IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/agr/journl/v4(625)y2020i4(625)p159-168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is there a relationship between economic welfare and innovation performance? Evidence from selected European countries

Author

Listed:
  • Lejla TERZIĆ

    (University of East Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina)

Abstract

Investigating economic welfare and innovation performance have been the main themes of dominant researchers in the area of economics. Despite the fact the imperfection of Gross Domestic Product to evaluate welfare is generally acknowledged in economic theory, it is still applicated as one of the crucial indicators for creation of economic policy directions. Interest related to the constraints of GDP have increased to the several attempts in the past decennium to create aggregate economic welfare indicators as substitutes or augmentations to the GDP. A number of challenging indicators have been created, although GDP remaines to be applicated as the traditional indicator of economic welfare. The outstanding of these prominent economic welfare indicators are: the Genuine Progress Indicator, the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare, the Human Development Index and the Better Life Indicator. This paper's main goal is to determine relationship between the prominent indicators of economic welfare and innovation performance in selected European countries. In order to examine the intercorrelations between economic welfare indicators and innovation performance several methodologies have been applicated. Research was conducted via statistical software package SPSS 25. The research results have indicated that the relationship between indicators of economic welfare in selected European countries are significantly associated with their innovation performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Lejla TERZIĆ, 2020. "Is there a relationship between economic welfare and innovation performance? Evidence from selected European countries," Theoretical and Applied Economics, Asociatia Generala a Economistilor din Romania / Editura Economica, vol. 0(4(625), W), pages 159-168, Winter.
    • Handle: RePEc:agr:journl:v:4(625):y:2020:i:4(625):p:159-168
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://store.ectap.ro/articole/1499.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.ectap.ro/articol.php?id=1499&rid=141
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emanuele Felice, 2016. "The Misty Grail: The Search for a Comprehensive Measure of Development and the Reasons for GDP Primacy," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 47(5), pages 967-994, September.
    2. William D. Nordhaus & James Tobin, 1973. "Is Growth Obsolete?," NBER Chapters, in: The Measurement of Economic and Social Performance, pages 509-564, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Anders Hayden & Jeffrey Wilson, 2018. "Taking the First Steps beyond GDP: Maryland’s Experience in Measuring “Genuine Progress”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-24, February.
    4. Onaran, Özlem & Andersen, Lars & Cozzi, Giovanni & Dahl, Signe & Nissen, Thea & Obst, Thomas & Tori, Daniele, 2017. "An investment and equality-led sustainable development strategy for Europe," Greenwich Papers in Political Economy 16212, University of Greenwich, Greenwich Political Economy Research Centre.
    5. Nicholas Oulton, 2012. "How To Measure Living Standards And Productivity," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 58(3), pages 424-456, September.
    6. Peter H. Lindert, 2003. "Why the Welfare State Looks Like a Free Lunch," NBER Working Papers 9869, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Frances Stewart, 2014. "Against Happiness: A Critical Appraisal of the Use of Measures of Happiness for Evaluating Progress in Development," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4), pages 293-307, November.
    8. Bleys, Brent & Whitby, Alistair, 2015. "Barriers and opportunities for alternative measures of economic welfare," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 162-172.
    9. Peter H. Lindert, 2003. "Why the Welfare State Looks Like a Free Lunch," NBER Working Papers 9869, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Easterlin, Richard A., 1995. "Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 35-47, June.
    11. Martin Ravallion, 2012. "Mashup Indices of Development," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 27(1), pages 1-32, February.
    12. Peter ven de Ven & Anne Harrison & Barbara Fraumeni & Dale W. Jorgenson & Paul Schreyer, 2017. "Measuring Individual Economic Well-Being and Social Welfare within the Framework of the System of National Accounts," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 63, pages 460-477, December.
    13. Lawn, Philip A., 2003. "A theoretical foundation to support the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW), Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and other related indexes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 105-118, February.
