IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0066239.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Productivity in Physical and Chemical Science Predicts the Future Economic Growth of Developing Countries Better than Other Popular Indices

Author

Listed:
  • Klaus Jaffe
  • Mario Caicedo
  • Marcos Manzanares
  • Mario Gil
  • Alfredo Rios
  • Astrid Florez
  • Claudia Montoreano
  • Vicente Davila

Abstract

Scientific productivity of middle income countries correlates stronger with present and future wealth than indices reflecting its financial, social, economic or technological sophistication. We identify the contribution of the relative productivity of different scientific disciplines in predicting the future economic growth of a nation. Results show that rich and poor countries differ in the relative proportion of their scientific output in the different disciplines: countries with higher relative productivity in basic sciences such as physics and chemistry had the highest economic growth in the following five years compared to countries with a higher relative productivity in applied sciences such as medicine and pharmacy. Results suggest that the economies of middle income countries that focus their academic efforts in selected areas of applied knowledge grow slower than countries which invest in general basic sciences.

Suggested Citation

  • Klaus Jaffe & Mario Caicedo & Marcos Manzanares & Mario Gil & Alfredo Rios & Astrid Florez & Claudia Montoreano & Vicente Davila, 2013. "Productivity in Physical and Chemical Science Predicts the Future Economic Growth of Developing Countries Better than Other Popular Indices," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-10, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0066239
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066239
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0066239
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0066239&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0066239?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. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    2. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S. Graff Zivin & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2011. "The Diffusion of Scientific Knowledge across Time and Space: Evidence from Professional Transitions for the Superstars of Medicine," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity Revisited, pages 107-155, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Lin, Justin Yifu, 1995. "The Needham Puzzle: Why the Industrial Revolution Did Not Originate in China," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(2), pages 269-292, January.
    4. Granger, C W J, 1969. "Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 37(3), pages 424-438, July.
    5. Cesar A. Hidalgo & Ricardo Hausmann, 2009. "The Building Blocks of Economic Complexity," Papers 0909.3890, arXiv.org.
    6. C. A. Hidalgo & B. Klinger & A. -L. Barabasi & R. Hausmann, 2007. "The Product Space Conditions the Development of Nations," Papers 0708.2090, arXiv.org.
    7. Wang, Eric C., 2007. "R&D efficiency and economic performance: A cross-country analysis using the stochastic frontier approach," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 345-360.
    8. David A. King, 2004. "The scientific impact of nations," Nature, Nature, vol. 430(6997), pages 311-316, July.
    9. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67, pages 297-297.
    10. Keld Laursen, 1998. "Revealed Comparative Advantage and the Alternatives as Measures of International Specialisation," DRUID Working Papers 98-30, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    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. Klaus Jaffe, 2015. "Agent based simulations visualize Adam Smith's invisible hand by solving Friedrich Hayek's Economic Calculus," Papers 1509.04264, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2015.
    2. Mauricio Alviar & Andrés García-Suaza & Laura Ramírez-Gómez & Simón Villegas-Velásquez, 2021. "Measuring the Contribution of the Bioeconomy: The Case of Colombia and Antioquia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-26, February.
    3. Hyeonchae Yang & Woo-Sung Jung, 2015. "A strategic management approach for Korean public research institutes based on bibliometric investigation," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 1437-1464, July.
    4. Kilian Buehling & Matthias Geissler & Dorothea Strecker, 2022. "Free access to scientific literature and its influence on the publishing activity in developing countries: The effect of Sci‐Hub in the field of mathematics," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(9), pages 1336-1355, September.
    5. Klaus Jaffe & Enrique ter Horst & Laura H Gunn & Juan Diego Zambrano & German Molina, 2020. "A network analysis of research productivity by country, discipline, and wealth," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-15, May.
    6. Thomas Brenner, 2014. "Science, Innovation and National Growth," Working Papers on Innovation and Space 2014-03, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    7. Klaus Jaffé, 2017. "The “Invisible Hand” of Economic Markets Can Be Visualized through the Synergy Created by Division of Labor," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-10, December.
    8. Chadi Azmeh, 2022. "Quantity and quality of research output and economic growth: empirical investigation for all research areas in the MENA countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6147-6163, November.
    9. Juan C. Correa & Henry Laverde-Rojas & Julian Tejada & Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos, 2022. "The Sci-Hub effect on papers’ citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 99-126, January.
    10. Henry Laverde-Rojas & Juan C. Correa, 2019. "Can scientific productivity impact the economic complexity of countries?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 267-282, July.
    11. Tânia Pinto & Aurora Teixeira, 2023. "Does scientific research output matter for Portugal’s economic growth?," GEE Papers 0174, Gabinete de Estratégia e Estudos, Ministério da Economia, revised Jul 2023.
    12. Tânia Pinto & Aurora A. C. Teixeira, 2020. "The impact of research output on economic growth by fields of science: a dynamic panel data analysis, 1980–2016," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 945-978, May.

