IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/see/wpaper/20162.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A New Metrics Of Technology Upgrading: The Central And East European Countries In A Comparative Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Slavo Radosevic

    (UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies)

  • Esin Yoruk

    (University of Coventry, Coventry Business School)

Abstract

We explore the issues of measurement of technology upgrading of the economies moving from middle to high-income status. In particular, our focus is on the central and eastern European economies (CEE) within the context of a sample of 42 economies ranging from lower middle income to upper high-income level economies. Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) are largely middle-income economies, but it is not certain whether they have achieved a threshold of technological capability required for catching up to high-income economies status. In exploring this issue, we apply theoretically relevant and empirically grounded middle level conceptual and statistical framework based on three dimensions: intensity and breadth of technological upgrading, and technology and knowledge exchange. As an outcome, we construct a composite indicator of technology upgrading based on 35 indicators which reflect different drivers and patterns of technology upgrading of countries at different income levels. Based on the simple statistical analysis we show that the middle-income trap is present in all dimensions of technology upgrading, but their importance varies across different dimensions. A trap seems to be higher for dimensions of ‘breadth’ of technology upgrading than for index of ‘intensity’ of technology upgrading. We explore in detail positioning of the CEE economies in the broader comparative context. Among the many interesting results, we highlight the following. The highest ranked countries regarding index of technology upgrading are Sweden, Korea, Japan and Germany. Poland has been fast growing CEE economy in the last 20 years, but its potential for technology- based growth is moderate. China’s ranking regarding index of technology upgrading is well above its income per capita which suggests room for further growth based on technology. CEECs are spread widely along index of technology upgrading which reflects partly their income per capita levels but also the different potential for further growth. An important structural feature of the CEE technology upgrading is their openness regarding technology and knowledge flows. A comparative analysis of technology upgrading profiles shows that there is a quite significant EU North – South technology upgrading gap. Regarding index of technology upgrading index, EU regions are ordered from EU North, South, Central and East with the difference between South and Central being relatively small. Regarding technology capability, EU has very strong core – periphery features as the gap between North and three other regions is quite substantial. In this working paper, we explore the issues related to the measurement of technology upgrading of the economies moving from middle to high-income status. In particular, our focus is on the central and eastern European economies (CEE) within the context of a sample of 42 economies ranging from lower middle income to upper high-income level economies.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
  • Handle: RePEc:see:wpaper:2016:2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mendonca, Sandro & Pereira, Tiago Santos & Godinho, Manuel Mira, 2004. "Trademarks as an indicator of innovation and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1385-1404, November.
    2. Hanushek, Eric A. & Woessmann, Ludger, 2007. "The role of education quality for economic growth," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4122, The World Bank.
    3. Crepon, B. & Duguet, E. & Mairesse, J., 1998. "Research Investment, Innovation and Productivity: An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 98.15, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    4. Jean Imbs & Romain Wacziarg, 2003. "Stages of Diversification," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 63-86, March.
    5. Freeman, Chris, 2002. "Continental, national and sub-national innovation systems--complementarity and economic growth," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 191-211, February.
    6. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Dosi Giovanni & Gambardella Alfonso & Grazzi Marco & Orsenigo Luigi, 2008. "Technological Revolutions and the Evolution of Industrial Structures: Assessing the Impact of New Technologies upon the Size and Boundaries of Firms," Capitalism and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-49, June.
    8. Majcen, Boris & Radosevic, Slavo & Rojec, Matija, 2009. "Nature and determinants of productivity growth of foreign subsidiaries in Central and East European countries," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 168-184, June.
    9. Suma S. Athreye, 2005. "The Indian software industry and its evolving service capability," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 393-418, June.
    10. Archibugi, Daniele & Coco, Alberto, 2005. "Measuring technological capabilities at the country level: A survey and a menu for choice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 175-194, March.
    11. 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).
    12. Freeman, Chris & Louca, Francisco, 2002. "As Time Goes By: From the Industrial Revolutions to the Information Revolution," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199251056.
    13. Bruno Crepon & Emmanuel Duguet & Jacques Mairesse, 1998. "Research, Innovation And Productivity: An Econometric Analysis At The Firm Level," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 115-158.
    14. Dahlman, Carl J. & Ross-Larson, Bruce & Westphal, Larry E., 1987. "Managing technological development: Lessons from the newly industrializing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 759-775, June.
    15. Hobday, Michael & Rush, Howard & Bessant, John, 2004. "Approaching the innovation frontier in Korea: the transition phase to leadership," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1433-1457, December.
    16. Hanushek, Eric A., 2013. "Economic growth in developing countries: The role of human capital," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 204-212.
    17. Furman, Jeffrey L. & Hayes, Richard, 2004. "Catching up or standing still?: National innovative productivity among 'follower' countries, 1978-1999," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1329-1354, November.
    18. Jens J. Krüger, 2008. "Productivity And Structural Change: A Review Of The Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 330-363, April.
    19. Ludger Vessman & Jerik Hanushek, 2007. "The role of education quality in economic growth (Part I)," Educational Studies, Higher School of Economics, issue 2, pages 86-116.
    20. Dieter Ernst, 1998. "Catching-Up, Crisis and Industrial Upgrading. Evolutionary Aspects of Technological Learning in Korea's Electronics Industry," DRUID Working Papers 98-16, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    21. Giuseppe Munda & Michela Nardo, 2009. "Noncompensatory/nonlinear composite indicators for ranking countries: a defensible setting," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(12), pages 1513-1523.
    22. Michael Freudenberg, 2003. "Composite Indicators of Country Performance: A Critical Assessment," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2003/16, OECD Publishing.
    23. Andreas Reinstaller & Fabian Unterlass, 2011. "Sectoral Innovation Modes and Level of Economic Development: Implications for Innovation Policy in the New Member States," Chapters,in: Challenges for European Innovation Policy, chapter 4 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. repec:eee:tefoso:v:129:y:2018:i:c:p:56-75 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:2016:2. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/csescuk.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.