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

David, Paul and Aghion, Philippe (2008): Science, Technology and Innovation for Economic Growth: Linking Policy Research and Practice in "STIG Systems".

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.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• 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
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development; D - Microeconomics > D5 - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium > D50 - General

References

Aghion, P. and Howitt, P., 1998. Endogenous Growth Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Aghion, P. and Howitt, P., 2005. Appropriate growth policy: a unifying framework, the 2005 J. A.

Schumpeter lecture, 20th Annual Congress of the European Economic Association, Amsterdam.

Aghion, P., Angeletos, M., Banerjee, A. and Manova K., 2005a. Volatility and growth: credit constraints and productivity-enhancing investment, mimeo Harvard-MIT.

Aghion, P., Boustan, Leah, Hoxby, C. and Vandenbussche, J., 2005b, “Exploiting State’s mistakes to evaluate the impact of higher education on growth”, mimeo Harvard.

Arrow, K.J., 1962. Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Inventions, in Nelson R.R.(ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Arthur, W. B., 1994. Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press:

Arthur, W. B., Ermoliev, Y. M. and Kaniovski, Y. M., 1987. Path-dependent Processes and the Emergence of Macro-Structure. European Journal of Operational Research 30: 294-30.

Bak, P., 1996. How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality. Springer-Verlag,New York.

Bessen J. and Meurer, M., 2008. Patent failure, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Blumenthal M., 1998. Federal government initiatives and the foundations of the information technology revolution: lessons from history, American Economic Review, 88, 2, 34-39.

Bresnahan, T. F. , 2003. Mechanisms of Information Technology’s Contribution to Economic Growth, in Touffut J.P. (ed.), Institutions, Innovation and Growth, Cheltenham, Eng.: Edward Elgar.

Bresnahan, T. F., and Trajtenberg, M., 1995. General Purpose Technologies: Engines of Growth, Journal of Econometrics, 65, 1995, 83-108.

Callon, M., Lascoumes, P. and Barthe, Y., 2001. Agir dans un monde incertain, Paris: Seuil. et al.

Dasgupta, P. and David P.A., 1994.Toward a New Economics of Science, Research Policy, 29, 487-521.

David, P. A., 1986. Technology Diffusion, Public Policy, and Industrial Competitiveness, in Landau R.and Rosenberg N. (eds.), The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth,Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

David, P.A., 1987. Some New Standards for the Economics of Standardization in the Information Age, in Economic Policy and Technology Performance, P. Dasgupta and P. Stoneman (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

David, P. A., 1991.General Purpose Engines, Investment, and Productivity Growth: From the Dynamo Revolution to the Computer Revolution, in Deiaco E., Hörnel E. and Vickery G. (eds.), Technology and Investment— Crucial Issues for the 90s, London: Pinter Publishers.

David, P.A., 1994. Why are institutions the ‘carriers of history’? Path-dependence and the evolution of conventions, organisations and institutions, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 5(2), 205-220.

David, P.A., 2003. The Economic Logic of ‘Open Science’ and the Balance between Private Property Rights and the Public Domain in Scientific Data and Information: A Primer,” in The Role of the Public Domain in Scientific and Technical Data and Information: A National Research Council Symposium, J. Esanu and P. F. Uhlir, (eds.), Washington, D.C.: Academy Press, 2003.

David, P.A., 2005. Path Dependence in Economic Processes: Implications for Policy Analysis in Dynamical Systems Contexts, in The Evolutionary Foundations of Economics, K.Dopfer ( ed.).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

David, P. A., 2007. Path Dependence – A Foundational Concept for Historical Social Science, Cliometrica, 1(2) Spring-Summer.

David, P. A. and D. Foray, 2001. An Introduction to the Knowledge-Based Economy, International Journal of Social Sciences: Special Issue on the Knowledge Society , no.171, December, 13-28.

David, P. A. and S. Greenstein, 1990. The Economics of Compatibility Standards: An Introduction to Recent Research, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 1(1 & 2): pp. 3-41.

David, P. A. and G. Wright, 2003. General Purpose Technologies and Surges in Productivity: Historical Reflections on the Future of the ICT Revolution,” in David P.A. and Thomas M. (eds.) The Economic Future in Historical Perspective, Oxford University Press for The British Academy.

François, C., 1999. Systems research and cybernetics in a historical perspective, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16, 203-219.