    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. Jürgen Janger & Agnes Kügler & Andreas Reinstaller & Fabian Unterlass, 2017. "Austria 2025 – Looking Out For the Frontier(s): Towards a New Framework For Frontier Measurement in Science, Technology and Innovation," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 59289, February.
    2. Klaus Jaffe & Enrique ter Horst & Laura H Gunn & Juan Diego Zambrano & German Molina, 2020. "A network analysis of research productivity by country, discipline, and wealth," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-15, May.
    3. Patrick Herron & Aashish Mehta & Cong Cao & Timothy Lenoir, 2016. "Research diversification and impact: the case of national nanoscience development," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 629-659, November.
    4. Marin, Giovanni & Vona, Francesco, 2023. "Finance and the reallocation of scientific, engineering and mathematical talent," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    5. Tom Broekel & Lars Mewes, 2017. "Analyzing the impact of R&D policy on regional diversification," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1726, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Sep 2017.
    6. Hans Gersbach & Ulrich Schetter & Maik T. Schneider, 2021. "Macroeconomic Rationales For Public Investments In Science," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(2), pages 575-599, April.
    7. Filippo Bontadini & Francesco Vona, 2020. "Anatomy of Green Specialization: Evidence from EU Production Data, 1995-2015," Working Papers hal-03403070, HAL.
    8. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/6m5kss847r91no96hiublu6anu is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Filippo Bontadini & Francesco Vona, 2020. "Anatomy of Green Specialization: Evidence from EU Production Data, 1995-2015," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03403070, HAL.
    10. Iglesias, Matias Nehuen, 2021. "Measuring size distortions of location quotients," International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 189-205.
    11. Gersbach, Hans & Schneider, Maik & Schetter, Ulrich, 2015. "How Much Science? The 5 Ws (and 1 H) of Investing in Basic Research," CEPR Discussion Papers 10482, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Riccardo Pariboni & Pasquale Tridico, 2020. "Structural change, institutions and the dynamics of labor productivity in Europe," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1275-1300, November.
    13. Filippo Bontadini & Francesco Vona, 2023. "Anatomy of Green Specialisation: Evidence from EU Production Data, 1995–2015," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(3), pages 707-740, August.
    14. Sam Fankhauser & Alex Bowen & Raphael Calel & Antoine Dechezlepr�tre & David Grover & James Rydge & Misato Sato, 2012. "Who will win the green race? In search of environmental competitiveness and innovation," GRI Working Papers 94, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    15. Perruchas, François & Consoli, Davide & Barbieri, Nicolò, 2020. "Specialisation, diversification and the ladder of green technology development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(3).
    16. You, Wanhai & Zhang, Yue & Lee, Chien-Chiang, 2022. "The dynamic impact of economic growth and economic complexity on CO2 emissions: An advanced panel data estimation," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 112-128.
    17. Colin Wessendorf & Alexander Kopka & Dirk Fornahl, 2021. "The impact of the six European Key Enabling Technologies (KETs) on regional knowledge creation," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2127, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Sep 2021.
    18. Matthias Firgo & Peter Mayerhofer, 2015. "Wissens-Spillovers und regionale Entwicklung - welche strukturpolitische Ausrichtung optimiert des Wachstum?," Working Paper Reihe der AK Wien - Materialien zu Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 144, Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte für Wien, Abteilung Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Statistik.
    19. Qiliang Mao & Xianzhuang Mao, 2021. "Cultural barriers, institutional distance, and spatial spillovers: Evidence from regional industrial evolution in China," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(3), pages 1440-1481, September.
    20. Andrea Flori & Fabrizio Lillo & Fabio Pammolli & Alessandro Spelta, 2021. "Better to stay apart: asset commonality, bipartite network centrality, and investment strategies," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 299(1), pages 177-213, April.
    21. Naima Chrid & Sami Saafi & Mohamed Chakroun, 2021. "Export Upgrading and Economic Growth: a Panel Cointegration and Causality Analysis," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(2), pages 811-841, June.

    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:plo:pone00:0066239. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.