IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joevec/v27y2017i3d10.1007_s00191-017-0490-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Neoclassical versus evolutionary economics in developing countries: convergence of policy implications

Author

Listed:
  • Sepehr Ghazinoory

    (Tarbiat Modares University)

  • Meysam Narimani

    (Tarbiat Modares University)

  • Shiva Tatina

    (Tarbiat Modares University)

Abstract

This paper aims to determine whether the dichotomy between the science, technology, and innovation policy based on neoclassical and evolutionary schools of economics is applicable to developing countries. Regarding the fundamental differences in foundations of these two economic paradigms, policymakers have been forced to select and to follow one of the two seemingly competing views. However, in developing countries, due to various market and government coordination failures, complying with one of the schools has not been successful in practice. From the past, there has been some controversy between neoclassical and evolutionary schools on the subject of science, technology and innovation policy. Using a survey questionnaire and statistical analyses of the results, this paper shows that, due to the institutional setting and structural conditions in developing countries, despite the fundamentally different foundations of the competing schools of thought, the policy implications of the schools have converged. Drawing on Theme Analysis Method, the rationales are first conceptualized and then the fuzzy method is applied to reveal the respondents’ tendency to the extracted rationales and implications of the two competing schools. In conclusion, the statistical results validate the proposed hypothesis.

Suggested Citation

  • Sepehr Ghazinoory & Meysam Narimani & Shiva Tatina, 2017. "Neoclassical versus evolutionary economics in developing countries: convergence of policy implications," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 555-583, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:joevec:v:27:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s00191-017-0490-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s00191-017-0490-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00191-017-0490-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00191-017-0490-z?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. Aghion, Philippe & David, Paul A. & Foray, Dominique, 2009. "Science, technology and innovation for economic growth: Linking policy research and practice in 'STIG Systems'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 681-693, May.
    2. Lall, Sanjaya & Teubal, Morris, 1998. ""Market-stimulating" technology policies in developing countries: A framework with examples from East Asia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(8), pages 1369-1385, August.
    3. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(3), pages 577-598.
    4. François Moreau, 2004. "The role of the state in evolutionary economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 28(6), pages 847-874, November.
    5. Dosi, Giovanni & Fagiolo, Giorgio & Roventini, Andrea, 2010. "Schumpeter meeting Keynes: A policy-friendly model of endogenous growth and business cycles," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1748-1767, September.
    6. Tony Lawson, 2006. "The nature of heterodox economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 30(4), pages 483-505, July.
    7. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2005. "A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 164-174, August.
    8. Martin, Ben R., 2012. "The evolution of science policy and innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1219-1239.
    9. Laurent Bach & Mireille Matt, 2005. "From Economic Foundations to S&T Policy Tools: a Comparative Analysis of the Dominant Paradigms," Springer Books, in: Patrick Llerena & Mireille Matt (ed.), Innovation Policy in a Knowledge-Based Economy, chapter 1, pages 17-45, Springer.
    10. Brian J. Loasby, 2000. "Market institutions and economic evolution," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 297-309.
    11. Gustafsson, Robin & Autio, Erkko, 2011. "A failure trichotomy in knowledge exploration and exploitation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 819-831, July.
    12. Sharif, Naubahar, 2006. "Emergence and development of the National Innovation Systems concept," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 745-766, June.
    13. Philippe Aghion & Nick Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(2), pages 701-728.
    14. K. J. Arrow, 1971. "The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: F. H. Hahn (ed.), Readings in the Theory of Growth, chapter 11, pages 131-149, Palgrave Macmillan.
    15. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-440, June.
    16. Dosi, Giovanni & Fagiolo, Giorgio & Napoletano, Mauro & Roventini, Andrea, 2013. "Income distribution, credit and fiscal policies in an agent-based Keynesian model," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1598-1625.
    17. Fagerberg, Jan & Verspagen, Bart, 2002. "Technology-gaps, innovation-diffusion and transformation: an evolutionary interpretation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1291-1304, December.
    18. Paul M. Romer, 1994. "The Origins of Endogenous Growth," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 3-22, Winter.
    19. Malerba, Franco, 2002. "Sectoral systems of innovation and production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 247-264, February.
    20. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    21. Nelson, Richard R. & Nelson, Katherine, 2002. "Technology, institutions, and innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 265-272, February.
    22. David Colander & Richard Holt & Barkley Rosser, 2004. "The changing face of mainstream economics," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 485-499.
    23. Patrick Llerena & Mireille Matt, 2005. "Innovation Policy in a Knowledge-Based Economy : Theory and Practice," Post-Print hal-00279610, HAL.
    24. Sandra Silva & Aurora Teixeira, 2009. "On the divergence of evolutionary research paths in the past 50 years: a comprehensive bibliometric account," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 605-642, October.
    25. Sanjaya Lall, 1996. "Learning from the Asian Tigers," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-38989-2.
    26. Dodgson, Mark & Hughes, Alan & Foster, John & Metcalfe, Stan, 2011. "Systems thinking, market failure, and the development of innovation policy: The case of Australia," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1145-1156.
    27. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67(3), pages 297-297.
    28. Nelson, Richard R & Winter, Sidney G, 1974. "Neoclassical vs. Evolutionary Theories of Economic Growth: Critique and Prospectus," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 84(336), pages 886-905, December.
    29. Laurent Bach & Mireille Matt, 2005. "From Economic Foundations to S&T Policy Tools : A Comparative Analysis of the Dominant Paradigms," Post-Print hal-00279442, HAL.
    30. Patrick Llerena & Mireille Matt (ed.), 2005. "Innovation Policy in a Knowledge-Based Economy," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-540-26452-1, June.
    31. Nill, Jan & Kemp, Ren, 2009. "Evolutionary approaches for sustainable innovation policies: From niche to paradigm?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 668-680, May.
    32. Laranja, Manuel & Uyarra, Elvira & Flanagan, Kieron, 2008. "Policies for science, technology and innovation: Translating rationales into regional policies in a multi-level setting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 823-835, June.
    33. Metcalfe, J S, 1994. "Evolutionary Economics and Technology Policy," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 104(425), pages 931-944, July.
    34. Anna J. Wieczorek & Marko P. Hekkert & Ruud E.H.M. Smits, 2009. "Contemporary Innovation Policy and Instruments: Challenges and Implications," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 09-12, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Jul 2009.
    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. Víctor Gómez-Valenzuela, 2023. "Stated preference methods and STI policy studies: a foreground approach," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 171-187.