    14. Walter J. Radermacher, 2015. "Recent and Future Developments Related to “Gdp and Beyond”," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 61(1), pages 18-24, March.
    15. Diane Coyle, 2014. "GDP: A Brief but Affectionate History," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10183.
    16. Dale W. Jorgenson, 2018. "Production and Welfare: Progress in Economic Measurement," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 56(3), pages 867-919, September.
    17. Jeffrey D. Sachs & Richard Layard & John F. Helliwell, 2018. "World Happiness Report 2018," Working Papers id:12761, eSocialSciences.
    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. Günseli BERIK, 2020. "Measuring what matters and guiding policy: An evaluation of the Genuine Progress Indicator," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 159(1), pages 71-94, March.
    2. V. K. Shrotryia & Shashank Vikram Pratap Singh, 2020. "Measuring Progress Beyond GDP: A Theoretical Perspective," Emerging Economy Studies, International Management Institute, vol. 6(2), pages 143-165, November.
    3. Jonas Van der Slycken & Brent Bleys, 2020. "Cost-shifting Versus “Full” Accountability: Dealing with Cross-time and Cross-boundary Issues in the ISEW and GPI. An application to Belgium," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 20/1003, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    4. Xincheng Zhu & Yulin Liu & Xin Fang, 2022. "Revisiting the Sustainable Economic Welfare Growth in China: Provincial Assessment Based on the ISEW," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 279-306, July.
    5. Van der Slycken, Jonas & Bleys, Brent, 2020. "A Conceptual Exploration and Critical Inquiry into the Theoretical Foundation(s) of Economic Welfare Measures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    6. Kalimeris, Panos & Bithas, Kostas & Richardson, Clive & Nijkamp, Peter, 2020. "Hidden linkages between resources and economy: A “Beyond-GDP” approach using alternative welfare indicators," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    7. Emanuele Felice, 2016. "The Misty Grail: The Search for a Comprehensive Measure of Development and the Reasons for GDP Primacy," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 47(5), pages 967-994, September.
    8. Charles R. Hulten & Leonard I. Nakamura, 2022. "Is GDP Becoming Obsolete? The “Beyond GDP” Debate," NBER Working Papers 30196, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Philip Lawn, 2014. "Measuring sustainable economic welfare," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 23, pages 348-370, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Rugani, Benedetto & Marvuglia, Antonino & Pulselli, Federico Maria, 2018. "Predicting Sustainable Economic Welfare – Analysis and perspectives for Luxembourg based on energy policy scenarios," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 288-303.
    11. Pennekamp, Johannes, 2011. "Wohlstand ohne Wachstum: Ein Literaturüberblick," MPIfG Working Paper 11/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    12. Jonas Van der Slycken & Brent Bleys, 2021. "Towards ISEW and GPI 2.0, part I: developing two alternative measures of economic welfare with distinct time and boundary perspectives for Belgium," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 21/1026, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    13. Armiento, Mirko, 2018. "The Sustainable Welfare Index: Towards a Threshold Effect for Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 296-309.
    14. Daniel Ştefan Armeanu & Georgeta Vintilă & Ştefan Cristian Gherghina, 2017. "Empirical Study towards the Drivers of Sustainable Economic Growth in EU-28 Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-22, December.
    15. Joshua Hall & Robert Lawson, 2008. "Theory and evidence on economic freedom and economic growth: A comment," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 15(18), pages 1-6.
    16. Lane Kenworthy, 2004. "Welfare States, Real Income and Poverty," LIS Working papers 370, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    17. Ángeles Sánchez-Domínguez & Maria J. Ruiz Martos, 2013. "Europe 2020 strategy: a strategy for which type of growth?," ThE Papers 13/11, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    18. Joshua Aizenman & Rajeswari Sengupta, 2011. "Global Imbalances: Is Germany the New China? A Skeptical View," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 387-400, July.
    19. Pillai N., Vijayamohanan & B. P., Asalatha, 2013. "Objectivizing the Subjective: Measuring Subjective Wellbeing," MPRA Paper 45005, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. O'Mahony, Tadhg & Escardó-Serra, Paula & Dufour, Javier, 2018. "Revisiting ISEW Valuation Approaches: The Case of Spain Including the Costs of Energy Depletion and of Climate Change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 292-303.

    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:agr:journl:v:4(625):y:2020:i:4(625):p:159-168. 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: Mircea Dinu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/agerrea.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.