low rate of reported profits. The centrality of innovations leads us to suggest an alternative calculation that shows that Amazon’s profits are not as low as they appear in Annual Reports. We also argue that lower profits are coherent with Amazon’s rentiership and predatory strategy since they contribute to the avoidance of accusations of excessive market power. Finally, the paper offers preliminary observations on: (i) the complementarities between financial and intellectual rentierism and (ii) how data-driven intellectual monopoly expands big corporations’ political power. Going beyond the specific case of Amazon, we thus contribute to a better understanding of the role of lead firms and power dynamics within innovation networks.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This article elaborates on intellectual monopoly theory as a form of predation and rentiership using Amazon as a case study. By analysing Amazon’s financial statements, scientific publications and patents, we show that Amazon’s economic power heavily relies on its systematic innovations and capacity to centralize and analyse customized data that orients its business and innovations. We demonstrate how Amazon’s innovation activities have evolved over time with growing importance of technologies related to data and machine learning. We also map Amazon’s innovation networks with academic institutions and companies. We show how Amazon appropriates intellectual rents from these networks and from technological cooperation with other intellectual monopolies. We argue that Amazon, as other data-driven monopolies, predates value from suppliers and third-party companies participating in its platform. One striking characteristic of Amazon is the low rate of reported profits. The centrality of innovations leads us to suggest an alternative calculation that shows that Amazon’s profits are not as low as they appear in Annual Reports. We also argue that lower profits are coherent with Amazon’s rentiership and predatory strategy since they contribute to the avoidance of accusations of excessive market power. Finally, the paper offers preliminary observations on: (i) the complementarities between financial and intellectual rentierism and (ii) how data-driven intellectual monopoly expands big corporations’ political power. Going beyond the specific case of Amazon, we thus contribute to a better understanding of the role of lead firms and power dynamics within innovation networks.
2019
Journal Articles
8.
Rikap, Cecilia
Asymmetric Power of the Core: Technological Cooperation and Technological Competition in the Transnational Innovation Networks of Big Pharma Journal Article
In: Review of International Political Economy, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 987-1021, 2019.
@article{Rikap2019,
title = {Asymmetric Power of the Core: Technological Cooperation and Technological Competition in the Transnational Innovation Networks of Big Pharma},
author = {Cecilia Rikap},
url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09692290.2019.1620309},
doi = {10.1080/09692290.2019.1620309},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-06-26},
urldate = {2019-06-26},
journal = {Review of International Political Economy},
volume = {26},
number = {5},
pages = {987-1021},
abstract = {This article theoretically and empirically analyzes leader corporations’ innovation processes in contemporary capitalism. We highlight three characteristics: their transnational scope, the primacy of power or asymmetric relations exercised by leaders over the participants of their innovation circuits or networks, and the relevance of what we called technological competition and technological cooperation between leaders. Focusing on the latter, our theoretical contribution integrates the concepts of innovation circuit, global innovation network and modularity of knowledge production in order to elaborate a preliminary model for synthesizing leader’s technological competition and collaboration behaviors. This model is the general framework used for studying three big pharma’s innovation networks (Roche, Novartis and Pfizer). In particular, we study those networks by considering two outputs: scientific publications and patents. Network maps are constructed based on institutions’ co-occurrences, thus looking at who is co-authoring their publications and co-owning these corporations’ patents. We find that big pharmaceuticals co-produce together mainly generic knowledge modules, thus develop a strong technological cooperation. Simultaneously, to succeed in their technological competition they outsource stages of their innovation networks to subordinate institutions that, even if they contribute to achieve the innovation, will not be co-owners of the resulting patents, while big pharmaceuticals enjoy associated innovation rents.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This article theoretically and empirically analyzes leader corporations’ innovation processes in contemporary capitalism. We highlight three characteristics: their transnational scope, the primacy of power or asymmetric relations exercised by leaders over the participants of their innovation circuits or networks, and the relevance of what we called technological competition and technological cooperation between leaders. Focusing on the latter, our theoretical contribution integrates the concepts of innovation circuit, global innovation network and modularity of knowledge production in order to elaborate a preliminary model for synthesizing leader’s technological competition and collaboration behaviors. This model is the general framework used for studying three big pharma’s innovation networks (Roche, Novartis and Pfizer). In particular, we study those networks by considering two outputs: scientific publications and patents. Network maps are constructed based on institutions’ co-occurrences, thus looking at who is co-authoring their publications and co-owning these corporations’ patents. We find that big pharmaceuticals co-produce together mainly generic knowledge modules, thus develop a strong technological cooperation. Simultaneously, to succeed in their technological competition they outsource stages of their innovation networks to subordinate institutions that, even if they contribute to achieve the innovation, will not be co-owners of the resulting patents, while big pharmaceuticals enjoy associated innovation rents.
PhD Theses
9.
Rabinovich, Joel
The Profit-Investment Puzzle under Financialisation : An empirical enquiry on financial and productive accumulation by non-financial corporations PhD Thesis
Université Sorbonne Paris Cité, 2019, (HAL Id : tel-02957676 , version 1).
