• 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • One way to acquire knowledge of tacit


    One way to acquire knowledge of tacit nature, which is embodied in the individual, is through the mobility of qualified personnel (Feldman, 1999; Audretsch and Keilbach, 2005). Thus, the learning-by-hiring plays an important role in the technological learning process of a firm and in the extent of their technological frontiers (Song et al., 2003). The tacit nature of almost all valid knowledge (Song et al., 2003) causes the rate at which knowledge can spillover from one firm to another be dependent on the rate of mobility of persons owning high level of human capital (Feldman, 1999; Fischer and Varga, 2003; Cooper, pkg inhibitor 2001). Furthermore, when individuals move between firms, they pkg inhibitor can apply the knowledge and skills they possess in a new context and thus transfer of the knowledge between firms efficiently (Song et al., 2003). For this transfer to be effective, the authors highlight three conditions: (1) the contracting firm should be less dependent on their past technological trajectory (“path dependent”); (2) the skilled worker hired must have a technological knowledge, arising from his experience, distant from the knowledge of the contractor; (3) the employee must work in an area that is not the specialty of the new firm. Empirically, the relationship between labor mobility and innovation is confirmed by some studies. Cooper (2001) provides that labor mobility does not depend on the level of R & D invested in the firm, while Shankar and Ghosh (2005), on the other hand, found the opposite result. Moreover, in the case of France, both in terms of sectors and firms, higher levels of innovation are able to reverse the destruction of jobs and even create new jobs than those who do not innovate (Greenan and Guellec, 2000). For Estonia, this phenomenon would determine a positive relationship between mobility and innovation, since successful innovation would result in more hires (Masso et al., 2010). In Italy, firms that invest more in R & D tend to have a more stable workforce. It is worth mentioning that in addition to the most innovative companies grow more lasting employer–employee relationships, they attract a larger share of those who change jobs (Pacelli et al., 1998). This is due to the fact that, when investment in R & D increases, the greater is the benefit of retaining the worker with experience in the area where it is applied R & D in the company (Shankar and Ghosh, 2005). In the United States, there are evidence that, while knowledge spillovers increase the likelihood of this migration, there would be a negative relationship between innovation and interfirm worker mobility. Additionally, the negative relationship between investment in R & D and worker mobility is especially high in high-tech sectors, where the amount of investment in R & D leads to a shift of the technological frontier (Magnani, 2009). As mobility and innovation are associated, it matters to assess the impact of innovation and technological diffusion on mobility. From there, we highlight some relations. First, it is argued that R & D can decrease interfirm worker mobility by increasing the value of the worker to the firm (Pacelli et al., 1998; Shankar and Ghosh, 2005). Second, the sustained idea is that innovation and diffusion have effect on mobility by affecting the generality of the knowledge and technology gap between sectors, influencing the skills acquired by workers in innovative sectors (Magnani, 2009). To establish relationships between the effect of innovation and diffusion of knowledge in specific worker and the change in employment, Magnani (2009) identifies three assumptions: (1) in case the sectoral technological innovation is specific and covers the imperfect skill accumulation of the worker, the sectoral innovation would adversely impact on intersectoral mobility of workers; (2) whether the specific technological innovation in the industry facilitates the assimilation and diffusion of new technologies developed in other sectors, the technological distance between i and j sector decreases and then leads to increased mobility; (3) the technology diffusion diminishes the technological distance between the sectors, making the ability of the worker more general, and therefore increases the probability of sectoral mobility.