IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cca/wpaper/303.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What Does Politics Have to Do with Innovation? Economic Distribution and Innovation Policy in OECD Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Dan Breznitz
  • Amos Zehavi

Abstract

Despite the fact that the distributional impact of innovation has been recognized in the social science literature, hardly any work has been done on the distributional politics of innovation policy. This study offers a first step in this direction as well as asking whether a government’s ideology affects innovation policy from a distributional viewpoint. The paper uses both qualitative case study method and a statistical analysis of government R&D outlays for social purposes in twenty-six countries. In terms of innovation policy, neo-corporatist interest group representation is linked to relatively equitable public R&D investment and left-oriented governments are more likely to invest in social innovation than their rightist counterparts. Nevertheless, governments rarely consider innovation policy in distributive terms. Despite the significant distributional implications of innovation, it remains depoliticized in policy making.

Suggested Citation

  • Dan Breznitz & Amos Zehavi, 2013. "What Does Politics Have to Do with Innovation? Economic Distribution and Innovation Policy in OECD Countries," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 303, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    • Handle: RePEc:cca:wpaper:303
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.carloalberto.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/no.303.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrei Shleifer, 1998. "State versus Private Ownership," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 133-150, Fall.
    2. Lorenzo Corsini, 2012. "Institutions, Technological Change and Wage Differentials between Skilled and Unskilled Workers: Theory and Evidence from Europe," Research in Labor Economics, in: Research in Labor Economics, pages 1-33, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    3. Stokes, Donald E., 1963. "Spatial Models of Party Competition," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 57(2), pages 368-377, June.
    4. Alan B. Krueger, 1993. "How Computers Have Changed the Wage Structure: Evidence from Microdata, 1984–1989," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(1), pages 33-60.
    5. Stiglitz Joseph, 2008. "Turn Left for Sustainable Growth," The Economists' Voice, De Gruyter, vol. 5(4), pages 1-3, September.
    6. Michael E. Porter, 2000. "Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 14(1), pages 15-34, February.
    7. Hui He & Zheng Liu, 2008. "Investment-Specific Technological Change, Skill Accumulation, and Wage Inequality," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 11(2), pages 314-334, April.
    8. Joseph E. Stiglitz, 2012. "Macroeconomic Fluctuations, Inequality, and Human Development," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 31-58, February.
    9. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1994. "Endogenous Innovation in the Theory of Growth," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 23-44, Winter.
    10. Geishecker, Ingo & Gorg, Holger, 2005. "Do unskilled workers always lose from fragmentation?," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 81-92, March.
    11. Edward Woodhouse & Daniel Sarewitz, 2007. "Science policies for reducing societal inequities," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 139-150, March.
    12. Daron Acemoglu, 2002. "Technical Change, Inequality, and the Labor Market," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(1), pages 7-72, March.
    13. Susan E Cozzens & Kamau Bobb & Isabel Bortagaray, 2002. "Evaluating the distributional consequences of science and technology policies and programs," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 101-107, August.
    14. Manuel Trajtenberg, 2009. "Innovation Policy for Development: An Overview," Chapters,in: The New Economics of Technology Policy, chapter 26 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    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. Theo Papaioannou, 2020. "Reflections on the entrepreneurial state, innovation and social justice," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 199-220, August.

    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. Zehavi, Amos & Breznitz, Dan, 2017. "Distribution sensitive innovation policies: Conceptualization and empirical examples," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 327-336.
    2. Carlos Medina & Christian Posso, 2010. "Technical Change and Polarization of the Labor Market: Evidence for Brazil, Colombia and Mexico," Borradores de Economia 614, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
    3. Thanos Fragkandreas, 2022. "Three Decades of Research on Innovation and Inequality: Causal Scenarios, Explanatory Factors, and Suggestions," Working Papers 60, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Feb 2022.
    4. Dupuy, Arnaud & Marey, Philip S., 2008. "Shifts and twists in the relative productivity of skilled labor," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 718-735, June.
    5. Li Yu & Peter F. Orazem, 2014. "O-Ring production on U.S. hog farms: joint choices of farm size, technology, and compensation," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(4), pages 431-442, July.
    6. Michaelsen, Maren M., 2011. "The Hidden Increase in Wage Inequality: Skill-biased and Ability-biased Technological Change," Ruhr Economic Papers 262, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    7. Lex Borghans & Bas ter Weel, 2008. "Understanding the Technology of Computer Technology Diffusion: Explaining Computer Adoption Patterns and Implications for the Wage Structure," Journal of Income Distribution, Ad libros publications inc., vol. 17(3-4), pages 37-70, September.
    8. Diego Restuccia & Guillaume Vandenbroucke, 2013. "The Evolution Of Education: A Macroeconomic Analysis," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 54(3), pages 915-936, August.
    9. Xuejun Liu & Albert Park & Yaohui Zhao, 2010. "Explaining Rising Returns to Education in Urban China in the 1990s," Trade Working Papers 22720, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    10. Borghans, Lex & Weel, Bas ter, 2001. "What happens when agent T gets a computer?," Research Memorandum 017, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    11. repec:zbw:rwirep:0262 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Nico Voigtlaender, 2009. "Many Sectors Meet More Skills: Intersectoral Linkages and the Skill Bias of Technology," 2009 Meeting Papers 1136, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    13. Riccardo Lucchetti & Stefano Staffolani & Alessandro Sterlacchini, 2004. "Computers, Wages and Working Hours in Italy," Giornale degli Economisti, GDE (Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia), Bocconi University, vol. 63(3-4), pages 329-353, December.
    14. Michelle Alexopoulos & Jon Cohen, 2011. "Volumes of evidence: examining technical change in the last century through a new lens," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(2), pages 413-450, May.
    15. Paul Gaggl & Greg C. Wright, 2017. "A Short-Run View of What Computers Do: Evidence from a UK Tax Incentive," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 262-294, July.
    16. Zietz, Joachim & Zhao, Xiaolin, 2009. "The short-run impact of the stock market appreciation of the 1980s and 1990s on U.S. income inequality," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 42-53, February.
    17. Tandon, Anjali, 2021. "Inter-industry Wage Differentials in Indian Manufacturing: Convergence or Persistence?," MPRA Paper 114622, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2022.
    18. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/7n49nkmngd8448a5ts5gt5ade0 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. repec:zbw:rwirep:0056 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Paulo Mourao & Alexandre Junqueira, 2021. "Through the Irregular Paths of Inequality: An Analysis of the Evolution of Socioeconomic Inequality in Brazilian States Since 1976," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    21. Jabłoński Łukasz, 2019. "Inequality in Economics: The Concept, Perception, Types, and Driving Forces," Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, Sciendo, vol. 27(1), pages 17-43, March.
    22. Frank A. Cowell, 2008. "Income Distribution and Inequality," Chapters, in: John B. Davis & Wilfred Dolfsma (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Social Economics, chapter 13, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    23. Chun-Hung A. Lin & Ho-Shan Lin & Ching-Po Hsu, 2017. "Digital Divide and Income Inequality: A Spatial Analysis," Review of Economics & Finance, Better Advances Press, Canada, vol. 8, pages 31-43, May.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • P50 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Comparative Economic Systems - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cca:wpaper:303. 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: Giovanni Bert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fccaait.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.