IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/12096.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Science, Technology and Innovation for Economic Growth: Linking Policy Research and Practice in "STIG Systems"

Author

Listed:
  • David, Paul
  • Aghion, Philippe

Abstract

This paper reflects on the relevance of "systems-theoretic" approaches to theinterdependent policy issues relating to the dynamics of science, technology and innovation and their relationship to economic growth. Considering the approach that characterizes much of the current economics literature's treatment of technology and growth policies, we pose the critical question: what kind of systems paradigm is likely to prove particularly fruitful in that particular problem-domain? Evolutionary, neo-Schumpeterian, and complex system dynamics approaches are conceptually attractive, and we examine their respective virtues and limitations. Both qualities are redily visible when one tries to connect systems-relevant research with practical policy-making in this field.

Suggested Citation

  • David, Paul & Aghion, Philippe, 2008. "Science, Technology and Innovation for Economic Growth: Linking Policy Research and Practice in "STIG Systems"," MPRA Paper 12096, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:12096
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/12096/1/MPRA_paper_12096.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bresnahan, Timothy F. & Trajtenberg, M., 1995. "General purpose technologies 'Engines of growth'?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 83-108, January.
    2. Mohnen, Pierre & Roller, Lars-Hendrik, 2005. "Complementarities in innovation policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 1431-1450, August.
    3. Franco Malerba & Richard Nelson & Luigi Orsenigo & Sidney Winter, 2008. "Vertical integration and disintegration of computer firms: a history-friendly model of the coevolution of the computer and semiconductor industries," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 17(2), pages 197-231, April.
    4. Mikael Lindahl & Alan B. Krueger, 2001. "Education for Growth: Why and for Whom?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(4), pages 1101-1136, December.
    5. Paul A. Davi & dDominique Foray & CNRS and Institut pour le Management de la Recherche et de l`Innovation & Paris-Dauphine University, 2001. "An Introduction to the Economy of the Knowledge Society," Economics Series Working Papers 84, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    6. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Blumenthal, Marjory S, 1998. "Federal Government Initiatives and the Foundations of the Information Technology Revolution: Lessons from History," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(2), pages 34-39, May.
    8. Paul A. David, 2011. "Path Dependence: A Foundational Concept for Historical Social Science," Chapters, in: Peer Zumbansen & Gralf-Peter Calliess (ed.), Law, Economics and Evolutionary Theory, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Dopfer,Kurt (ed.), 2005. "The Evolutionary Foundations of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521621991, November.
    10. Malerba,Franco & Brusoni,Stefano (ed.), 2007. "Perspectives on Innovation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521685610, November.
    11. David, Paul A., 1994. "Why are institutions the 'carriers of history'?: Path dependence and the evolution of conventions, organizations and institutions," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 205-220, December.
    12. Romer, Paul M, 1990. "Endogenous Technological Change," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 71-102, October.
    13. Manuel Trajtenberg, 2002. "Government Support for Commercial R&D: Lessons from the Israeli Experience," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 79-134, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Sah, Raaj Kumar & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1988. "Committees, Hierarchies and Polyarchies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 98(391), pages 451-470, June.
    15. Paul A. David, 2005. "The Economic Logic of “Open Science” and the Balance between Private Property Rights and the Public Domain in Scientific Data and," Development and Comp Systems 0502006, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Kiminiori Matsuyama, 1995. "Economic Development as Coordination Problems," Discussion Papers 1123, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    17. Adam B. Jaffe & Richard G. Newell & Robert N. Stavins, 2004. "Technology Policy for Energy and the Environment," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 4, pages 35-68, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Tor Jakob Klette & Jarle Møen, 1999. "From Growth Theory to Technology Policy - Coordination Problems in Theory and Practice," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 25, pages 53-74.
    19. Paul M. Romer, 2001. "Should the Government Subsidize Supply or Demand in the Market for Scientists and Engineers?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 221-252, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. 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.
