IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v26y1997i2p229-255.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From market magic to calypso science policy a review of Terence Kealey's The economic laws of scientific research

Author

Listed:
  • David, P. A.

Abstract

The current reconsideration of public research funding policies in the U.S., and U.K. and other industrialized economies makes it important that policy makers and the public understand the valid economic grounds for government support of science. This review article of a book that which argues for the ending of all government support of non-military R&D, provides an occasion to take stock of what is known about the subject. The review concludes that the extreme laissez-faire science policy arguments adroitly advanced by Terrance Kealey's book are analytically without foundation, and are based upon distortions and misinterpretations of the evidence of economic history, as well as on the misuse of econometric methods. The problem is that Mr. Kealey is an engaging writer and there still is in some policy circles an audience for his message, hence to undo the damage will call for concerted and persistent efforts on the part of economists specializing in the economics of science and technology.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • David, P. A., 1997. "From market magic to calypso science policy a review of Terence Kealey's The economic laws of scientific research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 229-255, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:26:y:1997:i:2:p:229-255
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048-7333(97)00007-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sokoloff, Kenneth L., 1988. "Inventive Activity in Early Industrial America: Evidence From Patent Records, 1790–1846," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(4), pages 813-850, December.
    2. N. F. R. Crafts & C. K. Harley, 1992. "Output growth and the British industrial revolution: a restatement of the Crafts-Harley view," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 45(4), pages 703-730, November.
    3. Aldo Geuna, 1997. "Allocation of Funds and Research Output : the Case of UK Universities," Revue d'Économie Industrielle, Programme National Persée, vol. 79(1), pages 143-162.
    4. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 217-273, Elsevier.
    5. Harley, C. Knick, 1982. "British Industrialization Before 1841: Evidence of Slower Growth During the Industrial Revolution," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(2), pages 267-289, June.
    6. Partha, Dasgupta & David, Paul A., 1994. "Toward a new economics of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 487-521, September.
    7. Paul A. David, 1996. "Real Income and Economic Welfare Growth in the Early Republic or, Another Try at Getting the American Story Straight," Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers _005, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    8. Abramovitz, Moses & David, Paul A, 1973. "Reinterpreting Economic Growth: Parables and Realities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 63(2), pages 428-439, May.
    9. Abramovitz, Moses, 1993. "The Search for the Sources of Growth: Areas of Ignorance, Old and New," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(2), pages 217-243, June.
    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. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    2. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2002. "The Governance of Knowledge Commons," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 200203, University of Turin.
    3. David, Paul A. & Hall, Bronwyn H., 2000. "Heart of darkness: modeling public-private funding interactions inside the R&D black box," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(9), pages 1165-1183, December.
    4. Giovanni Dosi & Patrick Llerena & Mauro Sylos Labini, 2005. "Science-Technology-Industry Links and the ”European Paradox”: Some Notes on the Dynamics of Scientific and Technological Research in Europe," LEM Papers Series 2005/02, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    5. Cowan, Robin & David, Paul A & Foray, Dominique, 2000. "The Explicit Economics of Knowledge Codification and Tacitness," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 9(2), pages 211-253, June.
    6. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2003. "The Governance of Technological Knowledge: Strategies, Processes and Public Policies," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 200306, University of Turin.
    7. Heidrun C. Hoppe & Wilhelm Pfähler, 2001. "Ökonomie der Grundlagenforschung und Wissenschaftspolitik," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 2(2), pages 125-144, May.
    8. Archibugi, Daniele & Filippetti, Andrea, 2018. "The retreat of public research and its adverse consequences on innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 97-111.
    9. Andreas Fier & Dietmar Harhoff, 2002. "Die Evolution der bundesdeutschen Forschungs– und Technologiepolitik: Rückblick und Bestandsaufnahme," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 3(3), pages 279-301, August.
    10. Paul A. David & Bronwyn H. Hall, "undated". "Heart of Darkness: Public-Private Interactions Inside the R&D Black Box," Working Papers 99024, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
    11. Nicola Lacetera, 2003. "Incentives and spillovers in R&D activities: an agency-theoretic analysis of industry-university relations," Microeconomics 0312004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Nightingale, Paul, 1998. "A cognitive model of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(7), pages 689-709, November.
    13. Ugo Rizzo & Nicolò Barbieri & Laura Ramaciotti & Demian Iannantuono, 2020. "The division of labour between academia and industry for the generation of radical inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 393-413, April.
    14. Cristiano Antonelli, 2004. "The Governance of Localized Technological Knowledge and the Evolution of Intellectual Property Rights," Chapters, in: Enrico Colombatto (ed.), The Elgar Companion to the Economics of Property Rights, chapter 19, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Mario De Marchi & Maurizio Rocchi, 2004. "Labour Market Rigidity And Firms' R&D Strategies," CERIS Working Paper 200404, CNR-IRCrES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth - Torino (TO) ITALY - former Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO) ITALY.
    16. Klette, Tor Jakob & Moen, Jarle & Griliches, Zvi, 2000. "Do subsidies to commercial R&D reduce market failures? Microeconometric evaluation studies1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 471-495, April.
    17. Concepción S. Wilson & Valentina A. Markusova, 2004. "Changes in the scientific output of Russia from 1980 to 2000, as reflected in the Science Citation Index, in relation to national politico-economic changes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 59(3), pages 345-389, March.
    18. Daniele Archibugi & Andrea Filippetti, 2016. "(English) The Retreat of Public Research and its Adverse Consequences on Innovation (Italiano) I cambiamenti nella ricerca pubblica e le conseguenze avverse sull’innovazione," IRPPS Working Papers 94:2016, National Research Council, Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies.
    19. Pavitt, Keith, 1998. "The social shaping of the national science base," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 793-805, December.