Haken, H., 1978.Synergetics, 2nd Edition. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Hall, B. H., and R. Ziedonis, 2001. The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the US Semiconductor Industry, 1979-95, The RAND Journal, 32(1):pp 101-128

Helpman, E., ed., 1998. General Purpose Technologies and Economic Growth. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Jaffe A. and Lerner J., 2004. Innovation and its Discontent, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Jaffe, A. B., R. G. Newell and R.N. Stavins, 2004. Technology Policy for Energy and the Environment, Innovation Policy and the Economy, vol.4, 35-68.

Klette, J. and Moen, J., 2000. From growth theory to technology policy: coordination problems in theory and practice, University of Oslo, draft.

Matsuyama, K., 1997. Economic development as coordination problems, in M. Aoki (ed.) The role of Government in East Asian Economic Development, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Metcalfe, J. S., 2007. Innovation Systems, Innovation policy and Restless Capitalism, in Perspectives on Innovation, F. Malerba and S. Brusoni, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Malerba, F., R. Nelson, L.Osenigo and S. Winter, 2006. Vertical Integration and Dis-integration of Computer Firms: A History Friendly Model of the Co-evolution of the Computer and Semiconductor Industries, CESPRI Working Paper 191 <ftp://ftp.unibocconi.it/pub/RePEc/cri/papers/WP191MalerbaNelsonOrsenigoWinter.pdf.]..

Malerba, F. and L. Osenigo., 2002. Towards a History Friendly Model of Innovation, Market Structure and Regulation in the Dynamics of the Pharmaceutical Industry: the Age of Random Screening, CESPRI Working Paper http://ftp.unibocconi.it/pub/RePEc/cri/papers/wp124.pdf]

Mohnen P. and Roller, L.H., 2001. Complementarities in Innovation Policy, Discussion paper 2712, Center for Economic Policy Research, London

Mowery, D.C., 2006. Lessons from the history of federal R&D policy for an “Energy Arpa”, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives.

Mowery, D. C and Simcoe T., 2002. Is the Internet a U.S. Invention?—An Economic and Technological History of Computer Networking, Research Policy, 37, 1369-1387.

National Research Council, 1999. Funding a Revolution: Government Support for Computing Research, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Nelson R.R., 1959. The simple economics of basic scientific research, The Journal of Political Economy,67, 297-306.

Nelson, R.R., 2005. The agenda of growth theory: a different point of view, in R.R.Nelson (ed.),technology, institutions and economic growth, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Nelson, R. R. and Phelps E., 1966. “Investment in Humans, technological Diffusion and economic growth”, American Economic Review, papers and proceedings, 61.

Nickell, S., 1996. Competition and Corporate performance, Journal of Political Economy, 104.

Prigogine, I.. 1980. From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences, New York: W. H. Freeman.

Prigogine, I. and I. Stengers. 1984. Order Out of Chaos, Boulder: New Science Library..

Rip, A., 2003. The Political Transformation of Science, Sage Publications Ltd

Romer, P. M., 1990. Endogenous Technological Change, Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), October,71-102.

Romer, P. M., 2000. Should the Government Subsidize Supply or the Demand in the Market for Scientists and Engineers?, Innovation Policy and the Economy, vol.1, 221-252.

Sagesti, F., 1972. A system Approach to Science and Technology Policy-Making and Planning, Organization of American States Studies on Scientific and Technological Development, Washington D.C.

Sah, R.K. and J.E. Stiglitz, 1988. Committees, Hierarchies and Polyarchies, Economic Journal, 98(39), 451-470.

Silverberg, G., and Verspagen, B., 2005. Evolutionary Theorizing on Economic Growth. in The Evolutionary Foundations of Economics, K. Dopfer (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Simon, H., 1962.The Architecture of Complexity, reprinted in The General System Yearbook, vol.X, 1965

Soete, L., 2002. European Research Area: Perspectives and Opportunities, Prepared for the International Workshop on Research Incentives and Institutions, Italian Ministry of Economics and Finance, Rome (28 November).

Stein, D. ed., 1989. Lectures in the Sciences of Complexity (Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Lectures Vol. 1), Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley, 1989

Trajtenberg, M., 2002. Government support for commercial R&D: lessons from the Israeli experience, Innovation Policy and the Economy, vol.2, 79-134