IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v26y2009i6p839-880.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Science and Technology for Economic Growth. New Insights from when the Data Contradicts Desktop Models1

Author

Listed:
  • Adrian S. Petrescu

Abstract

Science and technology policy initiatives in the early 1980s have focused in both the United States and Western Europe on improving capacity to apply a good science base in practice, expecting increases in technological advancement, improved market presence and enhanced economic growth. Results varied broadly in the United States and Europe. Even more puzzling, Japan charged ahead in technological advancement without that strong of a science base of its own. Some industrialized economies do not conform to the expected science–technology relationship, whereby strong performance in science shall lead to strong technological performance. The puzzling science–technology relationship in advanced countries has plausible explanations. (1) Science–technology relationship is much interdependent or symbiotic. Its strength and primary direction at a given time varies largely by field of science or technological innovation and across long periods of time. (2) Science–technology link in a country may depend on the overall scientific and technological level of development in that country. The strength and interdependent nature of this link evolves historically and varies across fields of science and technology. The strength of the link is affected by scientific and technological specialization in a country. Different technological fields have different scientific intensities, or degrees of building upon the science base. (3) Specialization of countries across scientific and technological fields varies. Hence, the strength of science–technology link differs between countries. High technological specialization of a country may impact its technological performance more than its immediately current scientific performance does. History, tradition and knowledge transfers may affect more returns on R&D expenditures than the actual value of R&D funds spent in science or technology. Explanations of puzzling behavior of science–technology link may become policy recommendations.

