Many believe that economic development is primarily a function of institutions that help societies reap potential gains from interdependent actors. The norms, rules, and organizations that "govern" transactions are meant to resolve the collective action problems at the heart of economic development. Recognition that institutions are key to economic growth and to the distribution of resources is reflected not only in scholarly literature on property rights and public agencies, but also in the advice of development agencies that encourage the construction of pro-market institutions. Yet claims that "institutions matter" begs an important question: Where do "good" institutions (those that facilitate efficient and equitable outcomes) come from and why do they evolve the way they do? "Explaining Institutional Innovation" explores these issues, adopting the argument that institutional innovation requires "tough times" during which leaders see themselves as highly vulnerable to internal pressures and external threats yet lack the means to address them. Analyzing business associations and states in Latin America, private sector organizations in China, the Office of the Historian of Havana, the Association of Caribbean States, Caribbean universities, and sugar industries in Southeast Asia, the contributors affirm the vulnerability approach by demonstrating how various types of crises precede and stimulate institutional changes. Also, by highlighting the impact of such factors as more proximate political arrangements and structures of elite political competition, contributors suggest further avenues for institutional analyses.

Creativity can be viewed as the first stage of the overall innovation process, an important dimension of the entrepreneurship and new venture creation processes, and as such, it is considered to be a cornerstone of organizational competitiveness in this global, knowledge-based economy. Research on creativity has increasingly become multilevel, with most work conducted at the individual or team level of analysis. At the same time, there is a large body of research being conducted at the organizational level of analysis on innovation, and there has been a significant amount of entrepreneurship research at the individual level, with an increasing focus on organizational entrepreneurship. However, these three research streams have developed independently, and there has been very little knowledge transfer between the three areas. Because entrepreneurship is often said to be a process that is required to convert innovation into business ventures that will deliver benefits to stakeholders, it is typically driven by an individual or small group of individuals. Creativity research, innovation research, and entrepreneurship research have the potential to inform each other, enriching our knowledge of each area, particularly with regard to the cognitive processes and behaviors that are most effective. This Handbook includes contributions from the leading scholars in these three research areas, who integrate contemporary research findings on organizational creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship and provide fruitful new research directions."

As we grapple with how to respond to some of the world’s most pressing problems, such as inequality, poverty and climate change, there is growing global interest in ‘social innovation’ as a potential solution. But what exactly is ‘social innovation’? This book describes three ways to theorise social innovation when seeking to manage and organize for both social and economic progress.

This new book uses extensive and multifaceted data and sophisticated data analysis to explore product innovation in the financial services sector. Merging academic and critical analysis with practical recommendations for companies, this book provides a full and rich account of how new products are brought to market, considering both successes and failures. Providing insight into the organization of product innovation processes in the financial services sector and setting up guidelines for the improvement of these processes, it is essential reading for those in banking, finance and insurance sectors with an interest in innovation studies.

At the close of the twentieth century, Denmark, Finland, and Ireland emerged as unlikely centers for high-tech competition. In When Small States Make Big Leaps, Darius Ornston reveals how these historically low-tech countries managed to assume leading positions in new industries such as biotechnology, software, and telecommunications equipment. In each case, countries used institutions that are commonly perceived to delay restructuring to accelerate the redistribution of resources to emerging enterprises and industries. Ornston draws on interviews with hundreds of politicians, policymakers, and industry representatives to identify two different patterns of institutional innovation and economic restructuring. Irish policymakers worked with industry and labor representatives to contain costs and expand market competition. Denmark and Finland adopted a different strategy, converting an established tradition of private-public and industry-labor cooperation to invest in high-quality inputs such as human capital and research. Both strategies facilitated movement into new high-tech industries but with distinctive political and economic consequences. In explaining how previously slow-moving states entered dynamic new industries, Ornston identifies a broader range of strategies by which countries can respond to disruptive challenges such as economic internationalization, rapid technological innovation, and the shift to services.

The idea behind this book is that institutions are important when it comes to explaining the specialisation and performance of national innovation systems. The idea is not new. But largely the institution-concept has remained somewhat vague and unspecified in the literature. This book is valuable since it succeeds in opening up the black box of institutions and organisations. The distinction between institutions at different levels and how they link up and form a systemic whole is especially original and fruitful. The interdisciplinary team behind the book has also produced a welcome antidote to the current tendency to benchmark innovation systems exclusively on the basis of quantitative indicators. The analysis demonstrates that some national systems do better in some specific areas because of being supported by institutions that are sometimes deeply rooted in history and culture. This is why imitating best-practice across countries is not a straight forward thing to do. Bengt-Åke Lundvall, Aalborg University, Denmark Innovation and Institutions is an extensive elaboration on the make up of systems of innovation. It examines why some countries are more innovative than others, why national styles of innovation differ, and goes on to explore why some countries make radical innovations but fail to successfully market them, whilst others making incremental innovations have more commercial success. The book draws on a variety of different literatures and perspectives to illustrate the organizational and institutional dimensions of national innovation systems. Literatures discussed include the economics of innovation, organizational sociology, administrative science, institutional economics, organizational learning, network analysis, business systems, economic governance and regulation. This truly interdisciplinary book will be invaluable to academics and researchers focussing on innovation in a wide range of fields. It will also strongly appeal to practitioners and policymakers concerned with innovation.

Why do some middle-income countries diversify their economies but fail to upgrade – to produce world-class products based on local inputs and technological capacities? Why have the 'little tigers' of Southeast Asia, such as Thailand, continued to lag behind the Newly Industrializing Countries of East Asia? Richard Doner goes beyond 'political will' by emphasizing institutional capacities and political pressures: development challenges vary; upgrading poses tough challenges that require robust institutional capacities. Such strengths are political in origin. They reflect pressures, such as security threats and resource constraints, which motivate political leaders to focus on efficiency more than clientelist payoffs. Such pressures help to explain the political institutions – 'veto players' – through which leaders operate. Doner assesses this argument by analyzing Thai development historically, in three sectors (sugar, textiles, and autos) and in comparison with both weaker and stronger competitors (Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan, Brazil, and South Korea).

From the 1910 overthrow of "Czar" Joseph Cannon to the reforms enacted when Republicans took over the House in 1995, institutional change within the U.S. Congress has been both a product and a shaper of congressional politics. For several decades, scholars have explained this process in terms of a particular collective interest shared by members, be it partisanship, reelection worries, or policy motivations. Eric Schickler makes the case that it is actually interplay among multiple interests that determines institutional change. In the process, he explains how congressional institutions have proved remarkably adaptable and yet consistently frustrating for members and outside observers alike. Analyzing leadership, committee, and procedural restructuring in four periods (1890-1910, 1919-1932, 1937-1952, and 1970-1989), Schickler argues that coalitions promoting a wide range of member interests drive change in both the House and Senate. He shows that multiple interests determine institutional innovation within a period; that different interests are important in different periods; and, more broadly, that changes in the salient collective interests across time do not follow a simple logical or developmental sequence. Institutional development appears disjointed, as new arrangements are layered on preexisting structures intended to serve competing interests. An epilogue assesses the rise and fall of Newt Gingrich in light of these findings. Schickler's model of "disjointed pluralism" integrates rational choice theory with historical institutionalist approaches. It both complicates and advances efforts at theoretical synthesis by proposing a fuller, more nuanced understanding of institutional innovation--and thus of American political development and history.

Gives researchers and policy analysts conceptual tools and empirical assessments to gauge the possibilities for institutional innovation.