IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v127y2018icp199-208.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Defence investment and the transformation national science and technology: A perspective on the exploitation of high technology

Author

Listed:
  • Malik, Tariq H.

Abstract

Whether and how defence investment in the industrialised economies contributes to high technology transfer by moderating national science and technology into high economic products is the exploratory question posed in this paper as part of a comparative analysis of OECD economies. Based on defence dollar investments, we perform two analyses. For the first analysis, we assess moderating effects of defence dollars dedicated to national science (articles) and technology (patents) on high technology exports. For the second analysis, we assess the moderating role of defence dollars on individual economies regarding their comparative advantages/disadvantages relative to the US as the leading economy of the OECD. A panel analysis covering 23years (1993 to 2015) presents three sets of findings. First, defence dollars positively correlate with national science productivity in articles but are not correlated with national patents. Second, defence dollars positively moderate patent technologies but negatively moderate the application of scientific articles for the development of economic products. Third, in the moderation analysis of defence dollars, the US appears to be at a comparative disadvantage relative to the most developed OECD economies. This finding may imply that (a) there is a plurality of institutions in national innovation systems and that (b) not all economies are equally emulating American institutional development. We propose several avenues for future research and policy-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Malik, Tariq H., 2018. "Defence investment and the transformation national science and technology: A perspective on the exploitation of high technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 199-208.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:127:y:2018:i:c:p:199-208
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162517308223
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.020?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susan Bartholomew, 1997. "National Systems of Biotechnology Innovation: Complex Interdependence in the Global System," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 28(2), pages 241-266, June.
    2. Pavitt, K, 2001. "Public Policies to Support Basic Research: What Can the Rest of the World Learn from US Theory and Practice? (And What They Should Not Learn)," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(3), pages 761-779, September.
    3. Cowan, Robin & Foray, Dominique, 1995. "Quandaries in the economics of dual technologies and spillovers from military to civilian research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 851-868, November.
    4. Edwin Mansfield & Ruben F. Mettler & David Packard, 1980. "Technology and Productivity in the United States," NBER Chapters, in: The American Economy in Transition, pages 563-616, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. World Bank, 2016. "Cameroon Country Economic Memorandum," World Bank Publications - Reports 26416, The World Bank Group.
    6. Lee, Joosung J. & Yoon, Hyungseok, 2015. "A comparative study of technological learning and organizational capability development in complex products systems: Distinctive paths of three latecomers in military aircraft industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1296-1313.
    7. Ron D. Katznelson & John Howells, 2015. "The myth of the early aviation patent hold-up—how a US government monopsony commandeered pioneer airplane patents," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 24(1), pages 1-64.
    8. Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The triple helix: an evolutionary model of innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 243-255, February.
    9. Martin Feldstein, 1980. "The American Economy in Transition," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number feld80-1, March.
    10. Kontorovich, Vladimir, 1994. "The future of the Soviet science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 113-121, March.
    11. Claude Serfati, 2001. "The Adaptability Of The French Armaments Industry In An Era Of Globalization," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 221-239.
    12. Mowery, David C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Martin, Ben R., 2010. "Technology policy and global warming: Why new policy models are needed (or why putting new wine in old bottles won't work)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 1011-1023, October.
    13. Cowan, Robin & Foray, Dominique, 1997. "The Economics of Codification and the Diffusion of Knowledge," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 6(3), pages 595-622, September.
    14. Mie Augier & Thorbjorn Knudsen & Robert M. McNab, 2014. "Advancing the field of organizations through the study of military organizations," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 23(6), pages 1417-1444.
    15. Mowery, David C., 2012. "Defense-related R&D as a model for “Grand Challenges” technology policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1703-1715.
    16. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    17. William Lazonick & Mariana Mazzucato, 2013. "The risk-reward nexus in the innovation-inequality relationship: who takes the risks? Who gets the rewards ?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 22(4), pages 1093-1128, August.
    18. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    19. Kulve, Haico te & Smit, Wim A., 2003. "Civilian-military co-operation strategies in developing new technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 955-970, June.
    20. Richard R. Nelson, 1984. "High-Technology Policies: A Five-Nation Comparison," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 918025, September.
    21. David Mowery, 2009. "National security and national innovation systems," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 455-473, October.
    22. Dosi, Giovanni & Llerena, Patrick & Labini, Mauro Sylos, 2006. "The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called `European Paradox'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1450-1464, December.
    23. Stowsky, Jay, 2004. "Secrets to shield or share? new dilemmas for military R&D policy in the digital age," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 257-269, March.
    24. Malik, Tariq H., 2017. "Varieties of capitalism, innovation performance and the transformation of science into exported products: A panel analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 324-333.
    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. Meng, Jia-Hui & Wang, Jian, 2023. "The policy trajectory of dual-use technology integration governance in China: A sequential analysis of policy evolution," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    2. Lee, Jun Gon & Park, Min Jae, 2019. "Rethinking the national defense R&D innovation system for latecomer: Defense R&D governance matrix," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 1-11.
    3. Jordan, Ramiro & Agi, Kamil & Arora, Sanjeev & Christodoulou, Christos G. & Schamiloglu, Edl & Koechner, Donna & Schuler, Andrew & Howe, Kerry & Bidram, Ali & Martinez-Ramon, Manel & Lehr, Jane, 2021. "“Peace engineering in practice: A case study at the University of New Mexico”," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    4. Zemtsov, S. & Chernov, A., 2019. "What High-Tech Companies in Russia Grow Faster and Why?," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 41(1), pages 68-99.

