Yoguel, Gabriel and Pereira, Mariano (2014): Industrial and technological policy: Contributions from evolutionary perspectives to policy design in developing countries.
Preview |
PDF
MPRA_paper_56290.pdf Download (1MB) | Preview |
Abstract
In the recent years a renewed consensus about the crucial role of industrial and technological policy to economic development has been growing. Despite of that, strong theoretical differences still persist concerning why and how the government must intervene in the economy. Neoclassical approach proposes that the intervention is only justified by the presence of market failures which leads to an underinvestment on R&D expenditures with respect to a Pareto efficiently level (Arrow and Debreu, 1954). Contrary to this view, a heterodox position integrated by several theoretical approaches can be identified. This group of heterodox authors does not constitute a cohesive and homogeneous corpus. In this paper three different approaches are differentiated. Firstly, we have identified a literature centred on population thinking models (Metcalfe 1994 and 2002, Dopfer, Foster and Potts, 2004, among others) that focus their analysis on the mechanism of variation, selection and retention in the competition process . From this perspective, policy design should be centred on: i) improving firms’ capabilities to increase the system variety which lead to renewing the process of market selection, and ii) enhancing the institutions that regulate the market-selection process. Secondly, we have identified a literature centred on the concept of national systems (Lundvall, 1992; Freeman, 1987; Nelson 1992 and Edquist, 1997), sectorial system (Malerba, 2002) and local system of innovation (Boschma and Martin, 2011; Antonelli, 2011). According to these authors, the elements that block the virtuous-functioning of the system and lead to a low innovative performance are targets for policy maker. Hence, industrial and technological policies should be focused on: i) enhancing agents’ capabilities and ii) improve their interactions. Thirdly, we have identified a literature integrated by contributions from evolutionary authors interested on the role of demand and cumulative causation process (Dosi, 2014; Saviotti y Pyka, 2002; Antonelli, 2011). This contributions are complemented and extended by others contributions that comes from neo-Structuralist and post-Keynesianism framework (Cimoli, Dosi, Stiglitz, 2009; Cimoli y Porcile, 2011, 2013) and authors inscribed in both theoretical traditions (Lee, 2013; Dosi, 2014). This evolutionary approach is focused on the divergence between economies and considers that gap’s reduction requires policies aimed at promote the generation of non-related variety with the production structure (Saviotti y Pika, 2002). In this context, the main objective of this paper is to discuss the prescriptions of industrial and technological policy that can be derived from this broad group of heterodox authors; and taking into account the specificities of developing countries stressed by Arocena and Sutz (2000, 2002 y 2003), Dutrenit, Rodriguez and Vera-Cruz (2006) and Cassiolato and Lastres (2009), among others. The combination of the three evolutionary streams is the path that industrial and technological policy should follow in developing economies and especially in Latin America. So, incorporating a concern for the divergence and the need for instruments that strengthen both the coevolution between related and unrelated variety and the dynamic of micro, meso and macro dimensions are keys. These instruments would be enhanced even more if population competition and innovation systems approaches are considered. This requires i ) to consider in which scheme of population competition the generation of variety emerge, ii) to develop firm´s capacities, and iii ) to design tools to improve the selection conditions These related and unrelated variety processes have a sectorial and regional general affiliation. Therefore, the contribution of the literature of local and sectorial innovation systems is important to understand existing blockades to generate positive feedbacks and increasing returns. Finally, the national innovation system approach can add elements of policy focused on both the necessary institutions for generating unrelated variety processes in the interactions between institutions and firms, and the need to identify the blockages that impede the process of building capacities.
