Issues in assessing the effect of interindustry R&D spillovers
This paper aims to clarify three issues concerning the weighting methodol ogy generally used to evaluate interindustry R&D spillovers. These issues concern the likely nature of the spillovers estimated through different types of supporting matrices; the similarity between input-output (IO), technology flows and technological proximity matrices; and the relevance of the assumption that a single matrix can be used for different countries. Data analyses of weighting components show that technology flows matrices are in an intermediate position between IO matrices and technological proximity matrices, but closer to the former. The various IO matrices, as well as the three technological proximity matrices, are very similar to each other. The panel data estimates of the effect of different types of interindustry R&D spillovers on industrial productivity growth in the G7 countries reject the hypotheses that a technology flows matrix can be approximated by an IO matrix and that a single IO matrix can be usedfor different countries. By transitivity, the procedure that comprises using a single technology flow for several countries is not reliable. The international comparison shows that each country benefits from different types of R&D externality. In Japan and, to a lesser extent, in the US, the rate of return to direct R&D is very high and is likely to compensate for relatively weak interindustry R&D spillover effects. In the five other industrialized countries, the reverse observation is true: strong social rates of return to R&D counterbal ance the poor performances of direct R&D.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
1. Check below under "Related research" 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.
|Date of creation:||1997|
|Publication status:||Published in: Economic Systems Research (1997) v.9 n° 4,p.331-356|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: CP135, 50, avenue F.D. Roosevelt, 1050 Bruxelles|
Web page: http://difusion.ulb.ac.be
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/6235. 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: (Benoit Pauwels)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.