IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jecmet/v12y2005i4p563-579.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methods of evolutionism and rivalry with neoclassical analysis. The example of the National System of Innovation concept

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick Eparvier

Abstract

This paper focuses on the implications for the economic analysis of growth and innovation in relation to the NSI concept being part of the evolutionary research programme. We show that the modern evolutionism associates descriptive and theoretical works following specific methodological reasons. It is then argued that the NSI concept has a particularly important place within the evolutionary research programme, because it challenges and is challenged by the new neoclassical theories of growth concerning the explanation of the convergence/divergence process among the developed economies. It is also very powerful in order to elaborate arguments for technological policies. In addition, its evaluation cannot be disconnected from its theoretical content. We illustrate why the NSI will not be helpful for the neoclassical theories of growth because the assumptions it relies on are not be accepted by these theories.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick Eparvier, 2005. "Methods of evolutionism and rivalry with neoclassical analysis. The example of the National System of Innovation concept," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 563-579.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jecmet:v:12:y:2005:i:4:p:563-579
    DOI: 10.1080/13501780500343664
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13501780500343664
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13501780500343664?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. Paul M. Romer, 2001. "Should the Government Subsidize Supply or Demand in the Market for Scientists and Engineers?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 221-252, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Pier P. Saviotti, 1996. "Technological Evolution, Variety and the Economy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 727.
    3. Giovanni Dosi & Christopher Freeman & Richard Nelson & Gerarld Silverberg & Luc Soete (ed.), 1988. "Technical Change and Economic Theory," LEM Book Series, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy, number dosietal-1988, March.
    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. Krzysztof Malik & Anna Jasińska-Biliczak, 2018. "Innovations and Other Processes as Identifiers of Contemporary Trends in the Sustainable Development of SMEs: The Case of Emerging Regional Economies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Bengt-Åke Lundvall, 2007. "Innovation System Research – Where it came from and where it might go," Globelics Working Paper Series 2007-01, Globelics - Global Network for Economics of Learning, Innovation, and Competence Building Systems, Aalborg University, Department of Business and Management.
    3. Thanos Fragkandreas, 2023. "Case study research on innovation systems: paradox, dialectical analysis and resolution," Working Papers 65, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised 15 May 2023.

    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. Andreas Pyka & Uwe Cantner & Alfred Greiner & Thomas Kuhn (ed.), 2009. "Recent Advances in Neo-Schumpeterian Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12982.
    2. Husted, Kenneth, 1999. "Between Autonomy and Control: The role of industrial researchers’ decision-making," Working Papers 11/1999, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Management, Politics & Philosophy.
    3. Esben Sloth Andersen, 2004. "Population Thinking and Evolutionary Economic Analysis: Exploring Marshall's Fable of the Trees," DRUID Working Papers 04-05, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    4. Horst Hanusch & Andreas Pyka, 2007. "Principles of Neo-Schumpeterian Economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 31(2), pages 275-289, March.
    5. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    6. Andreas Pyka & Bernd Ebersberger & Horst Hanusch, 2004. "A Conceptual Framework to Model Long-run Qualitative Change in the Energy System," Chapters, in: J. Stanley Metcalfe & John Foster (ed.), Evolution and Economic Complexity, chapter 9, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Maureen Mckelvey, 2005. "Tensions in co-evolutionary processes: Three Swedish seed organizations in the 20th century," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(8), pages 683-696.
    8. Athanasios Lapatinas, 2016. "Economic complexity and human development: a note," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 36(3), pages 1441-1452.
    9. Murat YILDIZOGLU, 2009. "Evolutionary approaches of economic dynamics (In French)," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2009-16, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    10. Geoffrey Hodgson & Kainan Huang, 2012. "Evolutionary game theory and evolutionary economics: are they different species?," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 345-366, April.
    11. Furman, Jeffrey L. & Hayes, Richard, 2004. "Catching up or standing still?: National innovative productivity among 'follower' countries, 1978-1999," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1329-1354, November.
    12. Magnus Holmen & Mats Magnusson & Maureen McKelvey, 2007. "What are Innovative Opportunities?," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 27-45.
    13. Uwe Cantner & Martin Kalthaus & Matthias Menter & Pierre Mohnen, 2023. "Global knowledge flows: characteristics, determinants, and impacts," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 32(5), pages 1063-1076.
    14. Heijs, Joost, 2003. "Freerider behaviour and the public finance of R&D activities in enterprises: the case of the Spanish low interest credits for R&D," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 445-461, March.
    15. Knut Blind & Andre Jungmittag, 2008. "The impact of patents and standards on macroeconomic growth: a panel approach covering four countries and 12 sectors," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 51-60, February.
    16. Dirk Boehe & Luciano Barin Cruz, 2010. "Corporate Social Responsibility, Product Differentiation Strategy and Export Performance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 91(2), pages 325-346, February.
    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. Carolina Castaldi & Roberto Fontana & Alessandro Nuvolari, 2009. "‘Chariots of fire’: the evolution of tank technology, 1915–1945," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 545-566, August.
    19. Michael J. Radzicki, 2003. "Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Forrester, and a Foundation for Evolutionary Economics," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 133-173, March.
    20. 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.

    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:taf:jecmet:v:12:y:2005:i:4:p:563-579. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJEC20 .

    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.