PL EN


Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2016 | 19 | nr 4 | 85--105
Tytuł artykułu

Comparative Study of the Role of Institutions in Shaping Inventive Activity in Mid-Range Emerging Economies

Warianty tytułu
Badanie porównawcze roli instytucji w kształtowaniu narodowej działalności patentowej w krajach na średnim poziomie rozwoju
Języki publikacji
EN
Abstrakty
Celem artykułu jest ukazanie znaczenia instytucji w kształtowaniu poziomu narodowej działalności wynalazczej. "Wynalazczość", jako część składowa procesu innowacji, mierzona liczbą przyznanych patentów, uważana jest za jedną z sił napędzających wzrost gospodarczy. W ujęciu ekonomii instytucji, czynnikiem stymulującym wzrost gospodarczy są sprawne instytucje. Stąd artykuł bada zależność między krajową zdolnością patentową, a jakością krajowych instytucji. W wyniku przeprowadzonej analizy, zaobserwowano wystąpienie efektu "progu działalności wynalazczej". Efekt ten obrazuje, że w momencie osiągnięcia przez kraj określonego poziomu rozwoju otoczenia instytucjonalnego, w rezultacie poprawy klimatu sprzyjającego powstawaniu innowacji, liczba zgłaszanych wniosków patentowych zaczyna szybko wzrastać. Artykuł wzbogaca międzynarodowy dorobek naukowy, potwierdzając znaczenie fundamentalnych instytucji, jak rządy prawa i wolność wypowiedzi, w stymulowaniu krajowej innowacyjności. Ukazano, że kraje na średnim poziomie rozwoju, w tym gospodarki Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, w których jakość instytucji nadal nie osiągnęła poziomu krajów najwyżej rozwiniętych, nie przekroczyły jeszcze "progu działalności wynalazczej". Jednak w tych spośród państw regionu, które jako pierwsze przystąpiły do Unii Europejskiej, w wyniku harmonizacji otoczenia instytucjonalnego, nastąpiła intensyfikacja działalności patentowej. (abstrakt oryginalny)
EN
The objective of this paper is to investigate the effects of institutions on national rates of inventive activity. Invention, part of the innovation process, is acknowledged as one of the driving forces behind economic growth, and patent statistics are frequently used as a measurable indicator of inventive output. Thus this paper explores the relationship between national patent statistics and measures of institutional quality. As a result of our research, the effect of the "threshold of inventive activity" was observed. This effect demonstrates that when countries reach a certain level of institutional development and attain a general institutional climate conducive to inventive activity, the number of patent applications begins to sharply increase. The paper contributes to the body of evidence that confirms that a combination of fundamental institutions like the rule of law or freedom of expression, which are not necessarily aimed at boosting innovation, create an overall environment conducive to patenting. We demonstrate that "mid-range emerging economies",2 including those in Central and Eastern Europe3 (CEE), where the quality of institutions is lagging behind more developed counterparts and/or their influence is weak or sporadic, have not yet reached the threshold of inventive activity yet. However, those CEE countries that have acceded to the European Union first have made visible progress with respect to institutional quality and invention. (original abstract)
Rocznik
Tom
19
Numer
Strony
85--105
Opis fizyczny
Twórcy
autor
  • Miami University of Ohio; Cologne Business School
  • Cracow University of Economics, Poland; Cologne Business School
Bibliografia
  • Abramovitz M. (1956), Resource and output trends in the United States since 1870, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA.
  • Acemoglu D., Johnson S., and Robinson J.A. (2001), The colonial origins of comparative development: an empirical investigation, 'American Economic Review', no. 91.
  • Acemoglu D., Johnson S., Robinson J.A., and Yared, P. (2008), Income and democracy, 'American Economic Review', no. 98(3).
  • Ahlstrom D., and Bruton G.D. (2010), Rapid institutional shifts and the co-evolution of entrepreneurial firms in transition economies, 'Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice', no. 34(3).
  • Amsden A. (1985), The State and Taiwan's economic development, [in:] Evans P.B., Rueschemeyer D. and Skocpol T. (eds.) Brining the state back in, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Amsden A. (1989), Asia's next giant, Oxford University Press, New York.
  • Barro R.J. (1996), Determinants of economic growth: A cross-country empirical study, Working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA, no. 5698.
  • Breznitz D. (2007), Innovation and the state: Political choice and strategies for growth in Israel, Taiwan, and Ireland, Yale University Press, New Haven.
  • Carlsson B. (2006), Internationalization of innovation systems: A survey of the literature, 'Research Policy', no. 35.
  • Chong A., and Calderon C. (2000), Causality and feedback between institutional measures and economic growth, 'Economics and Politics', no. 12.