    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. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Jofre-Bonet, Mireia & Lawson, Cornelia, 2015. "The double-edged sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from engineering academics in the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1160-1175.
    2. Knick Harley, 2003. "Growth theory and industrial revolutions in Britain and America," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 36(4), pages 809-831, November.
    3. Carayol, Nicolas & Dalle, Jean-Michel, 2007. "Sequential problem choice and the reward system in Open Science," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 167-191, June.
    4. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick, 2018. "Open access to research data: Strategic delay and the ambiguous welfare effects of mandatory data disclosure," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 20-34.
    5. Robert C. Allen, 2005. "Capital Accumulation, Technological Change, and the Distribution of Income during the British Industrial Revolution," Economics Series Working Papers 239, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    6. Crafts, Nicholas, 2004. "Productivity Growth in the Industrial Revolution: A New Growth Accounting Perspective," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(2), pages 521-535, June.
    7. Jeon, Doh-Shin & Menicucci, Domenico, 2008. "Money, fame and the allocation of talent: Brain drain and the institution of science," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 66(3-4), pages 558-581, June.
    8. Barirani, Ahmad & Beaudry, Catherine & Agard, Bruno, 2017. "Can universities profit from general purpose inventions? The case of Canadian nanotechnology patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 271-283.
    9. Li, Menghui & Yang, Liying & Zhang, Huina & Shen, Zhesi & Wu, Chensheng & Wu, Jinshan, 2017. "Do mathematicians, economists and biomedical scientists trace large topics more strongly than physicists?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 598-607.
    10. Stokey, Nancy L., 2001. "A quantitative model of the British industrial revolution, 1780-1850," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 55-109, December.
    11. Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick & Mueller-Langer, Frank, 2014. "Open access to data: An ideal professed but not practised," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1621-1633.
    12. Carillo, Maria Rosaria & Papagni, Erasmo, 2014. "“Little Science” and “Big Science”: The institution of “Open Science” as a cause of scientific and economic inequalities among countries," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 42-56.
    13. Bramoullé, Yann & Saint-Paul, Gilles, 2010. "Research cycles," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(5), pages 1890-1920, September.
    14. Zaggl, Michael A., 2017. "Manipulation of explicit reputation in innovation and knowledge exchange communities: The example of referencing in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 970-983.
    15. Cowan, Robin & Zinovyeva, Natalia, 2013. "University effects on regional innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 788-800.
    16. Field, Alexander J., 2009. "US economic growth in the gilded age," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 173-190, March.
    17. Haeussler, Carolin, 2011. "Information-sharing in academia and the industry: A comparative study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 105-122, February.
    18. Yang, Dennis Tao & Zhu, Xiaodong, 2013. "Modernization of agriculture and long-term growth," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 367-382.
    19. Crafts, Nicholas, 2003. "Quantifying the contribution of technological change to economic growth in different eras: a review of the evidence," Economic History Working Papers 22350, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.
    20. Eun, Jong-Hak & Lee, Keun & Wu, Guisheng, 2006. "Explaining the "University-run enterprises" in China: A theoretical framework for university-industry relationship in developing countries and its application to China," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1329-1346, November.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth
    • P - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems

    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:eee:respol:v:26:y:1997:i:2:p:229-255. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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.