IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/6827.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

European Technology Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan Eaton
  • Eva Gutierrez
  • Samuel Kortum

Abstract

European countries do less research than Japan and the United States. We use a quantitative multi-country growth model to ask: (i) Why is this so? (ii) Would there be any benefit to expanding research in Europe? (iii) What would various European research promotion policies do? We find that (i) Europe's lower research effort has more to do with the smaller markets facing European inventors than with lower research productivity. (ii) Europe has substantial research potential in that increased research effort in most European countries generates bigger income benefits there than increased effort in the United States and Japan of equivalent amounts. (iii) Policies to stimulate research in Europe raise productivity not only there but elsewhere. But a problem with pursuing these policies at the national level is the potential for free riding. A second possible problem with promoting research is distributional: While all countries within the European Union benefit, the countries that are already best at doing research, which tend to be the richer members, fare best. The benefits of policies that facilitate the adoption of innovations are more evenly spread.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan Eaton & Eva Gutierrez & Samuel Kortum, 1998. "European Technology Policy," NBER Working Papers 6827, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:6827
    Note: PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w6827.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1991. "Quality Ladders in the Theory of Growth," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 58(1), pages 43-61.
    2. Eaton Jonathan & Tamura Akiko, 1994. "Bilateralism and Regionalism in Japanese and U.S. Trade and Direct Foreign Investment Patterns," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 478-510, December.
    3. Nicolas Bloom & Lucy Chennells & Rachel Griffith & John Van Reenen, 1996. "How has tax affected the changing cost of R&D? Evidence from eight countries," IFS Working Papers W97/03, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    4. Ginarte, Juan C. & Park, Walter G., 1997. "Determinants of patent rights: A cross-national study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 283-301, October.
    5. Edwin Mansfield & Anthony Romeo, 1980. "Technology Transfer to Overseas Subsidiaries by U. S.-Based Firms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 95(4), pages 737-750.
    6. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby, 1995. "Virtuous Circles of Productivity: Star Bioscientists and the Institutional Transformation of Industry," NBER Working Papers 5342, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Eaton, Jonathan & Kortum, Samuel, 1999. "International Technology Diffusion: Theory and Measurement," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 40(3), pages 537-570, August.
    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. Carlin, Wendy & Glyn, Andrew & Van Reenen, John, 2001. "Export Market Performance of OECD Countries: An Empirical Examination of the Role of Cost Competitiveness," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(468), pages 128-162, January.
    2. Jacques Pelkmans, 2006. "European Industrial Policy," Bruges European Economic Policy Briefings 15, European Economic Studies Department, College of Europe.
    3. Wolfgang Keller, 2004. "International Technology Diffusion," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(3), pages 752-782, September.
    4. Kul B. Luintel & Mosahid Khan, 2009. "Heterogeneous ideas production and endogenous growth: an empirical investigation," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 42(3), pages 1176-1205, August.
    5. Georg Koopmann & Felix Münnich, 1999. "National and international developments in technology," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;German National Library of Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 34(6), pages 267-278, November.
    6. Jonathan Eaton & Samuel Kortum, 2004. "Innovation, Trade, and Growth," DEGIT Conference Papers c009_008, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.
    7. repec:eee:respol:v:46:y:2017:i:10:p:1738-1754 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Alexander Cobham, "undated". "The Financing and Technology Decisions of SMEs: II. Technology and Policy," QEH Working Papers qehwps25, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.
    9. Manuel Trajtenberg, 2000. "R&D Policy in Israel: An Overview and Reassessment," NBER Working Papers 7930, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. McCalman, Phillip, 2001. "Reaping what you sow: an empirical analysis of international patent harmonization," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 161-186, October.
    11. Pontus Braunerhjelm & Per Thulin, 2008. "Can countries create comparative advantages? R&D expenditures, high-tech exports and country size in 19 OECD countries, 1981-1999," International Economic Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 95-111.
    12. Chu, Angus C., 2009. "A politico-economic analysis of the European Union's R&D policy," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 582-590, December.
    13. Viarengo, Martina, 2007. "An historical analysis of the expansion of compulsory schooling in Europe after the Second World War," Economic History Working Papers 4286, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.
    14. Bottazzi, Laura & Peri, Giovanni, 2003. "Innovation and spillovers in regions: Evidence from European patent data," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 687-710, August.
    15. Luintel, Kul B. & Khan, Mosahid, 2017. "Ideas production and international knowledge spillovers: Digging deeper into emerging countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1738-1754.
    16. Fabrice Murtin & Martina Viarengo, 2011. "The Expansion and Convergence of Compulsory Schooling in Western Europe, 1950–2000," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 78(311), pages 501-522, July.
    17. Jonathan Eaton & Samuel Kortum, 2006. "Innovation, Diffusion, and Trade," NBER Working Papers 12385, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Rachel Griffith & Stephen Redding & John Van Reenen, 2001. "Measuring the cost-effectiveness of an R&D tax credit for the UK," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 22(3), pages 375-399, September.
    19. Alejandro Nin Pratt, 2016. "Comparing Apples to Apples: A New Indicator of Research and Development Investment Intensity in Agriculture," Working Papers id:11379, eSocialSciences.
    20. Alexander Cobham, "undated". "The Financing and Technology Decisions of SMEs: I. Finance as a Determinant of Investment," QEH Working Papers qehwps24, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.
    21. Neil Foster-McGregor & Mario Holzner & Michael Landesmann & Johannes Pöschl & Robert Stehrer & Roman Stöllinger, 2013. "A ‘Manufacturing Imperative’ in the EU – Europe's Position in Global Manufacturing and the Role of Industrial Policy," wiiw Research Reports 391, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    22. Gong, Guan & Keller, Wolfgang, 2003. "Convergence and polarization in global income levels: a review of recent results on the role of international technology diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1055-1079, June.
    23. David Mayer Foulkes., 2007. "Subdesarrollo y globalización," Ensayos Revista de Economia, Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Facultad de Economia, vol. 0(1), pages 155-192, May.

    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:nbr:nberwo:6827. 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: () or (Joanne Lustig). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.