    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. Havas, Attila, 2016. "Recent economic theorising on innovation: Lessons for analysing social innovation," MPRA Paper 77385, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Attila Havas, 2015. "The persistent high-tech myth in the EC policy circles - Implications for the EU10 countries," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1517, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    3. Havas, Attila, 2014. "Mit mér(j)ünk?. Az innováció értelmezései - szakpolitikai következmények [The theory and measurement of innovation and its mutual effect on policy]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(9), pages 1022-1059.
    4. Bleda, Mercedes & del Río, Pablo, 2013. "The market failure and the systemic failure rationales in technological innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1039-1052.
    5. Jakob Edler & Jan Fagerberg, 2017. "Innovation policy: what, why, and how," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(1), pages 2-23.
    6. Attila Havas, 2014. "Trapped by the high-tech myth: the need and chances for a new policy rationale," Chapters, in: Hartmut Hirsch-Kreinsen & Isabel Schwinge (ed.), Knowledge-Intensive Entrepreneurship in Low-Tech Industries, chapter 9, pages 193-217, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," 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 51-127, Elsevier.
    8. Ben R. Martin, 2015. "R&D Policy Instruments: A Critical Review of What We Do & Don't Know," Working Papers wp476, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    9. Anna J. Wieczorek & Marko P. Hekkert & Ruud E.H.M. Smits, 2009. "Contemporary Innovation Policy and Instruments: Challenges and Implications," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 09-12, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Jul 2009.
    10. Havas, Attila, 2014. "Types of knowledge and diversity of business-academia collaborations: Implications for measurement and policy," MPRA Paper 65908, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 23 May 2015.
    11. Yu. Simachev & M. Kuzyk & V. Feygina., 2014. "R&D Cooperation between Russian Firms and Research Organizations: Is There a Need for State Assistance?," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 7.
    12. Flanagan, Kieron & Uyarra, Elvira & Laranja, Manuel, 2011. "Reconceptualising the 'policy mix' for innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 702-713, June.
    13. Schmidt, Tobias S. & Battke, Benedikt & Grosspietsch, David & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Do deployment policies pick technologies by (not) picking applications?—A simulation of investment decisions in technologies with multiple applications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 1965-1983.
    14. Federico Frattini, 2011. "Mature Systems in Global Markets: The Need for an Institutional Division of Labour," Working Papers 201109, University of Ferrara, Department of Economics.
    15. Rakas, Marija & Hain, Daniel S., 2019. "The state of innovation system research: What happens beneath the surface?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    16. Chicot, J. & Matt, M., 2015. "Public procurement of innovation: a review of rationales, instruments and design," Working Papers 2015-05, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    17. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," 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 129-213, Elsevier.
    18. Pekka SALMI, 2012. "The Impact of Public R&D Funding on Open Innovation," Economia. Seria Management, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 15(1), pages 142-163, June.
    19. Bajmócy, Zoltán & Vas, Zsófia, 2012. "Az innovációs rendszerek 25 éve. Szakirodalmi áttekintés evolúciós közgazdaságtani megközelítésben [25 years of innovation systems. A literature review from the angle of evolutionary economics]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(11), pages 1233-1256.
    20. Flanagan, Kieron & Uyarra, Elvira & Laranja, Manuel, 2010. "The ‘policy mix’ for innovation: rethinking innovation policy in a multi-level, multi-actor context," MPRA Paper 23567, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:spr:joevec:v:27:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s00191-017-0490-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.