Innovative Capacity and Innovation Systems and the Economic Development Levels of European Countries

• Autorzy: Monika Kondratiuk-Nierodzińska

Warianty tytułu

Zdolności innowacyjne w przekroju głównych elementów systemu innowacji a poziom rozwoju gospodarczego krajów europejskich

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The paper aims to study the relationship between differences in national innovation capabilities within three sectors, which are the main building blocks of an innovation system, and country variations in GDP per capita. Research in this area has previously focused mostly on the impact of differently defined innovation capabilities on the level of economic development of countries, neglecting innovation system sectors approach. The analysis conducted for this paper has allowed do confirm that there is a positive relationship between country variations in innovation capabilities within two of the sectors: enterprise sector and higher education sector, and national differences in GDP per capita. While the relationship between differences in innovation capabilities within the latter sector is linear in character, the interdependence between country variations in enterprise sector innovation capabilities and economic development are evidently non-linear. Values of composite indexes calculated for the enterprise sector innovation capabilities above a certain level have not been accompanied by corresponding higher values of GDP per capita - this relationship has been evident in both analysed periods. The study based on gathered statistical information has also allowed to conclude that during 10 years between 2002-2003 and 2012-2013 there have not been observed any significant changes on the Europe's map of innovation leaders. Fagerberg, J., Verspagen, B. 1996. Heading for divergence? Regional Growth in Europe reconsidered. Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 34 (3). (original abstract)

Przedmiotem artykułu jest zbadanie zależności pomiędzy zróżnicowaniem poziomu zdolności innowacyjnych gospodarek europejskich w układzie trzech sektorów stanowiących główne elementy systemu innowacji oraz zróżnicowaniem wartości PKBper capita. Do tej pory badania w tym zakresie koncentrowały się na podejściu przedmiotowym i realizowane były w przekroju różnie definiowanych zdolności innowacyjnych, podczas gdy niewiele miejsca poświęcono znaczeniu aktywności innowacyjnej głównych grup podmiotów systemów innowacji z punktu widzenia poziomu rozwoju gospodarek poszczególnych krajów. Przeprowadzona analiza pozwoliła potwierdzić, że zróżnicowanie zdolności innowacyjnych stanowiących rezultat aktywności jedynie dwóch sektorów: przedsiębiorstw i szkolnictwa wyższego, wykazuje powiązanie ze zróżnicowaniem poziomu PKB per capita krajów europejskich. Podczas, gdy zależność pomiędzy zróżnicowaniem poziomu zdolności innowacyjnych tego ostatniego oraz rozwoju gospodarczego miała charakter wyraźnie liniowy, w przypadku sektora przedsiębiorstw można było zaobserwować zależność nieliniową. Wartości złożonych indeksów opisujących zdolności innowacyjne budowane w sektorze przedsiębiorstw powyżej pewnego poziomu nie były powiązane z wyższym poziomem dochodu na mieszkańca - zależność ta była widoczna w obu analizowanych okresach. Badanie w oparciu o zgromadzony materiał statystyczny pozwoliło również na stwierdzenie, że w ciągu 10 lat, a mianowicie pomiędzy dwoma analizowanymi okresami: 2002-2003 oraz 2012-2013, nie nastąpiły żadne istotne zmiany na mapie Europy pod względem krajów liderów innowacyjnych. (abstrakt oryginalny)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Innovation economy; Economic development; Manufacturing sector; Higher education

PL

Innowacyjność gospodarki; Rozwój gospodarczy; Sektor przedsiębiorstw; Szkolnictwo wyższe

• Czasopismo: Myśl Ekonomiczna i Polityczna
• Rocznik: 2015
• Numer: nr 3 (50)
• Strony: 19--49

