Vol. 13 No. 1 (2024)
Original Research Article

Performance and efficiency of national innovation systems: lessons from the wine industry

PDF
  • Achille Amatucci,
  • Vera Ventura,
  • Dario Frisio
Achille Amatucci
The multiplicity of factors involved in the innovation process makes its measurement and evaluation a complex endeavor. In this study we propose a new approach to measure and decompose the efficiency of national innovation systems in the wine industry considering the relationship between the innovation environment and economic performance. The analysis applies the data envelopment analysis approach to quantify the relative efficiency of each national system using a set of four indicators to describe the innovative environment in the wine industry as model inputs, and an index of international market performance as output. The results demonstrate a clear perspective of the innovation process within the wine industry, identifying the systems that efficiently use the available resources and those that encounter difficulties in translating innovation into economic performance. The proposed approach also captures the dynamics of the international innovation landscape in the wine industry, providing potential country-level strategies and opportunities to increase innovation systems’ efficiency.
Vera Ventura
The multiplicity of factors involved in the innovation process makes its measurement and evaluation a complex endeavor. In this study we propose a new approach to measure and decompose the efficiency of national innovation systems in the wine industry considering the relationship between the innovation environment and economic performance. The analysis applies the data envelopment analysis approach to quantify the relative efficiency of each national system using a set of four indicators to describe the innovative environment in the wine industry as model inputs, and an index of international market performance as output. The results demonstrate a clear perspective of the innovation process within the wine industry, identifying the systems that efficiently use the available resources and those that encounter difficulties in translating innovation into economic performance. The proposed approach also captures the dynamics of the international innovation landscape in the wine industry, providing potential country-level strategies and opportunities to increase innovation systems’ efficiency.
Dario Frisio
Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of Milan, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/wep-14637

Published 2024-03-13

Keywords

  • efficiency,
  • DEA,
  • wine industry,
  • innovation performance

How to Cite

Amatucci, A., Ventura, V., & Frisio, D. (2024). Performance and efficiency of national innovation systems: lessons from the wine industry. Wine Economics and Policy, 13(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.36253/wep-14637

Copyright (c) 2024 Achille Amatucci, Vera Ventura, Dario Frisio

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

The multiplicity of factors involved in the innovation process makes its measurement and evaluation a complex endeavor. In this study we propose a new approach to measure and decompose the efficiency of national innovation systems in the wine industry considering the relationship between the innovation environment and economic performance. The analysis applies the data envelopment analysis approach to quantify the relative efficiency of each national system using a set of four indicators to describe the innovative environment in the wine industry as model inputs, and an index of international market performance as output. The results demonstrate a clear perspective of the innovation process within the wine industry, identifying the systems that efficiently use the available resources and those that encounter difficulties in translating innovation into economic performance. The proposed approach also captures the dynamics of the international innovation landscape in the wine industry, providing potential country-level strategies and opportunities to increase innovation systems’ efficiency.

