IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/see/wpaper/2015134.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why do we need theory and metrics of technology upgrading?

Author

Listed:
  • Slavo Radosevic

    (UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies)

  • Esin Yoruk

    (UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies)

Abstract

This paper discusses why we need theory and metrics of technology upgrading. It critically reviews the existing approaches to technology upgrading and motivates build-up of theoretically relevant but empirically grounded middle level conceptual and statistical framework which could illuminate a type of challenges relevant for economies at different income levels. It conceptualizes technology upgrading as three dimensional processes composed of intensity and different types of technology upgrading through various types of innovation and technology activities; broadening of technology upgrading through different forms of technology and knowledge diversification, and interaction with global economy through knowledge import, adoption and exchange. We consider this to be necessary first step towards theory and metrics of technology upgrading and generation of more relevant composite indicator of technology upgrading.

Suggested Citation

  • Slavo Radosevic & Esin Yoruk, 2015. "Why do we need theory and metrics of technology upgrading?," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 134, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).
    • Handle: RePEc:see:wpaper:2015:134
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1463370/13/Radosevic_Technology%20upgrading%20_%20UCL%20SSEES%20WP_134_SREY.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Suma S. Athreye, 2005. "The Indian software industry and its evolving service capability," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 14(3), pages 393-418, June.
    2. Aghion, Philippe & Akcigit, Ufuk & Howitt, Peter, 2014. "What Do We Learn From Schumpeterian Growth Theory?," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 515-563, Elsevier.
    3. Daniele Archibugi & Francesco Crespi & Mario Denni & Andrea Filippetti, 2009. "The Technological Capabilities of Nations: A Survey of Composite Indicators," QA - Rivista dell'Associazione Rossi-Doria, Associazione Rossi Doria, issue 2, May.
    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. Maciej Grodzicki, 2018. "Prices of Value Added and Competitiveness in Global Value Chains," SPRU Working Paper Series 2018-14, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    2. Kale, Dinar, 2019. "From small molecule generics to biosimilars: Technological upgrading and patterns of distinctive learning processes in the Indian pharmaceutical industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 370-383.
    3. Slavo Radosevic & Esin Yoruk, 2016. "A New Metrics Of Technology Upgrading: The Central And East European Countries In A Comparative Perspective," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 2016-2, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).

    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. Nat Moser, 2015. "Ownership and Enterprise Performance in the Russian Oil Industry 1992-2012," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 133, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).
    2. Slavo Radosevic & Esin Yoruk, 2016. "A New Metrics Of Technology Upgrading: The Central And East European Countries In A Comparative Perspective," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 2016-2, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).
    3. Kariem Soliman, 2021. "Are Industrial Robots a new GPT? A Panel Study of Nine European Countries with Capital and Quality-adjusted Industrial Robots as Drivers of Labour Productivity Growth," EIIW Discussion paper disbei307, Universitätsbibliothek Wuppertal, University Library.
    4. Elert, Niklas & Henrekson, Magnus, 2017. "Entrepreneurship and Institutions: A Bidirectional Relationship," Working Paper Series 1153, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, revised 05 May 2017.
    5. Grace Kite, 2014. "Linked in? Software and Information Technology Services in India’s Economic Development," Journal of South Asian Development, , vol. 9(2), pages 99-119, August.
    6. John T. Dalton & Andrew J. Logan, 2022. "Teaching and learning Schumpeter: A dialogue between professor and student," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 35(2), pages 235-256, June.
    7. Archibugi, Daniele & Filippetti, Andrea & Frenz, Marion, 2013. "Economic crisis and innovation: Is destruction prevailing over accumulation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 303-314.
    8. Sina T. Ates & Felipe E. Saffie, 2013. "Project Heterogeneity and Growth: The Impact of Selection," PIER Working Paper Archive 13-011, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    9. Jeon, Heesang, 2015. "Knowledge and Contemporary Capitalism in Light of Marx's Value Theory," Thesis Commons g5njk, Center for Open Science.
    10. A. Mantovi, 2016. "Stochastic and path dependence effects in the diffusion of ideas," Economics Department Working Papers 2016-EP02, Department of Economics, Parma University (Italy).
    11. Ufuk Akcigit & Salomé Baslandze & Francesca Lotti, 2023. "Connecting to Power: Political Connections, Innovation, and Firm Dynamics," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 91(2), pages 529-564, March.
    12. repec:wip:wpaper:3 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Minford, Lucy, 2015. "Tax, Regulation and Economic Growth: A Case Study of the UK," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2015/16, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section, revised Jun 2016.
    14. Ugur, Mehmet & Trushin, Eshref & Solomon, Edna & Guidi, Francesco, 2016. "R&D and productivity in OECD firms and industries: A hierarchical meta-regression analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 2069-2086.
    15. Backes-Gellner Uschi & Lehnert Patrick, 2023. "Berufliche Bildung als Innovationstreiber: Ein lange vernachlässigtes Forschungsfeld," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 24(1), pages 85-97, April.
    16. Micheline Riemsdijk, 2013. "Talent Acquisition in the IT Industry in Bangalore: A Multi-Level Study," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 104(4), pages 478-490, September.
    17. Ugur, Mehmet & Trushin, Eshref, 2018. "Asymmetric information and heterogeneous effects of R&D subsidies: evidence on R&D investment and employment of R&D personel," Greenwich Papers in Political Economy 21943, University of Greenwich, Greenwich Political Economy Research Centre.
    18. Carlino, Gerald & Kerr, William R., 2015. "Agglomeration and Innovation," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: Gilles Duranton & J. V. Henderson & William C. Strange (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 349-404, Elsevier.
    19. David S. Abrams & Ufuk Akcigit & Jillian Grennan, 2013. "Patent Value and Citations: Creative Destruction or Strategic Disruption?," NBER Working Papers 19647, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Mukta SAMTANI & Alexandru CAPATINA, 2012. "Achieving the next level of Growth through Competitive Intelligence Practices:An Exploratory Study of Romanian Offshore Technology Service Providers," Economics and Applied Informatics, "Dunarea de Jos" University of Galati, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, issue 3, pages 15-20.
    21. Roberto Bonfatti & Luis A. Bryce Campodonico & Luigi Pisano, 2018. "Reconciling the Original Schumpeterian Model with the Observed Inverted-U Relationship between Competition and Innovation," CESifo Working Paper Series 6948, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Technology upgrading;

    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:see:wpaper:2015:134. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/csescuk.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.