Twórcy

autor

Monika Kondratiuk-Nierodzińska

• University of Białystok

Bibliografia

• Abramovitz, M. 1986. Catching-up, forging ahead and falling behind. Journal of Economic History, vol. 46.
• Abramovitz, M. 1994. The origins of the postwar catch-up and convergence boom. In: Fagerberg, J., Verspagen, B., von Tunzelmann, N. eds. The dynamics of technology, trade and growth. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
• Acs, Z.J., Anselin, L., Varga, A. 2002. Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy, vol. 31.
• Archibugi, D., Coco, A. 2004. A new indicator of technological capabilities for developed and developing countries (ArCo). World Development, vol. 32, no. 4.
• Benhabib, J., Spiegel, M. 1994. The role of human capital in economic development: evidence from aggregate cross-country data. Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 34.
• Breschi S., Malerba, F. 1997. Sectoral innovation systems: technological regimes, Schumpeterian dynamics, and spatial boundaries. In: Edquist C. ed. Systems of innovation: technologies, organisations, and institutions. London: Pinter.
• Carayannis, E.G., Campbell, D.F.J. 2009. 'Mode 3' and 'Quadruple Helix': toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, vol. 46 (3/4).
• Carayannis, E.G., Campbell, D.F.J. 2010. Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A proposed framework for a trans- disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, vol. 1 (1), cited in Carayannis, E.G., Barth, T.D., Campbell, D.F.J. 2012. The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, vol. 1 (2).
• Carlsson, B., Stankiewicz, R. 1991. On the nature, function and composition of technological systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, no.1.
• Castellacci, F., Natera, J.M. 2013. The dynamics of national innovation systems: A panel cointegration analysis of the coevolution between innovative capability and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, vol. 42.
• Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 35.
• Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A. 1989. Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, vol. 99.
• Cooke, P. 1992. Regional innovation systems: competitive regulation in the new Europe. Geoforum, vol. 23.
• Doloreux, D. 2002. What we should know about regional systems of innovation. Technology in Society no. 24.
• Edquist C. ed. 1997. Systems of innovation: technologies, institutions and organisations. London: Pinter.
• Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and 'Mode 2' to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, vol. 29.
• Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. 1995. The Triple Helix-university-industry- government relations: a laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Review, vol. 14.
• Faber, J., Hesen, A.B. 2004. Innovation capabilities of European nations. Cross-national analyses of patents and sales of product innovations. Research Policy, vol. 33.
• Fagerberg, J., Srholec, M., Knell, M. 2007. The competitiveness of nations: why some countries prosper while others fall behind. World Development, vol. 35.
• Fagerberg, J., Srholec, M. 2013. Knowledge, capabilities and the poverty trap: the complex interplay between technological, social and geographical factors In: Meusburger, P., Glückler, J., el Meskioui, M. eds. Knowledge and the economy. Springer.
• Fagerberg, J., Srholec, M. 2008. National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development. Research Policy, vol. 37, p. 1419.
• Fagerberg, J., Verspagen, B. 1996. Heading for divergence? Regional Growth in Europe reconsidered. Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 34 (3).
• Fagerberg, J., Verspagen, B. 2003. Innovation, growth and economic development: why some countries succeed and others don't. The article prepared for First GLOBELICS Conference: Innovation Systems and Development Strategies for the Third Millennium. Rio, 2-6 November, 2003.
• Fagerberg, J., Verspagen, B. 2002. Technology-gaps, innovation-diffusion and transformation: an evolutionary interpretation. Research Policy, vol. 31.
• Fischer, M.M. 2001. Innovation, knowledge creation and systems of innovation. The Annals of Regional Science, no. 35.
• Freeman, C. 1987. Technology policy and economic performance: lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.
• Freudenberg, M. 2003. Composite indicators of country performance: a critical assessment, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, OECD Publishing, no. 16.
• Fung, M.K., Chow, W. W. 2002. Measuring the intensity of knowledge flow with patent statistics. Economics Letters, vol. 74.
• Furman, J.L., Hayes, R. 2004. Catching up or standing still? National innovative productivity among 'follower' countries, 1978-1999. Research Policy, vol. 33.
• Furman, J.L., Porter, M.E., Stern, S. 2002. The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, vol. 31, p. 900.
• Hollanders, H. El-Sadki, N. 2013. Innovation Union Scoreboard 2013, European Commission, Enterprise and Industry. [Online] Available at: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1787/405566708255 [Accessed: 30 March 2015].
• Jaffe, A.B., Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R. 1993. Geographic localisation of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 108 (3).
• Keller, W. 1996. Absorptive capacity: On the creation and acquisition of technology in development. Journal of Development Economics, vol. 49.
• Kim, L. 1997. Imitation to innovation: The dynamics of Korea's technological learning, Harvard: Harvard Business School Press, p. 4 cited in: Fagerberg, J., Srholec, M. 2008. National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development. Research Policy, vol. 37.
• Lall, S. 1992. Technological capabilities and industrialisation. World Development, vol. 20, no. 2, p. 170.
• Leydesdorff, L. 2012. The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, ..., and an N-Tuple of Helices: explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy? Journal of Knowledge Economy, vol. 3, pp. 32-33.
• Lundvall, B.A. ed. 1992. National systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publishing.
• Lundvall, B.A. 2002. Innovation, growth, and social cohesion: the Danish model. Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Lundval, B.A. 1988. Innovation as an interactive process: from user-producer interaction to the national systems of innovation. In: Dosi, G., Freeman, Ch., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G., Soete, L. (eds.) Technical change and economic theory. London: Pinter.
• Lundvall, B.A. 1985. Product innovation and user-producer interaction. Aalborg University Press.
• Nelson, R.R. ed. 1993. National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• No, H.J., An, Y., Park, Y. 2014. A structured approach to explore knowledge flows through technology-based business methods by integrating patent citation analysis and text mining. Technological Forecasting & Social Change. [Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj.techfore.2014.04.007.
• OECD. 1999. Managing National Innovation Systems, Paris: OECD, p. 23, cited in Box S. (OECD), OECD work on innovation - a stocktaking of existing work, Science and Technology Policy STI Working Paper 2009/2.
• Pakes, A., Griliches, Z. 1980. Patents and R&D at the firm level: a first report. Economics Letters, vol. 5.
• Papageorgiou, C. 2002. Technology adoption, human capital and growth theory. Review of Development Economics, vol. 6.
• Park, G., Park, Y. 2006. On the measurement of patent stock as knowledge indicators. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, vol. 73.
• Stokke, H. 2008. Productivity growth and organisational learning. Review of Development Economics, vol. 12 (4).
• Verspagen, B. 1991. A new empirical approach to catching up or falling behind. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, vol. 2 (2).