Item Type: | MPRA Paper |
---|---|
Original Title: | Industrial and technological policy: Contributions from evolutionary perspectives to policy design in developing countries. |
Language: | English |
Keywords: | Innovation Policy, Evolutionary Theory |
Subjects: | O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O2 - Development Planning and Policy > O25 - Industrial Policy O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O30 - General |
Item ID: | 56290 |
Depositing User: | Sr Mariano Pereira |
Date Deposited: | 30 May 2014 03:37 |
Last Modified: | 02 Oct 2019 20:05 |
References: | Arocena, R and Sutz J. (2000). Looking at National Systems of Innovation from the South. Industry and Innovation. Vol. 7 N°1, pp. 55-75(21) Arrow, K and Debreu (1954) Antonelli, C. (2008). Pecuniary knowledge externalities: the convergence of directed technological change and the emergence of innovation systems. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(5), p.1049. Andersen (2004), Population Thinking, Price’s Equation and the Analysis of Economic Evolution. Evol. Inst. Econ. Rev. 1(1): 127–148. Andersen (2007) Schumpeter’s core works revisited. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, volume 22, Issue 4 , pp 627-648 Arocena R and Sutz J (2003), Subdesarrollo e Innovación, navegando contra el viento, Cambridge University Press and Organización de estados iberoamericanos Arthur, W.B., 1994. Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Bartelsman, E. J. and M. Doms (2000) “Understanding productivity: Lessons from longitudinal microdata,” Journal of Economic Literature 38: 569–594. Breda y del Rio (2013) “The market failure and the systemic failure rationale in technological innovation systems.” Research Policty. N°42 Bergek, A., Jacobsson S., Carlsson B., Lindmark S, Rickne A. (2008). Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Research Policy, Volume 37, Issue 3 Pages 407-429. Bleda, M. and Del Rio, P. (2013). The market failure and the systemic failure rationales in technological innovation systems. Research Policy 42, N°5: 1039-1052 Boschma, R. and Frenken K. (2006). Why is economic geography not an evolutionary science? Towards an evolutionary economic geography, Journal of Economic Geography 6 (3), pp. 273-302 Breschi, S., Malerba, F. and Orsenigo, L. (2000). Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation. Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 388-410, April. Cantner (2007). Innovation Competition:On market selection and its empirical validation, Grass Schumpeter Summer School, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena. Cassiolato J and Lastres H (2009). Science, Technology and Innovation Policies in the Brics Countries: an introduction, en Cassiolato and Vitorino (eds), op cit. Cimoli M. y Robira S. (2008). Elites and Structural Inertia in Latin America: An introductory note on the political economy of development. Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. XLII No. 2. Cimoli M., Dosi G. y Stiglitz J. (2009). The Future of Industrial Policies in the New Millennium: Toward a Knowledge-Centered Development Agenda. LEM working papers 2008/19. Instituto Santa Anna, Pisa, Italia. Cooke P, Uranga M G, Etxebarria G. (1998). Regional systems of innovation: an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Planning A 30(9) 1563 – 1584 Dopfer, K. (ed) (2001) Evolutionary Economics: Program and Scope, Kluwer, Boston, Mass. Dopfer, Kurt & Potts, J., (2004). Evolutionary realism: a new ontology for economics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 11(2), pp.195-212. Dopfer, K. (2006). The Origins of Meso Economics Schumpeter’s Legacy. The Papers on Economics and Evolution, (#0610). Dopfer, Kurt (2005). The Evolutionary Foundations of Economics, Cambridge University Press. Doms M and Bartelsman E. (2000). Understanding Productivity: Lessons from Longitudinal Microdata. Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(3), pages 569-594, September. Dosi, G. Marengo, L., and Pasquali, C. (2006). ‘How much should society fuel the greed of innovators? On the Relations Between Appropriability, Opportunities and Rates of Innovation’, Research Policy, 35-8: 1110-1121. Dosi G., Pavitt K and Soete L (1990), The Economics of Technological Change and International Trade, Brighton :Wheatsheaf, and New York : New York University Press Dosi G., Levinthal D. and Luigi Marengo (2003). Bridging contested terrain: linking incentive-based and learning perspectives on organizational evolution. Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 413-436, April. Dosi, Giovanni, Lechevalier, S. & Secchi, Angelo (2010). Introduction: Interfirm Heterogeneity—nature, Sources and Consequences for Industrial Dynamics. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(6), pp.1867-1890 Dosi, G (2014) Dinámica y Coordinación Económica. Algunos Elementos para un Paradigma Alternativo “Evolucionista” en Barletta, Robert y Yoguel (Eds) Tópicos de la teoría evolucionista neoschumpeteriana de la innovación y el cambio tecnológico, UNGS-Editorial Minio y Dávila Dutrénit, G, Capdevielle, M., Corona, J., Puchet, M., Santiago, F. and Vera-Cruz, A. (2010). El sistema nacional de innovación mexicano: estructuras, políticas, desempeño y desafíos. MPRA Paper 31982, University Library of Munich, Germany Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of Innovation Approaches: Their Emergence and Characteristics., in Edquist, C. (ed.) Systems of Innovation – Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, Pinter Publishers/Cassell Academic, London, 1997, 35 pp. Edquist, C., and Hommen L. (1999). Systems of Innovation: Theory and Policy for the Demand Side, in Technology in Society, 21, pp 63-79. Edquist, Ch. and Chaminade, C. (2009). Industrial policy from a systems-of-innovation perspective. EIB Papers 5/2006, European Investment Bank, Economics Department Erbes A., Robert V. y Yoguel G. (2010) “Capacities, innovation and feedbacks in production networks in Argentina”, Economics of Innovation and New Technologies, Vol. 19, Nos. 7-8, October-November 2010, 719-741. Fisher, R. (1999) The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection: