IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v40y2011i5p664-672.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The R&D-growth paradox arises in fast-growing sectors

Author

Listed:
  • Ejermo, Olof
  • Kander, Astrid
  • Svensson Henning, Martin

Abstract

Several notions of a R&D paradox can be found in the literature. In the Swedish Paradox version, the emphasis is normally on high and growing levels of business R&D connected to comparatively low GDP growth rates. This paper examines whether this pattern is consistent over time and, more importantly, which sectors drive the aggregate patterns. Based on an investigation of the entire Swedish economy 1985-2001, there is clear evidence that the paradox occurs only in fast-growing manufacturing and service sectors. Fast-growing sectors show an increasing gap between R&D and value-added growth, while the slow-growing sectors do not. This paradox is not interpreted as a sign of failure of the national innovation system, as the largest gap would then be for the slow-growing sectors, failing to transform R&D to economic growth. The gap between R&D and GDP is consistent with the idea of diminishing marginal returns to R&D investment in high-investing sectors. The evidence does not rule out, however, that rendering the innovation system more effective could yield better outcomes. As the findings of a gap are quite consistent over time, it seems fair to conclude that businesses have good reasons for their high R&D investments, despite not being on par with their production growth.

Suggested Citation

  • Ejermo, Olof & Kander, Astrid & Svensson Henning, Martin, 2011. "The R&D-growth paradox arises in fast-growing sectors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 664-672, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:40:y:2011:i:5:p:664-672
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733311000394
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Malerba, Franco, 2002. "Sectoral systems of innovation and production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 247-264, February.
    2. Karl‐Johan Lundquist & Lars‐Olof Olander & Martin Svensson Henning, 2008. "Decomposing The Technology Shift: Evidence From The Swedish Manufacturing Sector," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 99(2), pages 145-159, April.
    3. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    4. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1994. "Endogenous Innovation in the Theory of Growth," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 23-44, Winter.
    5. Francesco Lissoni & Patrick Llerena & Maureen McKelvey & Bulat Sanditov, 2008. "Academic patenting in Europe: new evidence from the KEINS database," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 87-102, June.
    6. Charles I. Jones, 2002. "Sources of U.S. Economic Growth in a World of Ideas," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(1), pages 220-239, March.
    7. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    8. Freeman, Chris & Louca, Francisco, 2002. "As Time Goes By: From the Industrial Revolutions to the Information Revolution," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199251056.
    9. Jacobsson, Staffan & Rickne, Annika, 2004. "How large is the Swedish 'academic' sector really?: A critical analysis of the use of science and technology indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1355-1372, November.
    10. Dahmen, Erik, 1984. "Schumpeterian dynamics : Some methodological notes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 25-34, March.
    11. Karlsson, Charlie & Johansson, Börje & Stough, Roger, 2008. "Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Functional Regions," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 144, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    12. Pontus Braunerhjelm & Zoltán J. Ács & David B. Audretsch & Bo Carlsson, 2015. "The missing link: knowledge diffusion and entrepreneurship in endogenous growth," Chapters, in: Global Entrepreneurship, Institutions and Incentives, chapter 6, pages 108-128, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Jones, Charles I, 1995. "R&D-Based Models of Economic Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(4), pages 759-784, August.
    14. Dosi, Giovanni & Llerena, Patrick & Labini, Mauro Sylos, 2006. "The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called `European Paradox'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1450-1464, December.
    15. Anders Granberg & Staffan Jacobsson, 2006. "Myths or reality - a scrutiny of dominant beliefs in the Swedish science policy debate," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(5), pages 321-340, June.
    16. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    17. Karl-Johan Lundquist & Lars-Olof Olander & Martin Svensson Henning, 2008. "Producer services: growth and roles in long-term economic development," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(4), pages 463-477, May.
    18. Ejermo, Olof & Kander, Astrid, 2006. "The Swedish Paradox," Papers in Innovation Studies 2006/1, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    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. Fulvio Castellacci, 2007. "Evolutionary And New Growth Theories. Are They Converging?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 585-627, July.
    2. Ejermo, Olof & Kander, Astrid, 2008. "The Swedish Paradox arises in Fast-Growing Sectors," Papers in Innovation Studies 2008/7, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    3. Anna Laura Baraldi & Claudia Cantabene & Giulio Perani, 2014. "Reverse causality in the R&D-patents relationship: an interpretation of the innovation persistence," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 304-326, April.
    4. Sedgley, Norman & Elmslie, Bruce, 2010. "Reinterpreting the Jones critique: A time series approach to testing and understanding idea driven growth models with transitional dynamics," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 103-117, March.
    5. Rossi, Federica, 2002. "An introductory overview of innovation studies," MPRA Paper 9106, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Jun 2008.
    6. Patsali, Sofia, 2024. "University procurement-led innovation: Sources, procedures, and effects. Some field-study evidence," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    7. Maza, Adolfo & Villaverde, José & Hierro, María, 2014. "Should cohesion policy focus on fostering R&D? Evidence from Spain," INVESTIGACIONES REGIONALES - Journal of REGIONAL RESEARCH, Asociación Española de Ciencia Regional, issue 29, pages 139-164.
    8. Pontus Braunerhjelm, 2007. "Academic entrepreneurship: Social norms, university culture and policies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(9), pages 619-631, November.
    9. Jeon, Heesang, 2015. "Knowledge and Contemporary Capitalism in Light of Marx's Value Theory," Thesis Commons g5njk, Center for Open Science.
    10. Bloom, David E. et.al., 2013. "Economic impact of non-communicable disease in China and India: Estimates, projections and comparisons," Working Papers 300, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore.
    11. Valle, Sandra & García, Francisco & Avella, Lucía, 2015. "Offshoring Intermediate Manufacturing: Boost or Hindrance to Firm Innovation?," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 117-134.
    12. Zoltán J. Ács & Pontus Braunerhjelm & David B. Audretsch & Bo Carlsson, 2015. "The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship," Chapters, in: Global Entrepreneurship, Institutions and Incentives, chapter 7, pages 129-144, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Taalbi, Josef, 2017. "What drives innovation? Evidence from economic history," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1437-1453.
    14. Crass, Dirk & Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Do trademarks diminish the substitutability of products in innovative knowledge-intensive services?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-061, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    15. Matteo Lucchese, 2011. "Innovation, demand and structural change in Europe," Working Papers 1109, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Department of Economics, Society & Politics - Scientific Committee - L. Stefanini & G. Travaglini, revised 2011.
    16. Castellacci, Fulvio, 2008. "Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories: Manufacturing and service industries in a new taxonomy of sectoral patterns of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6-7), pages 978-994, July.
    17. Madsen, Jakob B., 2010. "The anatomy of growth in the OECD since 1870," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(6), pages 753-767, September.
    18. Dario Guarascio & Mario Pianta & Francesco Bogliacino, 2017. "Export, R&D and New Products: A Model and a Test on European Industries," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Pyka & Uwe Cantner (ed.), Foundations of Economic Change, pages 393-432, Springer.
    19. Amable, Bruno & Ledezma, Ivan & Robin, Stéphane, 2016. "Product market regulation, innovation, and productivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 2087-2104.
    20. Montresor, Sandro & Vezzani, Antonio, 2015. "The production function of top R&D investors: Accounting for size and sector heterogeneity with quantile estimations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 381-393.

    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:40:y:2011:i:5:p:664-672. 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.