CorText Manager around the world

@article{Rikap2023b,

title = {Intellectual monopolies as a new pattern of innovation and technological regime},

author = {Cecilia Rikap},

url = {https://academic.oup.com/icc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/icc/dtad077/7462137},

doi = {/10.1093/icc/dtad077},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-12-07},

journal = {Industrial and Corporate Change},

abstract = {Building on Schumpeter Mark I and Mark II, I propose an additional pattern of innovation and technological regime called the intellectual monopoly (IM) to explain the co-habitation of large incumbent firms with high entry and exit rates and provide evidence for pharmaceuticals and information technologies. I associate the IM pattern and technological regime with corporate innovation systems and illustrate that patterns not only evolve after changes in technological regimes but also due to economic, political, and institutional transformations.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Rikap2022b,

title = {The expansionary strategies of intellectual monopolies: Google and the digitalization of healthcare},

author = {Cecilia Rikap},

url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03085147.2022.2131271

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/03085147.2022.2131271?needAccess=true&role=button},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2022.2131271},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-11-01},

urldate = {2022-11-01},

journal = {Economy and Society},

abstract = {As big tech companies are entering new industrial sectors, an open question concerns the drivers of their expansionary strategies. This paper proposes that these companies are currently entering sectors based on their data-driven intellectual monopoly power, thereby complementing the preliminary answer provided by political economy research which has argued that expansion is driven by their infrastructural power. This approach is developed through a historical analysis of tech giants as companies that systematically turn knowledge and data into intangible assets, showing their expansionary strategies in the healthcare sector to be mainly driven by insights obtained from those intangible assets (a monopolized intangibles driver) and by a quest for conquering new knowledge and data to perpetuate their intellectual monopolies (an intangibles prospecting driver). The paper further illustrates its arguments through a case study of Google’s expansionary strategy and its prioritized incursion into healthcare.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@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}

}

@article{Rikap2020b,

title = {Who collects intellectual rents from knowledge and innovation hubs? questioning the sustainability of the singapore model},

author = {Cecilia Rikap and David Flacher},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2020.06.004},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-12-01},

urldate = {2020-12-01},

journal = {Structural Change and Economic Dynamics},

volume = {55},

pages = {59-73},

abstract = {While knowledge and innovation are produced in networks involving diverse actors, associated rents are greatly appropriated by global leaders, mostly coming from core countries, that become intellectual monopolies. This raises the question on emerging or peripheral countries companies’ capacity to catch-up, innovate and compete for intellectual rents. The article considers the case of Singapore who has pursued a knowledge hub strategy aimed at: 1) creating world class universities inserted in global knowledge networks of defined fields; and 2) capturing intellectual rents through those institutions’ research and contributing to local firms’ catching up. We show that research universities caught-up. However, we find that foreign companies, particularly multinationals, capture most of Singapore's intellectual rents at the expense of local companies and research institutions. Overall, our findings point to the limitations of Singapore's knowledge hub as a catching-up strategy. The article ends discussing the relevancy of these findings for emerging countries in general.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@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}

}