IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/see/wpaper/20162.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A New Metrics Of Technology Upgrading: The Central And East European Countries In A Comparative Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Slavo Radosevic

    (UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies)

  • Esin Yoruk

    (University of Coventry, Coventry Business School)

Abstract

We explore the issues of measurement of technology upgrading of the economies moving from middle to high-income status. In particular, our focus is on the central and eastern European economies (CEE) within the context of a sample of 42 economies ranging from lower middle income to upper high-income level economies. Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs) are largely middle-income economies, but it is not certain whether they have achieved a threshold of technological capability required for catching up to high-income economies status. In exploring this issue, we apply theoretically relevant and empirically grounded middle level conceptual and statistical framework based on three dimensions: intensity and breadth of technological upgrading, and technology and knowledge exchange. As an outcome, we construct a composite indicator of technology upgrading based on 35 indicators which reflect different drivers and patterns of technology upgrading of countries at different income levels. Based on the simple statistical analysis we show that the middle-income trap is present in all dimensions of technology upgrading, but their importance varies across different dimensions. A trap seems to be higher for dimensions of ‘breadth’ of technology upgrading than for index of ‘intensity’ of technology upgrading. We explore in detail positioning of the CEE economies in the broader comparative context. Among the many interesting results, we highlight the following. The highest ranked countries regarding index of technology upgrading are Sweden, Korea, Japan and Germany. Poland has been fast growing CEE economy in the last 20 years, but its potential for technology- based growth is moderate. China’s ranking regarding index of technology upgrading is well above its income per capita which suggests room for further growth based on technology. CEECs are spread widely along index of technology upgrading which reflects partly their income per capita levels but also the different potential for further growth. An important structural feature of the CEE technology upgrading is their openness regarding technology and knowledge flows. A comparative analysis of technology upgrading profiles shows that there is a quite significant EU North – South technology upgrading gap. Regarding index of technology upgrading index, EU regions are ordered from EU North, South, Central and East with the difference between South and Central being relatively small. Regarding technology capability, EU has very strong core – periphery features as the gap between North and three other regions is quite substantial. In this working paper, we explore the issues related to the measurement of technology upgrading of the economies moving from middle to high-income status. In particular, our focus is on the central and eastern European economies (CEE) within the context of a sample of 42 economies ranging from lower middle income to upper high-income level economies.

