IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v174y2022ics0040162521007010.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are ‘flow of ideas’ and ‘research productivity’ in secular decline?

Author

Listed:
  • Cauwels, Peter
  • Sornette, Didier

Abstract

It is widely held true that fundamental scientific knowledge has been accelerating exponentially over the past centuries and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Moreover, endogenous growth theory postulates that this exponential accumulation of knowledge is the main source of the ubiquitous exponential economic growth. We test these claims by constructing two new series of knowledge indices, one representing the historical evolution of the Flow of Ideas, the other one giving a measure of Research Productivity, by combining Krebs (2008)s’ Encyclopaedia of Scientific Principles and Asimov (1989)’s Chronology of Science and Discovery. Three different geographical regions are covered: 1) Continental Europe, 2) the United Kingdom, and 3) the United States; and two disciplines: a) the physical sciences, and b) the life sciences. Starting in 1750, our indices reveal waves coinciding with the three industrial and technological revolutions, in particular in the United Kingdom. Our main result is that scientific knowledge has been in clear decline since the early 1970s for the Flow of Ideas and since the early 1950s for the Research Productivity, in the geographical regions and scientific disciplines covered by the indices. The decline is observed until the end of the dataset constructed by combining both Krebs’ encyclopaedia and Asimov's Chronology, that is 1988. Using only Krebs (2008)s’ Encyclopaedia of Scientific Principles, valid until 2007, the decline is further confirmed for the Research Productivity until 2007. Given the strong downward trends that we document up to 1988 for the combined dataset and which is also prominent in the Encyclopaedia of Scientific Principles until 2007, there is no visible sign of an inflection that would signal the initiation of a reversal. Overall, our results support the Kuhnian theory of knowledge creation through scientific revolutions, punctuation and paradigm shifts and falsify the gradualism that lies at the basis of the currently prevailing economic paradigm of endogenous growth.