    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. Sofia Patsali, 2021. "University Procurement-led Innovation," GREDEG Working Papers 2021-13, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    2. Amable, Bruno & Ledezma, Ivan & Robin, Stéphane, 2016. "Product market regulation, innovation, and productivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 2087-2104.
    3. Hammadou, Hakim & Paty, Sonia & Savona, Maria, 2014. "Strategic interactions in public R&D across European countries: A spatial econometric analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1217-1226.
    4. Raiteri, Emilio, 2018. "A time to nourish? Evaluating the impact of public procurement on technological generality through patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 936-952.
    5. Mariana Mazzucato & Caetano C.R. Penna, 2016. "Beyond market failures: the market creating and shaping roles of state investment banks," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 305-326, October.
    6. Gholz, Eugene & James, Andrew D. & Speller, Thomas H., 2018. "The second face of systems integration: An empirical analysis of supply chains to complex product systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1478-1494.
    7. Caliari, Thiago & Ribeiro, Leonardo Costa & Pietrobelli, Carlo & Vezzani, Antonio, 2023. "Global value chains and sectoral innovation systems: An analysis of the aerospace industry," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 36-48.
    8. Muscio, Alessandro & Nardone, Gianluca, 2012. "The determinants of university–industry collaboration in food science in Italy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 710-718.
    9. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & van den Berg, Jesse & Koch, Joost & Hekkert, Marko P., 2015. "Smart innovation policy: How network position and project composition affect the diversity of an emerging technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1094-1107.
    10. Loet Leydesdorff & Martin Meyer, 2007. "The scientometrics of a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations (Introduction to the topical issue)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 207-222, February.
    11. Martin Meyer & Kevin Grant & Piera Morlacchi & Dagmara Weckowska, 2014. "Triple Helix indicators as an emergent area of enquiry: a bibliometric perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(1), pages 151-174, April.
    12. Tindara Abbate & Fabrizio Cesaroni & Angelo Presenza, 2021. "Knowledge transfer from universities to low- and medium-technology industries: evidence from Italian winemakers," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 989-1016, August.
    13. Margit Kirs & Veiko Lember & Erkki Karo, 2021. "Technology transfer in economic periphery: Emerging patterns and policy challenges," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(6), pages 677-706, November.
    14. Loet Leydesdorff & Martin Meyer, 2003. "The Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 191-203, October.
    15. Roland Zullo & Yijun Liu, 2017. "Contending With Defense Industry Reallocations: A Literature Review of Relevant Factors," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 31(4), pages 360-372, November.
    16. Bo Kyeong Lee & So Young Sohn, 2017. "Exploring the effect of dual use on the value of military technology patents based on the renewal decision," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1203-1227, September.
    17. Jean Belin & Marianne Guille & Nathalie Lazaric & Valérie Mérindol, 2019. "Defense Firms Adapting to Major Changes in the French R&D Funding System," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 142-158, February.
    18. Frank Van Oort & Roderik Ponds & Koen Frenken, 2006. "The Geographical and Institutional Proximity of Scientific Collaboration Networks," ERSA conference papers ersa06p762, European Regional Science Association.
    19. Leten, Bart & Landoni, Paolo & Van Looy, Bart, 2014. "Science or graduates: How do firms benefit from the proximity of universities?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1398-1412.
    20. Marta Riba Vilanova & Loet Leydesdorff, 2001. "Why Catalonia cannot be considered as a regional innovation system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 50(2), pages 215-240, February.

    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:eee:tefoso:v:127:y:2018:i:c:p:199-208. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.