PDF

References

  1. H.-D. Haustein, H. Maier, and L. Uhlmann, “Innovation and efficiency,” 1981.
  2. F. Gault, “Defining and measuring innovation in all sectors of the economy,” Research Policy, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 617–622, Apr. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.01.007.
  3. A. Arundel, S. Athreye, and S. Wunsch-Vincent, Eds., Harnessing public research for innovation in the 21st century: an international assessment of knowledge transfer policies. in Intellectual property, innovation and economic development. Cambridge, United Kingdom; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2021.
  4. J. L. Hervas-Oliver, M. D. Parrilli, A. Rodríguez-Pose, and F. Sempere Ripoll, “The drivers of SME innovation in the regions of the EU,” Research Policy, vol. 50, p. 104316, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104316.
  5. S. Dutta, B. Lanvin, S. Wunsch-Vincent, L. R. León, and World Intellectual Property Organization, Global innovation index 2022: (subtitle) /. Unknown. doi: 10.34667/TIND.46596.
  6. L. Correia, S. Gouveia, and P. Martins, “The European Wine Export Cycle,” Wine Economics and Policy, vol. 8, May 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.wep.2019.04.001.
  7. G. Maesano, G. Di Vita, G. Chinnici, P. Gioacchino, and M. D’Amico, “What’s in organic wine consumer mind? A review on purchasing drivers of organic wines,” WEP, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 3–21, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.36253/wep-9101.
  8. M. Bell and E. Giuliani, “Catching up in the global wine industry: innovation systems, cluster knowledge networks and firm-level capabilities in Italy and Chile,” International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, vol. 3, no. 2–3, pp. 197–223, 2007.
  9. G. Banks and J. Overton, “Old world, new world, third world? Reconceptualising the worlds of wine,” Journal of Wine Research, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 57–75, 2010.
  10. R. Kaplinsky, How can agricultural commodity producers appropriate a greater share of value chain incomes? Cheltenham: Edward Elgar and FAO, 2006.
  11. R. Kaplinsky and R. Fitter, “Technology and globalisation: who gains when commodities are de-commodified?,” International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 5–28, 2004.
  12. J. R. F. Lorenzo, M. T. M. Rubio, and S. A. Garcés, “The competitive advantage in business, capabilities and strategy. What general performance factors are found in the Spanish wine industry?” Wine Economics and Policy, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 94–108, 2018.
  13. A. Gilinsky Jr, S. L. Forbes, and M. M. Reed, “Writing cases to advance wine business research and pedagogy: A Business Article by,” Wine Economics and Policy, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 60–67, 2016.
  14. C. Van Leeuwen and G. Seguin, “The concept of terroir in viticulture,” Journal of wine research, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2006.
  15. E. Vaudour, “The quality of grapes and wine in relation to geography: Notions of terroir at various scales,” Journal of Wine Research, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 117–141, 2002.
  16. D. Vrontis, S. Bresciani, and E. Giacosa, “Tradition and innovation in Italian wine family businesses,” British Food Journal, 2016.
  17. B. Tyler et al., “SME managers’ perceptions of competitive pressure and the adoption of environmental practices in fragmented industries: A multi-country study in the wine industry,” Organization & Environment, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 437–463, 2020.
  18. P. Woodfield and K. Husted, “Intergenerational knowledge sharing in family firms: Case-based evidence from the New Zealand wine industry,” Journal of Family Business Strategy, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 57–69, 2017.
  19. A. Dogru and J. Peyrefitte, “Investigation of Innovation in Wine Industry via Meta-Analysis,” Wine Business Journal, vol. 5, no. 1, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.26813/001c.31627.
  20. OECD and Eurostat, Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, 4th Edition. in The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities. OECD, 2018. doi: 10.1787/9789264304604-en.
  21. A. Palangkaraya, “The link between innovation and export performance of Australian SMEs,” in The Effects of Globalisation on Firm and Labour Performance, Routledge, 2020, pp. 10–33.
  22. J. B. Barney, “Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view,” Journal of management, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 643–650, 2001.
  23. W. M. Cohen and D. A. Levinthal, “Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation,” Administrative science quarterly, pp. 128–152, 1990.
  24. J. Galbreath, “Which resources matter the most to firm success? An exploratory study of resource-based theory,” Technovation, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 979–987, 2005.
  25. M. Easterby‐Smith and I. M. Prieto, “Dynamic capabilities and knowledge management: an integrative role for learning?” British journal of management, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 235–249, 2008.
  26. R. M. Grant, “Knowledge‐Based View,” Wiley encyclopedia of management, pp. 1–2, 2015.
