IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v29y2005i2p289-308.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The fruits of intellectual production: economic and scientific specialisation among OECD countries

Author

Listed:
  • Keld Laursen
  • Ammon Salter

Abstract

This paper brings together data from 17 OECD countries on scientific publications, patents and production, to explore the relationship between scientific and economic specialisation for 17 manufacturing industries. Since Marx, there has been a fundamental debate in economics about the link between science and the economic system. Marx argued that the needs of production shape scientific developments and that science has become a factor of production, whereas Polanyi argued that developments in science are largely independent of the economic sphere. Using a panel data model and econometric estimations at the industry level, the paper derives some hypotheses from the two positions and finds that, while the overall evidence on the link between national production and scientific specialisation is mixed, it is important to have high levels of relevant to-the-industry scientific strength per capita in order to be specialised in science-based industries. Copyright 2005, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Keld Laursen & Ammon Salter, 2005. "The fruits of intellectual production: economic and scientific specialisation among OECD countries," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(2), pages 289-308, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:29:y:2005:i:2:p:289-308
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/bei032
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    Other versions of 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. Klevorick, Alvin K. & Levin, Richard C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Winter, Sidney G., 1995. "On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 185-205, March.
    3. Godin, Benoit, 1996. "Research and the practice of publication in industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 587-606, June.
    4. Narin, Francis & Olivastro, Dominic, 1992. "Status report: Linkage between technology and science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 237-249, June.
    5. Nicolai J. Foss, 1996. "Firms, Incomplete Contracts and Organizational Learning," DRUID Working Papers 96-2, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    6. Keld Laursen & Ina Drejer, 1999. "Do Inter-Sectoral Linkages Matter for International Export Specialisation?," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(4), pages 311-330.
    7. Peter Maskell, 1996. "Localised Low-tech Learning in the Furniture Industry," DRUID Working Papers 96-11, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    8. Hicks, Diana & Breitzman, Tony & Olivastro, Dominic & Hamilton, Kimberly, 2001. "The changing composition of innovative activity in the US -- a portrait based on patent analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 681-703, April.
    9. Narin, Francis & Hamilton, Kimberly S. & Olivastro, Dominic, 1997. "The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 317-330, October.
    10. Gustavsson, Patrik & Hansson, Par & Lundberg, Lars, 1999. "Technology, resource endowments and international competitiveness," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1501-1530, August.
    11. Mowery, David & Rosenberg, Nathan, 1993. "The influence of market demand upon innovation: A critical review of some recent empirical studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 107-108, April.
    12. Anthony Arundel & Aldo Geuna, 2001. "Does Proximity Matter for Knowledge Transfer from Public Institutes and Universities to Firms?," SPRU Working Paper Series 73, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    13. Laursen, Keld, 1996. "Horizontal diversification in the Danish national system of innovation: the case of pharmaceuticals," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(7), pages 1121-1137, October.
    14. Rosenberg, Nathan & Nelson, Richard R., 1994. "American universities and technical advance in industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 323-348, May.
    15. Keld Laursen & Valentina Meliciani, 2000. "The importance of technology-based intersectoral linkages for market share dynamics," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 136(4), pages 702-723, December.
    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. repec:eee:tefoso:v:123:y:2017:i:c:p:95-107 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Anthony Arundel & Aldo Geuna, 2004. "Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(6), pages 559-580.
    3. Maxim N. Kotsemir & Tatiana E. Kuznetsova & Elena G. Nasybulina & Anna G. Pikalova, 2015. "Empirical Analysis of Multinational S&T Collaboration Priorities –The Case of Russia," HSE Working papers WP BRP 53/STI/2015, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    4. Maxim Kotsemir & Tatiana Kuznetsova & Elena Nasybulina & Anna Pikalova, 2015. "Identifying Directions for Russia’s Science and Technology Cooperation," Foresight-Russia Форсайт, CyberLeninka;Федеральное государственное автономное образовательное учреждение высшего образования «Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики», vol. 9(4 (eng)), pages 54-72.
    5. Jane Marceau, 2007. "Bringing science to life in Australia: the need for a new approach in human health biotechnology policy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 303-327, August.
    6. Castellacci, Fulvio, 2006. "The interactions between national systems and sectoral patterns of innovation: a cross-country analysis of Pavitt’s taxonomy," MPRA Paper 27601, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Valentina Meliciani, 2010. "Exports of Knowledge-intensive Services and Manufactures: The Role of ICTs and Intersectoral Linkages," Chapters,in: The Shape of the Division of Labour, chapter 4 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Laursen, Keld & Meliciani, Valentina, 2010. "The role of ICT knowledge flows for international market share dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 687-697, June.
    9. Keld Laursen, 2015. "Revealed comparative advantage and the alternatives as measures of international specialization," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 5(1), pages 99-115, June.
    10. Hemert, P. van & Nijkamp, P., 2009. "Knowledge investments, business R&D and innovativeness of countries. A qualitative meta-analytic comparison," Serie Research Memoranda 0041, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    11. Castellacci, Fulvio, 2008. "Innovation and the competitiveness of industries: comparing the mainstream and the evolutionary approaches," MPRA Paper 27523, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models

    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:oup:cambje:v:29:y:2005:i:2:p:289-308. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.