Suggested Citation

  • Cauwels, Peter & Sornette, Didier, 2022. "Are ‘flow of ideas’ and ‘research productivity’ in secular decline?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:174:y:2022:i:c:s0040162521007010
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121267
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162521007010
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121267?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Nicholas Bloom & Charles I. Jones & John Van Reenen & Michael Webb, 2020. "Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(4), pages 1104-1144, April.
    2. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    3. Charles I. Jones, 2019. "Paul Romer: Ideas, Nonrivalry, and Endogenous Growth," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 121(3), pages 859-883, July.
    4. Lucas Bretschger, 2018. "Greening Economy, Graying Society," CER-ETH Press, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich, edition 2, number 18-001.
    5. Yaqub, Ohid, 2018. "Serendipity: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 169-179.
    6. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2020. "Creativity-enhancing technological change in the production of scientific knowledge," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(5), pages 489-500, July.
    7. Paul M. Romer, 1994. "The Origins of Endogenous Growth," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 3-22, Winter.
    8. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2021. "Technological change in the production of new scientific knowledge: a second look," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(4), pages 371-381, May.
    9. George Ellis & Joe Silk, 2014. "Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics," Nature, Nature, vol. 516(7531), pages 321-323, December.
    10. Robert J. Gordon, 2016. "Perspectives on The Rise and Fall of American Growth," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 72-76, May.
    11. Johan Rockström & Will Steffen & Kevin Noone & Åsa Persson & F. Stuart Chapin & Eric F. Lambin & Timothy M. Lenton & Marten Scheffer & Carl Folke & Hans Joachim Schellnhuber & Björn Nykvist & Cynthia , 2009. "A safe operating space for humanity," Nature, Nature, vol. 461(7263), pages 472-475, September.
    12. Sornette, Didier & Cauwels, Peter, 2015. "Financial Bubbles: Mechanisms and Diagnostics," Review of Behavioral Economics, now publishers, vol. 2(3), pages 279-305, October.
    13. Boeing, Philipp & Hünermund, Paul, 2020. "A global decline in research productivity? Evidence from China and Germany," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    14. Claude Diebolt & Michael Haupert (ed.), 2016. "Handbook of Cliometrics," Springer Books, Springer, edition 1, number 978-3-642-40406-1, October.
    15. Cristiano Antonelli, 2019. "The Knowledge Growth Regime," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-030-05508-0, October.
    16. Johansen, Anders & Sornette, Didier, 2001. "Finite-time singularity in the dynamics of the world population, economic and financial indices," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 294(3), pages 465-502.
    17. Lawrence H Summers, 2014. "U.S. Economic Prospects: Secular Stagnation, Hysteresis, and the Zero Lower Bound," Business Economics, Palgrave Macmillan;National Association for Business Economics, vol. 49(2), pages 65-73, April.
    18. Smil, Vaclav, 2005. "Creating the Twentieth Century: Technical Innovations of 1867-1914 and Their Lasting Impact," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195168747.
    19. Didier Sornette & Peter Cauwels, 2014. "1980–2008: The Illusion of the Perpetual Money Machine and What It Bodes for the Future," Risks, MDPI, vol. 2(2), pages 1-29, April.
    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. Ciaffi, Giovanna & Deleidi, Matteo & Di Bucchianico, Stefano, 2024. "Stagnation despite ongoing innovation: Is R&D expenditure composition a missing link? An empirical analysis for the US (1948–2019)," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    2. Antonelli, Cristiano & Tubiana, Matteo, 2023. "The rate and direction of technological change and wealth and income inequalities in advanced countries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    3. Alston, Julian M. & Pardey, Philip G., 2022. "Are Ideas Really Getting Harder to Find?," Staff Papers 320517, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    4. Parteka, Aleksandra & Kordalska, Aleksandra, 2023. "Artificial intelligence and productivity: global evidence from AI patent and bibliometric data," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    5. Callaghan, Christian William, 2021. "Growth contributions of technological change: Is there a burden of knowledge effect?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    6. Thomas Philippon, 2022. "Additive Growth," NBER Working Papers 29950, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Constantin Bürgi & Nisan Gorgulu, 2022. "The Impact of the Spatial Population Distribution on Economic Growth: Evidence from the United States," CESifo Working Paper Series 10008, CESifo.
    8. Wim Naudé, 2022. "From the entrepreneurial to the ossified economy," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 46(1), pages 105-131.
    9. Sandro Lera & Didier Sornette, 2015. "Secular bipolar growth rate of the real US GDP per capita: implications for understanding past and future economic growth," Papers 1607.04136, arXiv.org.
    10. Albert N. Link, 2021. "Knowledge transfers from federally supported R&D," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 249-260, March.
    11. Ho, Chi Pui, 2016. "Industrious Selection: Explaining Five Revolutions and Two Divergences in Eurasian Economic History within a Unified Growth Framework," MPRA Paper 73862, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Besancenot, Damien & Vranceanu, Radu, 2024. "Reluctance to pursue breakthrough research: A signaling explanation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(4).
    13. Burgi, Constantin & Gorgulu, Nisan, 2021. "The Impact of the Spatial Population Distribution on Economic Growth," Working Papers 17-2021, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.
    14. Teheni El Ghak & Awatef Gdairia & Boutheina Abassi, 2021. "High-tech Entrepreneurship and Total Factor Productivity: the Case of Innovation-Driven Economies," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(3), pages 1152-1186, September.
    15. Thomas Gries, 2020. "A New Theory of Demand-Restricted Growth: The Basic Idea," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 65(1), pages 11-27, March.
    16. Feld, Lars P. & Schmidt, Christoph M. & Schnabel, Isabel & Truger, Achim & Wieland, Volker, 2019. "Den Strukturwandel meistern. Jahresgutachten 2019/20 [Dealing with Structural Change. Annual Report 2019/20]," Annual Economic Reports / Jahresgutachten, German Council of Economic Experts / Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, volume 127, number 201920, September.
    17. Naudé, Wim, 2023. "We Already Live in a Degrowth World, and We Do Not like It," IZA Discussion Papers 16191, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Maha Mohamed Alsebai Mohamed & Pingfeng Liu & Guihua Nie, 2022. "Causality between Technological Innovation and Economic Growth: Evidence from the Economies of Developing Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-39, March.
    19. Ufuk Akcigit & Sina T. Ates, 2023. "What Happened to US Business Dynamism?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 131(8), pages 2059-2124.
    20. Naudé, Wim & Nagler, Paula, 2022. "The Ossified Economy: The Case of Germany, 1870-2020," IZA Discussion Papers 15607, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research productivity; Knowledge accumulation; Economic growth; Endogenous growth; Exponential growth; S-curve; Technological progress; Discovery; Invention; Innovation; Scientific revolutions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C80 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - General
    • H50 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - General
    • J24 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity
    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O40 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - General
    • O50 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - General

    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:tefoso:v:174:y:2022:i:c:s0040162521007010. 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.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.