A Complete Variorum Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Foster, J. (2005). From simplistic to complex systems in economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, Num. 29: 873-892. Freeman C. (1987). Technology policy and economic performance; lessons from Japan. Frances Printer Publishers, London, New York, pp. 155 Frenken, K. and R. Boschma (2011), Notes on a complexity theory of economic development, in: C. Antonelli (ed.), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 357-365. Haltiwanger J., Lane J. and Spletzer J (2000). Wages, Productivity, and the Dynamic Interaction of Businesses and Workers. NBER Working Papers 7994, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. Hirschman, A. (1958). The Strategy of Economic Development. New Haven/ London: Yale University Press. Hirschman, A. (1971). A bias for hope. New Haven: Yale University Press.Reinert E. S. (2007). How Rich Countries Got Rich … and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor. London: Constable. Kaldor, N (1972). “The Irrelevance of Equilibrium Economics” The Economic Journal, Vol. 82, No. 328 : 1237-1255. Knight, F., 1921, Risk Uncertainty and Profit, Boston, Houghton Miflin Kirman (2010) Complex economics, individual and collective rationallity. London, Rutledge. Knudsen, T. (2002) “Economic selection theory,” Journal of Evolutionary Economics 12: 443–470. Knudsen, T (2004) “General selection theory and economic evolution: The Price equation and the genotype/phenotype distinction,” forthcoming in Journal of Economic Methodology. Lee K, Kim H. (2009). Management Practices and Firm Performance in Japanese and Korean Firms, Microeconomics Working Papers 22990, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research. Lee K. and Mathews J. (2010). From Washington Consensus to BeST Consensus for world development. Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, Asia Pacific School of Economics and Government, The Australian National University, vol. 24(1), pages 86-103, 05 Lee K (2013) Schumpeterian analysis of Economic Catch-up. Knowledge. path creation and the middle income trap, Cambirdge University Press, UK. Llerena P. and Matt (2005) Innovation Policy in a Knowledge-Based Economy. Malerba, F. (2002). Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 247-264, February Metcalfe, J. S. (1994) “Competition, Fisher’s Principle and Increasing Returns in the SelectionProcess,” Journal of Evolutionary Economics 4: 327–346. Metcalfe, J. S. (1998) Evolutionary Economics and Creative Destruction, Routledge, London and New York. Metcalfe, J. S. (2001) “Evolutionary approaches to population thinking and the problem of growth and development,” in K. Dopfer (ed) Evolutionary Economics: Program and Scope, Kluwer, Boston, Mass. Metcalfe, J. S. (2002) “Book review: Steven A. Frank. 1998. Foundations of Social Evolution”, Journal of Bioeconomics 4: 89–91. Metcalfe, J. S., Foster, J. & Ramlogan, R. (2006). Adaptive economic growth. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30(1), pp.7-32. Metcalfe, J. S. & Foster, J. (2007). Evolution and Economic Complexity, Edward Elgar Publishing. Metcalfe, J. S. (2010). Dancing in the dark: la disputa sobre el concepto de competencia. Desarrollo Económico, Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 50(197), pp.59-79. Nelson, Richard R., 1993. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford University Press. Nelson, R. and Winter.S. (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,. Prebisch, R. (1963) Hacia una Dinámica del Desarrollo Latinoamericano. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Price, G. R. (1970) “Selection and covariance,” Nature 227: 520–521. Price, G. R. (1972b) “Fisher’s ‘fundamental theorem’ made clear,” Annals of Human Genetics 36: 129–140. Porcile y Cimoli (2011). Global growth and international cooperation: structuralist perspective. Cambridge Journal Economics 35 (2). Porcile y Cimoli (2013). Tecnología, heterogeneidad y crecimiento: una caja de herramientas estructuralista. Potts J. (2000). Evolutionary Microeconomics and the Theory of Expectations. Discussion Papers Series 270, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia. Robert V. y Yoguel G. (2013). El enfoque de la complejidad y la economía evolucionista de la innovación. Filosofía de la Economía. Vol. 1, Nro 1, Julio 2013: 87-130. Robert V y Yoguel (2014), The ontology of complexity and the neo-Schumpeterian evolutionary theory of economic change. Mimeo, paper to be presented at Schumpeterian Society, Jena, Germany, July Rodrik, D. (1997). Has Globalization Gone Too Far?. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics. Rodrik, D. (2008), Goodbye Washington Consensus, Hello Washington Confusion?, Journal of Economic Literature, forthcoming. Sapio A., Kirman, A., Dosi, G., (eds.) 2011. Special Issue on The Emergence and Impact of Market Institutions: the Wholesale Market for Fish and other Perishable Commodities, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, forthcoming. Saviotti, P.P., (2001). Variety, growth and demand. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 11, pp.119-142. Saviotti, P.P. and Pyka, A., (2004). Economic development by the creation of new sectors. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14, pp.1-35. Saviotti P and Pyka (2006), Variedad, cambio estructural y desenvoolvimiento económico: tendencia secular y características sistemicas Schubert C. (2009). Darwinism in economics and the evolutionary theory of policy-making, Papers on economics and evolution, No. 0910of policy-making Schubert (2012). Is novelty always a good thing? Towards an evolutionary welfare economics. Journal of evolutionary economics Volume 22, Issue 3, p.p. 585-619. Winter, S. and Giovanni D. (2000). Interpreting Economic Change: Evolution, Structures and Games. LEM Papers Series 2000/08, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy Witt, U. (2000). Self-organization and economics--what is new?. Structural change and economic dynamics, Vol. 8, Issue 4: 489-507. |
URI: | https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/56290 |