    21. Franco Malerba & Luigi Orsenigo, 2002. "Innovation and market structure in the dynamics of the pharmaceutical industry and biotechnology: towards a history-friendly model," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(4), pages 667-703, August.
    22. Nickell, Stephen J, 1996. "Competition and Corporate Performance," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(4), pages 724-746, August.
    23. Malerba,Franco & Brusoni,Stefano (ed.), 2007. "Perspectives on Innovation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521866644, November.
    24. Partha, Dasgupta & David, Paul A., 1994. "Toward a new economics of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 487-521, September.
    25. Philippe Aghion & George-Marios Angeletos & Abhijit Banerjee & Kalina Manova, 2005. "Volatility and Growth: Credit Constraints and Productivity-Enhancing Investment," NBER Working Papers 11349, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    26. Brian Arthur, W. & Ermoliev, Yu. M. & Kaniovski, Yu. M., 1987. "Path-dependent processes and the emergence of macro-structure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 294-303, June.
    27. Mowery, David C. & Simcoe, Timothy, 2002. "Is the Internet a US invention?--an economic and technological history of computer networking," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1369-1387, December.
    28. G. Silverberg & B. Verspagen, 1995. "Evolutionary Theorizing on Economic Growth," Working Papers wp95078, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    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. Philippe Aghion & Paul A. David & Dominique Foray, 2007. "Science, Technology and Innovation for Economic Growth: Towards Linking Policy Research and Practice in 'STIG Systems'," Discussion Papers 06-039, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, revised Oct 2008.
    2. Philippe Aghion & Paul David & Dominique Foray, 2006. "Linking Policy Research and Practice in 'STIG Systems': Many Obstacles, but Some Ways Forward," Discussion Papers 06-009, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    6. Gustafsson, Robin & Autio, Erkko, 2011. "A failure trichotomy in knowledge exploration and exploitation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 819-831, July.
    7. Kealey, Terence & Ricketts, Martin, 2014. "Modelling science as a contribution good," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 1014-1024.
    8. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    9. Birgitte Andersen & Federica Rossi, 2011. "Intellectual property governance and knowledge creation in UK universities," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(8), pages 701-725, September.
    10. Choi, Jin-Uk & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2022. "The differential effects of basic research on firm R&D productivity: The conditioning role of technological diversification," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    11. Paul Lewis, 2021. "Entrepreneurship, novel combinations, capital regrouping, and the structure-agency relationship: an introduction to the special issue on innovation and Austrian economics," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 34(1), pages 1-12, March.
    12. Russell Thomson, 2010. "Tax Policy and R&D Investment by Australian Firms," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 86(273), pages 260-280, June.
    13. Heinrich, Torsten, 2016. "The Narrow and the Broad Approach to Evolutionary Modeling in Economics," MPRA Paper 75797, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. 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.
    15. Mario COCCIA, 2018. "Evolution of the economics of science in the Twenty Century," Journal of Economics Library, KSP Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 65-84, March.
    16. Giovanni Dosi & Sébastien Lechevalier & Angelo Secchi, 2010. "Interfirm heterogeneity: nature, sources and consequences for industrial dynamics. An introduction," Post-Print hal-00642680, HAL.
    17. Karolina Safarzyńska & Jeroen Bergh, 2010. "Evolutionary models in economics: a survey of methods and building blocks," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 329-373, June.
    18. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 2010. "The Market for Technology," 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 641-678, Elsevier.
    19. Antonelli, Cristiano & Crespi, Francesco, 2013. "The "Matthew effect" in R&D public subsidies: The Italian evidence," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(8), pages 1523-1534.
    20. Paraskevopoulou, Evita, 2012. "Non-technological regulatory effects: Implications for innovation and innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1058-1071.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    science and technology policy; innovation policy; R&D subsidies; IPR; systems research; economic growth theory; complementarities; positive feedbacks; complexity; market failurees; policy implementation failures;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O1 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development
    • D50 - Microeconomics - - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:pra:mprapa:12096. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.