IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/umaesp/13563.html

The Role Of The Public Sector In Technology Development: Generalizations From General Purpose Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Ruttan, Vernon W.

Abstract

In the new science and technology policy literature that emerged in the early 1980s it was held, while public support for science is appropriate, public support for technology development represents an unproductive use of public resources. The perspective that emerges in my recent book, Technology, Growth and Development: An Induced Innovation Perspective is quite different. Government has played an important role in technology development and transfer in almost every U.S. industry that has become competitive on a global scale.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruttan, Vernon W., 2001. "The Role Of The Public Sector In Technology Development: Generalizations From General Purpose Technologies," Staff Papers 13563, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:umaesp:13563
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.13563
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/13563/files/p01-11.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.13563?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. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1994. "Evaluating technological information and utilizing it : Scientific knowledge, technological capability, and external linkages in biotechnology," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 91-114, June.
    2. Gordon Rausser, 1999. "Private/Public Research: Knowledge Assets and Future Scenarios," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1011-1027.
    3. Anonymous, 1950. "Economic and Social Council," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(3), pages 442-456, August.
    4. Damian, Michel, 1992. "Nuclear power : The ambiguous lessons of history," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(7), pages 596-607, July.
    5. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1990. "Complementarity and External Linkages: The Strategies of the Large Firms in Biotechnology," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(4), pages 361-379, June.
    6. MacKerron, Gordon, 1992. "Nuclear costs : Why do they keep rising?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(7), pages 641-652, July.
    7. Anonymous, 1950. "Economic and Social Council," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 117-118, February.
    8. Cowan, Robin, 1990. "Nuclear Power Reactors: A Study in Technological Lock-in," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(3), pages 541-567, September.
    9. Anonymous, 1950. "Economic and Social Council," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 639-656, November.
    10. Ruttan, Vernon W., 2001. "Technology Transfer From The University Of Minnesota Estimating The Economic Impact," Staff Papers 14185, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    11. Alston, Julian M. & Pardey, Philip G. & Smith, Vincent H., 1998. "Financing agricultural R&D in rich countries: what's happening and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(01), pages 1-32.
    12. Dooley, J J, 1998. "Unintended consequences: energy R&D in a deregulated energy market," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(7), pages 547-555, June.
    13. Anonymous, 1950. "Economic and Social Council," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 275-292, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Peter Rodenburg, 2016. "How Full is Full Employment?How Tools and Not Theory Explained Full Employment," HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT AND POLICY, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(2), pages 5-25.
    2. Gholiagha, Sassan & Holzscheiter, Anna & Liese, Andrea, 2020. "Activating norm collisions: Interface conflicts in international drug control," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 9(2), pages 290-317.
    3. Michael J. Boskin & Marc S. Robinson & Terrence O' Reilly & Praveen Kumar, 1984. "New Estimates of the Value of Federal Mineral Rights and Land," UCLA Economics Working Papers 357, UCLA Department of Economics.
    4. Tilton, John E., 2013. "The terms of trade debate and the policy implications for primary product producers," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 196-203.
    5. Roberto ESPOSTI, 2003. "Complementarita' innovative e tragedia degli anticommons. Il caso delle agrobiotecnologie," Working Papers 198, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I), Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.
    6. Charles Hoffreumon & Chris Forman & Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2024. "Make or buy your artificial intelligence? Complementarities in technology sourcing," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 452-479, March.
    7. Love, James H. & Roper, Stephen & Vahter, Priit, 2014. "Dynamic complementarities in innovation strategies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1774-1784.
    8. Berulava, George & Gogokhia, Teimuraz, 2016. "Studying Complementarities between Modes of Innovation Strategies in Transition Economies," MPRA Paper 71277, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Park, Gunno & Kim, Marco JinHwan & Kang, Jina, 2015. "Competitive embeddedness: The impact of competitive relations among a firm's current alliance partners on its new alliance formations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 196-208.
    10. Figueroa, Nicolás & Serrano, Carlos J., 2019. "Patent trading flows of small and large firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1601-1616.
    11. Jason Owen-Smith & Massimo Riccaboni & Fabio Pammolli & Walter W. Powell, 2002. "A Comparison of U.S. and European University-Industry Relations in the Life Sciences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 24-43, January.
    12. Zuniga, Pluvia & Crespi, Gustavo, 2013. "Innovation strategies and employment in Latin American firms," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 1-17.
    13. Wolfgang Becker, 2003. "Evaluation of the Role of Universities in the Innovation Process," Discussion Paper Series 241, Universitaet Augsburg, Institute for Economics.
    14. Hagedoorn, John & Wang, Ning, 2012. "Is there complementarity or substitutability between internal and external R&D strategies?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1072-1083.
    15. Bruno Cassiman & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2006. "In Search of Complementarity in Innovation Strategy: Internal R& D and External Knowledge Acquisition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 68-82, January.
    16. Marina Papanastassiou & Robert Pearce & Antonello Zanfei, 2020. "Changing perspectives on the internationalization of R&D and innovation by multinational enterprises: A review of the literature," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 51(4), pages 623-664, June.
    17. James Love & Stephen Roper & Priit Vahter, 2013. "Paradigm Shift or Business as Usual? Dynamic Complementarities in Innovation Strategies," Research Papers 0006, Enterprise Research Centre.
    18. Marco Da Rin & María Fabiana Penas, 2017. "Venture capital and innovation strategies," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(5), pages 781-800.
    19. Nick Davis, 2006. "Business R&D, Innovation and Economic Growth: An Evidence-Based Synthesis of the Policy Issues," Occasional Papers 06/8, Ministry of Economic Development, New Zealand.
    20. Kenta Nakamura & Hiroyuki Odagiri, 2005. "R&D boundaries of the firm: An estimation of the double-hurdle model on commissioned R&D, joint R&D, and licensing in Japan," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(7), pages 583-615.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:ags:umaesp:13563. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/daumnus.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.