@phdthesis{Rabinovich2019,
title = {The Profit-Investment Puzzle under Financialisation : An empirical enquiry on financial and productive accumulation by non-financial corporations},
author = {Joel Rabinovich},
url = {https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02957676},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-07-09},
urldate = {2019-07-09},
school = {Université Sorbonne Paris Cité},
abstract = {This thesis studies the different strategies that have allowed listed non-financial corporations to remain profitable while investing less and increasingly distributing funds to shareholders under financialisation. This feeble link between profitability and investment is usually denominated as the profit-investment puzzle. Part 1 of this thesis locates historically and theoretically this puzzle. Whereas the financialisation literature has generally been limited to show the negative effects of the distribution of funds to share holders for capital expenditures, we show that the coexistence of high levels of profits (and payouts) with low levels of investment was possible due to the simultaneous engagement of these non-financial corporations in other activities. Part 2 examines one type of answer that we denominate the financial turn of accumulation. The solution to the puzzle in this case implies a shift in the activities of NFCs to financial accumulation and profits. However, throughout this part we provide substantive evidence that rejects this alternative. Part 3 of the thesis moves away from financial accumulation and directs towards the realm of the productive sphere by focusing on production offshoring and intangible accumulation. This part, contrary to the previous one, provides strong and promising results in the explanation of the puzzle.},
note = {HAL Id : tel-02957676 , version 1},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {phdthesis}
}
This thesis studies the different strategies that have allowed listed non-financial corporations to remain profitable while investing less and increasingly distributing funds to shareholders under financialisation. This feeble link between profitability and investment is usually denominated as the profit-investment puzzle. Part 1 of this thesis locates historically and theoretically this puzzle. Whereas the financialisation literature has generally been limited to show the negative effects of the distribution of funds to share holders for capital expenditures, we show that the coexistence of high levels of profits (and payouts) with low levels of investment was possible due to the simultaneous engagement of these non-financial corporations in other activities. Part 2 examines one type of answer that we denominate the financial turn of accumulation. The solution to the puzzle in this case implies a shift in the activities of NFCs to financial accumulation and profits. However, throughout this part we provide substantive evidence that rejects this alternative. Part 3 of the thesis moves away from financial accumulation and directs towards the realm of the productive sphere by focusing on production offshoring and intangible accumulation. This part, contrary to the previous one, provides strong and promising results in the explanation of the puzzle.
2012
Proceedings Articles
10.
Schoen, Antoine; Villard, Lionel; Laurens, Patricia; Cointet, Jean-Philippe; Heimeriks, Gaston; Alkemade, Floortje
The Network Structure of Technological Developments; Technological Distance as a Walk on the Technology Map Proceedings Article
In: 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, pp. 733-742, 2012, (oai:HAL:hal-00809632v1).
@inproceedings{Schoen2012,
title = {The Network Structure of Technological Developments; Technological Distance as a Walk on the Technology Map},
author = {Antoine Schoen and Lionel Villard and Patricia Laurens and Jean-Philippe Cointet and Gaston Heimeriks and Floortje Alkemade},
url = {https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/48332739.pdf},
year = {2012},
date = {2012-09-01},
urldate = {2012-09-01},
booktitle = {17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators},
pages = {733-742},
abstract = {This paper presents a global map of technology that characterises the proximity and dependency of technological areas. It addresses the structure of technological output embodied in the network connecting patents to the patent classifications that they are attributed to. The distance between areas of technology is based on the analysis of the co-occurrence of IPC codes assigned to individual patent documents. As our classification of technologies we use an extended version of the WIPO classification of technological fields, unfolding the 35 classes to 389. The global map allows to ‘overlay’ patents produced by a specific organisation or country against the background of a stable representation of global technological invention and to produce comparisons that are visually attractive, very readable, and potentially useful for policy-making and strategic management. As an illustration, the technological portfolios of two large industrial corporations (IBM and BASF) are projected on this global map of technology, highlighting the technological profile of these groups. As such, the map can provide valuable information about promising areas of further technological development, comparative advantages and missing technological competences. },
note = {oai:HAL:hal-00809632v1},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
This paper presents a global map of technology that characterises the proximity and dependency of technological areas. It addresses the structure of technological output embodied in the network connecting patents to the patent classifications that they are attributed to. The distance between areas of technology is based on the analysis of the co-occurrence of IPC codes assigned to individual patent documents. As our classification of technologies we use an extended version of the WIPO classification of technological fields, unfolding the 35 classes to 389. The global map allows to ‘overlay’ patents produced by a specific organisation or country against the background of a stable representation of global technological invention and to produce comparisons that are visually attractive, very readable, and potentially useful for policy-making and strategic management. As an illustration, the technological portfolios of two large industrial corporations (IBM and BASF) are projected on this global map of technology, highlighting the technological profile of these groups. As such, the map can provide valuable information about promising areas of further technological development, comparative advantages and missing technological competences.
LIST OF SCIENTIFIC WORKS THAT HAVE USED CORTEXT MANAGER
(Sources: Google Scholar, HAL, Scopus, WOS and search engines)
We are grateful that you have found CorTexT Manager useful. Over the years, you have been more than 1050 authors to trust CorTexT for your publicly accessible analyzes. This represents a little less than 10% of CorTexT Manager user’s community. So, thank you!
We seek to understand how the scientific production that used CorText Manager has evolved and to characterise it. You will find here our analysis of this scientific production.
Browse documents by main topics
| What types of documents? |
|---|
| What types of documents? |
| 232 journal articles |
| 42 conference proceedings |
| 41 conference (not in proceedings) |
| 39 Ph.D. thesis |
| 31 reports |
| 29 online articles |
| 22 book chapters |
| 21 masters thesis |
| 12 workshop |
| 10 book |
| 9 bachelorthesis |
| 5 miscellaneous |
| 2 presentation |
| 1 proceedings |
| 1 workingpaper |
| 1 manual |
| Main peer-reviewed journals |
|---|
| Main peer-reviewed journals |
| Scientometrics |
| I2D - Information, données & documents |
| Réseaux |
| PloS one |
| Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances |
| Journal of Rural Studies |
| Library Hi Tech |
| Revue d'anthropologie des connaissances |
| Poetics |
| Big Data & Society |
Browse narrower topics