Suggested Citation

  • Slavo Radosevic & Esin Yoruk, 2016. "A New Metrics Of Technology Upgrading: The Central And East European Countries In A Comparative Perspective," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 2016-2, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).
    • Handle: RePEc:see:wpaper:2016:2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mendonca, Sandro & Pereira, Tiago Santos & Godinho, Manuel Mira, 2004. "Trademarks as an indicator of innovation and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1385-1404, November.
    2. Justin Yifu Lin, 2011. "New Structural Economics: A Framework for Rethinking Development," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 26(2), pages 193-221, August.
    3. Hanushek, Eric A. & Woessmann, Ludger, 2007. "The role of education quality for economic growth," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4122, The World Bank.
    4. Crepon, B. & Duguet, E. & Mairesse, J., 1998. "Research Investment, Innovation and Productivity: An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 98.15, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    5. Jean Imbs & Romain Wacziarg, 2003. "Stages of Diversification," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 63-86, March.
    6. Freeman, Chris, 2002. "Continental, national and sub-national innovation systems--complementarity and economic growth," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 191-211, February.
    7. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Dosi Giovanni & Gambardella Alfonso & Grazzi Marco & Orsenigo Luigi, 2008. "Technological Revolutions and the Evolution of Industrial Structures: Assessing the Impact of New Technologies upon the Size and Boundaries of Firms," Capitalism and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-49, June.
    9. Eugenia Baroncelli & Carsten Fink & Beata Smarzynska Javorcik, 2005. "The Global Distribution of Trademarks: Some Stylised Facts," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 765-782, June.
    10. Peneder, Michael, 2003. "Industrial structure and aggregate growth," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 427-448, December.
    11. Ernst, Dieter, 1997. "From Partial to Systemic Globalization: International Production Networks in the Electronics Industry," UCAIS Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy, Working Paper Series qt7326w69k, UCAIS Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy, UC Berkeley.
    12. Majcen, Boris & Radosevic, Slavo & Rojec, Matija, 2009. "Nature and determinants of productivity growth of foreign subsidiaries in Central and East European countries," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 168-184, June.
    13. Bruno, Randolph Luca & Campos, Nauro F., 2013. "Reexamining the Conditional Effect of Foreign Direct Investment," IZA Discussion Papers 7458, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Randall Morck & Daniel Wolfenzon & Bernard Yeung, 2004. "Corporate Governance, Economic Entrenchment and Growth," NBER Working Papers 10692, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Suma S. Athreye, 2005. "The Indian software industry and its evolving service capability," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 14(3), pages 393-418, June.
    16. Archibugi, Daniele & Coco, Alberto, 2005. "Measuring technological capabilities at the country level: A survey and a menu for choice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 175-194, March.
    17. Grupp, Hariolf & Mogee, Mary Ellen, 2004. "Indicators for national science and technology policy: how robust are composite indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1373-1384, November.
    18. Fernando F. Suárez & James M. Utterback, 1995. "Dominant designs and the survival of firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(6), pages 415-430.
    19. Lall, Sanjaya, 1992. "Technological capabilities and industrialization," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 165-186, February.
    20. Slavo Radosevic & Anna Kaderabkova (ed.), 2011. "Challenges for European Innovation Policy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14060.
    21. Slavo Radosevic & Esin Yoruk, 2015. "Why do we need theory and metrics of technology upgrading?," UCL SSEES Economics and Business working paper series 134, UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES).
    22. Edward L. Glaeser & Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes & Andrei Shleifer, 2004. "Do Institutions Cause Growth?," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 271-303, September.
    23. Aghion, Philippe & Akcigit, Ufuk & Howitt, Peter, 2014. "What Do We Learn From Schumpeterian Growth Theory?," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 515-563, Elsevier.
    24. Freeman, Chris & Louca, Francisco, 2002. "As Time Goes By: From the Industrial Revolutions to the Information Revolution," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199251056.
    25. Romer, Paul M, 1990. "Endogenous Technological Change," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 71-102, October.
    26. Dieter Ernst, 2008. "Can Chinese IT Firms Develop Innovative Capabilities Within Global Knowledge Networks?," Economics Study Area Working Papers 94, East-West Center, Economics Study Area.
    27. Bruno Crepon & Emmanuel Duguet & Jacques Mairesse, 1998. "Research, Innovation And Productivity: An Econometric Analysis At The Firm Level," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 115-158.
    28. Dahlman, Carl J. & Ross-Larson, Bruce & Westphal, Larry E., 1987. "Managing technological development: Lessons from the newly industrializing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 759-775, June.
    29. Justin Yifu Lin, 2013. "From Flying Geese to Leading Dragons: New Opportunities and Strategies for Structural Transformation in Developing Countries," International Economic Association Series, in: Joseph E. Stiglitz & Justin Lin Yifu & Ebrahim Patel (ed.), The Industrial Policy Revolution II, chapter 1, pages 50-70, Palgrave Macmillan.
    30. Hobday, Michael & Rush, Howard & Bessant, John, 2004. "Approaching the innovation frontier in Korea: the transition phase to leadership," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1433-1457, December.
    31. Lee,Keun, 2013. "Schumpeterian Analysis of Economic Catch-up," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107042681, January.
    32. G. N. von Tunzelmann, 1995. "Technology and Industrial Progress," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 437.
    33. Hanushek, Eric A., 2013. "Economic growth in developing countries: The role of human capital," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 204-212.
    34. Furman, Jeffrey L. & Hayes, Richard, 2004. "Catching up or standing still?: National innovative productivity among 'follower' countries, 1978-1999," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1329-1354, November.
    35. Hobday, Mike, 1995. "East Asian latecomer firms: Learning the technology of electronics," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(7), pages 1171-1193, July.
    36. Jens J. Krüger, 2008. "Productivity And Structural Change: A Review Of The Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 330-363, April.
    37. Stevenson, Thomas H. & Barnes, Frank C., 2001. "Fourteen years of ISO 9000: impact, criticisms, costs, and benefits," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 45-51.
    38. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2011. "The puzzle of patent value indicators," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 33-62.
    39. Ludger Vessman & Jerik Hanushek, 2007. "The role of education quality in economic growth (Part I)," Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 2, pages 86-116.
    40. Dieter Ernst, 1998. "Catching-Up, Crisis and Industrial Upgrading. Evolutionary Aspects of Technological Learning in Korea's Electronics Industry," DRUID Working Papers 98-16, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    41. Giuseppe Munda & Michela Nardo, 2009. "Noncompensatory/nonlinear composite indicators for ranking countries: a defensible setting," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(12), pages 1513-1523.
    42. Amsden, Alice H. & Tschang, F. Ted, 2003. "A new approach to assessing the technological complexity of different categories of R&D (with examples from Singapore)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 553-572, April.
    43. Carlota Perez, 2010. "Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 34(1), pages 185-202, January.
    44. Michael Freudenberg, 2003. "Composite Indicators of Country Performance: A Critical Assessment," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2003/16, OECD Publishing.
    45. Sandra M. Leitner & Robert Stehrer, 2014. "Trade Integration, Production Fragmentation and Performance in Europe - Blessing or Curse? A Comparative Analysis of the New Member States and the EU-15," wiiw Research Reports 397, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    46. Terutomo Ozawa, 2009. "The Rise of Asia," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13084.
    47. Valentine Millot, 2009. "Trademarks as an Indicator of Product and Marketing Innovations," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2009/6, OECD Publishing.
    48. Ernst, Dieter & Kim, Linsu, 2002. "Global production networks, knowledge diffusion, and local capability formation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1417-1429, December.
    49. Andreas Reinstaller & Fabian Unterlass, 2011. "Sectoral Innovation Modes and Level of Economic Development: Implications for Innovation Policy in the New Member States," Chapters, in: Slavo Radosevic & Anna Kaderabkova (ed.), Challenges for European Innovation Policy, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    50. Gort, Michael & Klepper, Steven, 1982. "Time Paths in the Diffusion of Product Innovations," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(367), pages 630-653, September.
    51. Choung, Jae-Yong & Hwang, Hye-Ran & Song, Wichin, 2014. "Transitions of Innovation Activities in Latecomer Countries: An Exploratory Case Study of South Korea," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 156-167.
    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. Yoruk, Deniz E., 2019. "Dynamics of firm-level upgrading and the role of learning in networks in emerging markets," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 341-369.
    2. Radosevic, Slavo & Yoruk, Esin, 2018. "Technology upgrading of middle income economies: A new approach and results," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 56-75.