  • Cieslik J., and Kaciak E. (2009), The speed of internationalization of entrepreneurial start-ups in a transition environment, 'Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship', no. 14(4).
  • Comanor W.S., and Scherer F. (1969), Patent statistics as a measure of technical change, 'Journal of Political Economy', no. 77(3).
  • Cumingsn B. (1999), Webs with no spiders, spiders with no webs: The genealogy of the developmental state, [in:] Woo-Gumings M. (ed.) The developmental state, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London.
  • Cvetanovic S., and Sredojevic D. (2012), The concept of national innovation system and economy's competitiveness, 'Economic Themes', no. 50(2).
  • Davis L. (2010), Institutional flexibility and economic growth, 'Journal of Comparative Economics', no. 38(3).
  • Descotes M.R., Walliser B., and Guo X. (2007), Capturing the relevant institutional profile for exporting SMEs: empirical evidence from France and Romania, 'International Management Review', no. 3(3).
  • Dolinšek S., and Poglajen M. (2009), Research to innovation models in Central Europe, PICMET Proceedings 2009, August 2-6, Portland, Oregon, USA.
  • Dosi G., Pavitt K., and Soete L. (1990), The Economics of technical change and international trade. Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Saint Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa.
  • Easterly W., and Levine R. (1997), Africa's growth tragedy: policies and ethnic divisions, 'Quarterly Journal of Economics', no. 112(4).
  • Engerman S.L., and Sokoloff K.L. (1997), Factor endowments, institutions and different paths of growth among new world economies: a view from economic historians of the United Stated, [in:] Haber S. (ed.) How Latin America fell behind, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
  • Evans P. (1992), The state as problem and solution: Predation, embedded autonomy, and structural change, [in:] Haggard S. and Kaufman R. (eds.) The politics of economic adjustment. International constraints, distributive conflicts, and the state, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  • Evans P. (1995), Embedded autonomy: States and industrial transformation, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  • European Commission (2015), Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015, Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT), Belgium.
  • Fields Karl J. (1995), Enterprise and the state in Korea and Taiwan, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y., USA.
  • Freeman C. (1995), The national system of innovation in historical perspective, 'Cambridge Journal of Economics', no. 19.
  • Glaeser E.L., La Porta R., Lopez-de-Silanes F., and Shleifer A. (2004), Do institutions cause growth? 'Journal of Economic Growth', no. 9(3).
  • Gradstein M. (2003), Governance and economic growth, 'World Bank Policy Research', Working Paper, the World Bank, Washington, DC, no. 3098
  • Griliches Z. (1990), Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey, 'Journal of Economic Literature', no. 28(4).
  • Hall R.E., and Jones C.I. (1999), Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others? 'The Quarterly Journal of Economics', no. 114 (1).
  • Hoskisson R.E., Wright M., Filatotchev I., and Peng M.W. (2013), Emerging multinationals from midrange economies: The influence of institutions and factor markets, 'Journal of Management Studies', no. 50(7).
  • Huang H., and Xu C. (1999), Institutions, innovations, and growth, 'American Economic Review', no. 89(2).
  • Jaffe A.B., and Trajtenberg M. (2002), Patents, citations, and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy, MIT Press, Boston.
  • Johnson C. (1982), MITI and the Japanese miracle: The growth of industrial policy, 1925-1975, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
  • Kaufmann Kraay and Mastruzzi. (2010), The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and analytical issues, 'World Bank Policy Research', Working Paper, The World Bank, Washington, DC, no. 5430. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1682130. Accessed on January 2, 2015.
  • Kendrick J. (1956), Productivity trends: Capital and labor, National Bureau of Economic Research, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA.
  • King J.L., Gurbaxani V., Kraemer K.L., McFarlan F.W., Raman K.S., and Yap C.S. (1994), Institutional factors in information technology innovation, 'Information Systems Research', no. 5(2).
  • Knack S., and Keefer P. (1995), Institutions and economic performance: Cross-country tests using alternative institutional indicators, 'Economics and Politics', no. 7(3).
  • Kuznets S. (1962), Inventive activity: Problems of definition and measurement, [in:] National Bureau of Economic Research (ed.) The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  • Lamoreaux N., and Sokoloff K. (1996), Long-term change in the organization of inventive activity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, Washington DC, no. 93.
  • Lu Y., Tsang E.W.K., and Peng M.W. (2008), Knowledge management and innovation strategy in the Asia Pacific: Toward an institution-based view, 'Asia Pacific Journal of Management', no. 25(3).
  • Mauro P. (1995), Corruption and growth, 'The Quarterly Journal of Economics', no. 110 (3).
  • Metcalfe S. (1997), Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework, [in:] Archibugi D., Michie J. (eds.) Technology, Globalisation and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 268-296.