  27. A. Cherubini Alves, A. Carneiro Zen, and A. Domingus Padula, “Routines, capabilities and innovation in the Brazilian wine industry,” Journal of technology management & innovation, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 128–144, 2011.
  28. F. Chirico and M. Nordqvist, “Dynamic capabilities and trans-generational value creation in family firms: The role of organizational culture,” International Small Business Journal, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 487–504, 2010.
  29. D. J. Teece, G. Pisano, and A. Shuen, “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management,” Strategic management journal, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 509–533, 1997.
  30. E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster, 2010.
  31. R. R. Nelson and S. G. Winter, An evolutionary theory of economic change, Digitally reprinted. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, 2004.
  32. G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, and L. Soete, Eds., Technical Change and Economic Theory. Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy, 1988. [Online]. Available: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ssa:lembks:dosietal-1988
  33. S. J. Kline and N. Rosenberg, “An overview of innovation,” Studies on science and the innovation process: Selected works of Nathan Rosenberg, pp. 173–203, 2010.
  34. C. Freeman, “The economics of technical change,” Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 463–514, Oct. 1994, doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035286.
  35. B.-Å. Lundvall, “National Innovation Systems—Analytical Concept and Development Tool,” Industry & Innovation, vol. 14, pp. 95–119, Feb. 2007, doi: 10.1080/13662710601130863.
  36. R. R. Nelson, National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. Oxford University Press on Demand, 1993.
  37. OECD, Measuring Innovation: A New Perspective. OECD, 2010. doi: 10.1787/9789264059474-en.
  38. S. M. Valitov and A. K. Khakimov, “Innovative potential as a framework of innovative strategy for enterprise development,” Procedia Economics and Finance, vol. 24, pp. 716–721, 2015.
  39. K. Janoskova and P. Kral, “Innovation measurement: An extensive literature analysis,” presented at the SHS Web of Conferences, EDP Sciences, 2021, p. 05003.
  40. OECD, Frascati Manual 2002: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development. in The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities. OECD, 2002. doi: 10.1787/9789264199040-en.
  41. K. Smith, “Measuring innovation,” 2006.
  42. S. M. Vasin and L. A. Gamidullaeva, “Methodical approach and tools to improve the efficiency of managing of the innovation potential in the context of economic globalization,” Rev. Eur. Stud., vol. 7, p. 124, 2015.
  43. L. R. Murillo‐Zamorano, “Economic efficiency and frontier techniques,” Journal of Economic surveys, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 33–77, 2004.
  44. A. Bonaccorsi and C. Daraio, “Econometric approaches to the analysis of productivity of R&D systems: production functions and production frontiers,” Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems, pp. 51–74, 2005.
  45. M. Saisana, G. Caperna, C. Moura, A. R. Neves, and E. Papadimitriou, “JRC Statistical Audit of the Competitive Sustainability Index 2022,” 2022.
  46. R. A. Groeneveld and G. Meeden, “Measuring Skewness and Kurtosis,” The Statistician, vol. 33, no. 4, p. 391, Dec. 1984, doi: 10.2307/2987742.
  47. W. Becker, M. Saisana, P. Paruolo, and I. Vandecasteele, “Weights and importance in composite indicators: Closing the gap,” Ecological Indicators, vol. 80, pp. 12–22, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.056.
  48. P. Paruolo, M. Saisana, and A. Saltelli, “Ratings and rankings: voodoo or science?” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), vol. 176, no. 3, pp. 609–634, 2013.
  49. E. Pomarici, A. Corsi, S. Mazzarino, and R. Sardone, “The Italian wine sector: Evolution, structure, competitiveness and future challenges of an enduring leader,” Italian Economic Journal, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 259–295, 2021.
  50. K. Anderson, “Is Georgia the next ‘new’ wine-exporting country?” Journal of Wine Economics, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–28, 2013.
  51. R. Spadoni, M. Nanetti, A. Bondanese, and S. Rivaroli, “Innovative solutions for the wine sector: The role of startups,” Wine Economics and Policy, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 165–170, 2019.
  52. M. Raimondo, C. Nazzaro, A. Nifo, and G. Marotta, “Does the Institutional Quality Affect Labor Productivity in Italian Vineyard Farms?” Wine Economics and Policy, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 113–126, 2020.
  53. J. Mota, R. Costa, A. Moreira, S. Serrão, and C. Costa, “Competitiveness framework to support regional-level decision-making in the wine industry: a systematic literature review,” Wine Economics and Policy, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 29–40, 2021.
  54. M. Varas, F. Basso, S. Maturana, R. Pezoa, and M. Weyler, “Measuring efficiency in the Chilean wine industry: a robust DEA approach,” Applied Economics, vol. 53, no. 9, pp. 1092–1111, 2021.
  55. S. Rousseau and R. Rousseau, “Data envelopment analysis as a tool for constructing scientometric indicators,” Scientometrics, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 45–56, 1997.