    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. Radosevic, Slavo & Yoruk, Esin, 2018. "Technology upgrading of middle income economies: A new approach and results," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 56-75.
    2. Dominguez Lacasa, Iciar & Jindra, Björn & Radosevic, Slavo & Shubbak, Mahmood, 2019. "Paths of technology upgrading in the BRICS economies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 262-280.
    3. Fagerberg, Jan & Srholec, Martin & Verspagen, Bart, 2010. "Innovation and Economic Development," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 833-872, Elsevier.
    4. Fischer, Bruno Brandão & Schaeffer, Paola Rücker & Vonortas, Nicholas S., 2019. "Evolution of university-industry collaboration in Brazil from a technology upgrading perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 330-340.
    5. Dey, Bidit L. & Babu, Mujahid Mohiuddin & Rahman, Mizan & Dora, Manoj & Mishra, Nishikant, 2019. "Technology upgrading through co-creation of value in developing societies: Analysis of the mobile telephone industry in Bangladesh," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 413-425.
    6. Teixeira, Aurora A.C. & Queirós, Anabela S.S., 2016. "Economic growth, human capital and structural change: A dynamic panel data analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1636-1648.
    7. Fagerberg, Jan & Srholec, Martin, 2008. "National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1417-1435, October.
    8. Capolupo, Rosa, 2009. "The New Growth Theories and Their Empirics after Twenty Years," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 3, pages 1-72.
    9. 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.
    10. Kale, Dinar, 2019. "From small molecule generics to biosimilars: Technological upgrading and patterns of distinctive learning processes in the Indian pharmaceutical industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 370-383.
    11. Lei Guo & Marina Yue Zhang & Mark Dodgson & David Gann & Hong Cai, 2019. "Seizing windows of opportunity by using technology-building and market-seeking strategies in tandem: Huawei’s sustained catch-up in the global market," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 849-879, September.
    12. Elvis Korku Avenyo & Fiona Tregenna & Erika Kraemer-Mbula, 2021. "Do Productive Capabilities Affect Export Performance? Evidence from African Firms," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 33(2), pages 304-329, April.
    13. Stephane Lhuillery & Julio Raffo & Intan Hamdan-Livramento, 2016. "Measuring creativity: Learning from innovation measurement," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 31, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division.
    14. 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.
    15. Dutrénit, Gabriela & Natera, José Miguel & Puchet Anyul, Martín & Vera-Cruz, Alexandre O., 2019. "Development profiles and accumulation of technological capabilities in Latin America," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 396-412.
    16. Mark Knell & Simone Vannuccini, 2022. "Tools and concepts for understanding disruptive technological change after Schumpeter," Jena Economics Research Papers 2022-005, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    17. Dziallas, Marisa & Blind, Knut, 2019. "Innovation indicators throughout the innovation process: An extensive literature analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 80, pages 3-29.
    18. Amable, Bruno & Ledezma, Ivan & Robin, Stéphane, 2016. "Product market regulation, innovation, and productivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 2087-2104.
    19. Max Nathan & Anna Rosso, 2017. "Innovative events," Development Working Papers 429, Centro Studi Luca d'Agliano, University of Milano, revised 08 Apr 2019.
    20. Hidalgo, César A., 2023. "The policy implications of economic complexity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Technology upgrading;

    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:see:wpaper:2016:2. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/csescuk.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.