Suggested Citation

  • Adrian S. Petrescu, 2009. "Science and Technology for Economic Growth. New Insights from when the Data Contradicts Desktop Models1," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 26(6), pages 839-880, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:26:y:2009:i:6:p:839-880
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2009.00420.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2009.00420.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2009.00420.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    2. Patterson, Lee Ann, 1997. "Agricultural policy reform in the European Community: a three-level game analysis," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(1), pages 135-165, January.
    3. Fagerberg, Jan, 1994. "Technology and International Differences in Growth Rates," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 32(3), pages 1147-1175, September.
    4. Fagerberg, Jan, 1987. "A technology gap approach to why growth rates differ," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2-4), pages 87-99, August.
    5. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gril98-1, March.
    6. Ugur Muldur, 2001. "Is Capital Optimally Allocated in the Overall Process of European Innovation ?," Revue d'Économie Industrielle, Programme National Persée, vol. 94(1), pages 115-153.
    7. Soete, Luc & Weel, Bas ter, 1999. "Innovation, Knowledge Creation and Technology Policy in Europe," Research Memorandum 001, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    8. K. J. Arrow, 1971. "The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: F. H. Hahn (ed.), Readings in the Theory of Growth, chapter 11, pages 131-149, Palgrave Macmillan.
    9. Bart Verspagen, 1997. "Estimating international technology spillovers using technology flow matrices," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 133(2), pages 226-248, June.
    10. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 17-45, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Raymond Vernon, 1966. "International Investment and International Trade in the Product Cycle," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 80(2), pages 190-207.
    12. Nemet, Gregory F., 2009. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 700-709, June.
    13. Bart Verspagen, 1997. "Measuring Intersectoral Technology Spillovers: Estimates from the European and US Patent Office Databases," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 47-65.
    14. Griliches, Zvi, 1998. "R&D and Productivity," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226308869, December.
    15. Abramovitz, Moses, 1993. "The Search for the Sources of Growth: Areas of Ignorance, Old and New," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(2), pages 217-243, June.
    16. Paul M. Romer, 1994. "The Origins of Endogenous Growth," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 3-22, Winter.
    17. Lucas, Robert Jr., 1988. "On the mechanics of economic development," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 3-42, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Choi, Kwang Hun & Kwon, Gyu Hyun, 2023. "Strategies for sensing innovation opportunities in smart grids: In the perspective of interactive relationships between science, technology, and business," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    2. Kashif Ahmed & Ralf Bebenroth & Jean-Francois Hennart, 2020. "Formal Institutional Uncertainty and Equity Sought on Foreign Market Entry: Does Industry Matter?," Discussion Paper Series DP2020-03, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    3. Shen, Yung-Chi & Wang, Ming-Yeu & Yang, Ya-Chu, 2020. "Discovering the potential opportunities of scientific advancement and technological innovation: A case study of smart health monitoring technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    4. Wang, Ming-Yeu & Fang, Shih-Chieh & Chang, Yu-Hsuan, 2015. "Exploring technological opportunities by mining the gaps between science and technology: Microalgal biofuels," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 182-195.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael Peneder & Karl Aiginger & Gernot Hutschenreiter & Markus Marterbauer, 2001. "Structural Change and Economic Growth," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 20668, February.
    2. Roel van Elk & Bas ter Weel & Karen van der Wiel & Bram Wouterse, 2019. "Estimating the Returns to Public R&D Investments: Evidence from Production Function Models," De Economist, Springer, vol. 167(1), pages 45-87, March.
    3. López-Pueyo, Carmen & Barcenilla-Visús, Sara & Sanaú, Jaime, 2008. "International R&D spillovers and manufacturing productivity: A panel data analysis," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 152-172, June.
    4. Fulvio Castellacci, 2007. "Evolutionary And New Growth Theories. Are They Converging?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 585-627, July.
    5. Francesco Lamperti & Franco Malerba & Roberto Mavilia & Giorgio Tripodi, 2019. "Does the Position in the Inter-sectoral Knowledge Space affect the International Competitiveness of Industries?," LEM Papers Series 2019/23, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    6. Florian Straßberger, 1995. "Technischer Wandel und wirtschaftliches Wachstum: Einige jüngere Entwicklungen, empirische Ergebnisse und wirtschaftliche Konsequenzen," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 64(2), pages 200-220.
    7. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    8. Fulvio Castellacci, 2007. "Technological regimes and sectoral differences in productivity growth ," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(6), pages 1105-1145, December.
    9. Sylwia Zajączkowska-Jakimiak, 2006. "Wiedza techniczna i kapitał ludzki w teorii wzrostu gospodarczego," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 11-12, pages 47-69.
    10. Gong, Guan & Keller, Wolfgang, 2003. "Convergence and polarization in global income levels: a review of recent results on the role of international technology diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1055-1079, June.
    11. Candelaria Barrios & Esther Flores & M. Ángeles Martínez & Marta Ruiz-Martínez, 2023. "Are the Major Knowledge-producing Countries Converging in Science and Technology Capabilities?," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 14(4), pages 4534-4560, December.
    12. Godin, Benoit, 2004. "The New Economy: what the concept owes to the OECD," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 679-690, July.
    13. Christoph Grimpe & Roberto Patuelli, 2011. "Regional knowledge production in nanomaterials: a spatial filtering approach," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 46(3), pages 519-541, June.
    14. Gernot Hutschenreiter & Serguei Kaniovski, 1999. "Embodied Technology Diffusion in the Austrian Economy," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 7711, February.
    15. G Medda & C. Piga, 2004. "R&S e spillover industriali: un'analisi sulle imprese italiane," Working Paper CRENoS 200406, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    16. Zuzana Smeets Kristkova & Cornelis Gardebroek & Michiel van Dijk & Hans van Meijl, 2017. "The impact of R&D on factor-augmenting technical change – an empirical assessment at the sector level," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(3), pages 385-417, July.
    17. Long, N.V. & Wong, K.Y., 1996. "Endogenous Growth and International Trade: A Survey," Working Papers 96-07, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
    18. José García-Quevedo & Gabriele Pellegrino & Marco Vivarelli, 2011. "The determinants of YICs’ R&D activity," Working Papers 2011/31, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
    19. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2003. "Chapter 11 Technological change and the environment," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 461-516, Elsevier.
    20. Hugo Erken & Piet Donselaar & Roy Thurik, 2018. "Total factor productivity and the role of entrepreneurship," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(6), pages 1493-1521, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:26:y:2009:i:6:p:839-880. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.