  • Mueller D.C. (1966), Patents, research and development, and the measurement of inventive activity, 'Journal of Industrial Economics', no. 15(1).
  • Nelson R. (1993), National innovation systems: A comparative analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • North D. (1990), Institutions, institutional change and economic performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • North D. (1991), Institutions, 'The Journal of Economic Perspectives', no. 5(1).
  • North D., and Thomas R. (1973), The rise of the Western world: A New Economic History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Pavitt K., and Soete L. (1980), Innovative activities and export shares: Some comparisons between industries and countries, [in:] Pavitt K. (ed.) Technical innovation and British economic performance, Macmillan, London.
  • Polanyi K. (1944), The great transformation, Rinehart, New York.
  • Porter M.E. (1990), The competitive advantage of nations, Free Press, New York.
  • Przeworski A. (2004), Institutions matter? 'Government and Opposition', no. 39(2).
  • Rodrik D., Subramanian A., and Trebbi F. (2004), Institutions rule: The primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development, 'Journal of Economic Growth', no. 9(2).
  • Rosenberg N., and Birdzell L.E. (1987), How the West grew rich: The economic transformation of the industrial world, Basic Books, New York.
  • Rueschemeyer D., and Evans P.B. (1985), The State and economic transformation: Toward an analysis of the conditions underlying effective intervention, [in:] Evans P. B., Rueschemeyer D., and Skocpol T. (eds.) Brining the state back in, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Sala-i-Martin X. (2002), 15 years of new growth economics: What have we learnt? 'UPF Economics and Business', Working Paper, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, no. 620. http://ssrn.com/abstract=320765. Accessed on March 3, 2015.
  • Sára Z., Csedő Z., Fejes J., Tóth T., Pörzse G. (2013), Innovation management in Central and Eastern Europe: Technology perspectives and EU policy implications, 'Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development', no. 4(4).
  • Scherer F.M. (1992), Competing for comparative advantage through technological innovation, 'Business and the Contemporary World', no. 4.
  • Schmookler J. (1966), Invention and economic growth, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
  • Schmookler J., and Brownlee O. (1962), Determinants of inventive activity, 'American Economic Review', no. 52(2).
  • Schumpeter J. (1952), Capitalism, socialism and democracy, Unwin University Books, London.
  • Shirokova G., and McDougall-Covin P. (2012), The role of social networks and institutions in the internationalization of Russian entrepreneurial firms: Do they matter? 'Journal of International Entrepreneurship', no. 10 (3).
  • Shirokova G.V., and Tsukanova T.V. (2012), The influence of institutional environment on the degree of SMEs internationalization from transition, 'Vestnik of Saint Petersburg State University', Management series, Saint Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg, no. 1.
  • Solow R. (1957), Technical change and the aggregate production function, 'Review of Economics and Statistics', no. 39(3).
  • Sood J., and DuBois F. (1995), The use of patent statistics to measure and predict international competitiveness, 'International Trade Journal', no. 9(3).
  • Sung T.K., Carlsson B. (2003), The evolution of a technological system: the case of CNC machine tools in Korea, 'Journal of Evolutionary Economics', no. 13 (4).
  • Sweet S.A., and Grace-Martin K. (2008), Data analysis with SPSS, Pearson, Boston.
  • Taylor M.Z. (2009), International linkages and national innovation rates: an exploratory probe, 'Review of Policy Research', no. 26(1-2).
  • Tebaldi E., and Elmslie B. (2013), Does institutional quality impact innovation? Evidence from cross-country patent grant data, 'Applied Economics', no. 45(7).
  • The World Bank. Distance to Frontier and Ease of Doing Business ranking, Doing Business (2015), The World Bank, Washington, DC. http://www.doingbusiness.org. Accessed on January 10, 2015.
  • van Waarden F. (2001), Institutions and innovation: The legal environment of innovating firms, 'Organization Studies', no. 22 (5).
  • Weber M. (1946), Politics as a vocation, [in:] H.H.Gerth and C. Wright Mills (eds.) Essays in sociology, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Woo-Cumings M. (1999), Introduction: Chalmers Johnson and the politics of nationalism and development, [in:] Woo-Gumings M. (ed.) The developmental state, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London.
  • Yamakawa Y., Peng M.W., and Deeds D.L. (2008), What drives new ventures to internationalize from emerging to developed economies? 'Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice', no. 32(1).
  • Zhu Y., Wittmann X., and Peng M., 2012. Institution-based barriers to innovation in SMEs in China, 'Asia Pacific Journal of Management', no. 29(4).
Typ dokumentu
Bibliografia
Identyfikator YADDA
bwmeta1.element.ekon-element-000171447772

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Musisz być zalogowany aby pisać komentarze.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.