Book contents
- Innovation Systems, Policy and Management
- Innovation Systems, Policy and Management
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Innovation Policy and Innovation Systems
- Part II Innovation in Developing and Emerging Countries
- 5 National Systems of Innovation in Developing Countries
- 6 Innovation, Credit Constraints, and National Banking Systems
- 7 Pro-Cyclical Dynamics of STI Investment in Mexico
- 8 Gaps in the Relative Efficiency of National Innovation Systems and Growth Performance across OECD and BRICS Countries
- 9 Differential Effects of Currency Undervaluation on Economic Growth in Mineral- vs Manufacturing-Exporting Countries
- Part III Regional Innovation Systems and Policies
- Part IV Innovation Management and its Links with Policy
- Index
- References
7 - Pro-Cyclical Dynamics of STI Investment in Mexico
The Inversion of the Schumpeterian Reasoning*
from Part II - Innovation in Developing and Emerging Countries
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 August 2018
Book contents
- Innovation Systems, Policy and Management
- Innovation Systems, Policy and Management
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Innovation Policy and Innovation Systems
- Part II Innovation in Developing and Emerging Countries
- 5 National Systems of Innovation in Developing Countries
- 6 Innovation, Credit Constraints, and National Banking Systems
- 7 Pro-Cyclical Dynamics of STI Investment in Mexico
- 8 Gaps in the Relative Efficiency of National Innovation Systems and Growth Performance across OECD and BRICS Countries
- 9 Differential Effects of Currency Undervaluation on Economic Growth in Mineral- vs Manufacturing-Exporting Countries
- Part III Regional Innovation Systems and Policies
- Part IV Innovation Management and its Links with Policy
- Index
- References
Summary
Determining the causal relationship between innovation and growth is a classic quest of the economics of innovation studies. However, empirical research that goes beyond verifying the existence of causality, to investigate the direction, intensity, and mechanisms that explain those causal links is still a green field (Foster and Pyka 2014). Investment in the public goods associated with science, technology, and innovation (STI) activities depends on a country’s available public resources, which opens up a causal loop that may be associated with either growth and welfare or poverty traps. This interaction between investment in STI and growth remains at the core of many theoretical discussions, especially in developing countries, where this investment is expected to drive economic growth, sustain catching up processes, and assist in poverty alleviation.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Innovation Systems, Policy and Management , pp. 217 - 248Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Abramovitz, M. 1956. Resource and output trends in the United States since 1870, in Resource and output trends in the United States since 1870 (1–23). Cambridge, MA: NBER.Google Scholar
Abramovitz, M. 1986. Catching up, forging ahead, and falling behind. The Journal of Economic History 46(2): 385–406. doi:10.1017/S0022050700046209.Google Scholar
Bell, M. and Figueiredo, P. N. 2012. Innovation capability building and learning mechanisms in latecomer firms: Recent empirical contributions and implications for research. Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue Canadienne D’études Du Développement 33(1): 14–40. doi:10.1080/02255189.2012.677168.Google Scholar
Capdevielle, M., Enríquez, L., Farías, A., Puchet, M., Sánchez, A., Solano, M. E., and Zaragoza, M. M. L. 2013. Efectos económicos y sociales de la inversión en ciencia, tecnología e innovación, in Propuestas para contribuir al diseño del PECiTI 2012–2037 (p. 1). Working paper. Mexico: Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico.Google Scholar
Casas, R., Corona, J. M., Jaso, M. and Vera-Cruz, A. O. 2013. Construyendo el Diálogo entre los Actores del Sistema de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. Mexico: Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico.Google Scholar
Castellacci, F. 2008. Technology clubs, technology gaps and growth trajectories. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 19(4): 301–314. doi:10.1016/j.strueco.2008.07.002.Google Scholar
Castellacci, F., and Archibugi, D. 2008. The technology clubs: The distribution of knowledge across nations. Research Policy 37(10): 1659–1673. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.08.006.Google Scholar
Castellacci, F. and 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 42(3): 579–594. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castellacci, F. and Natera, J. M. 2016. Innovation, absorptive capacity and growth heterogeneity: Development paths in Latin America 1970–2010. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 37: 27–42. doi:10.1016/j.strueco.2015.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colander, D., Goldberg, M., Haas, A., Juselius, K., Kirman, A., Lux, T., and Sloth, B. 2009. The financial crisis and the systemic failure of the economics profession. Critical Review 21(2–3): 249–267. doi:10.1080/08913810902934109.Google Scholar
Corona, J. M., Dutrénit, G., Puchet, M., and Santiago, F. 2014. The changing role of science, technology and innovation policy in building systems of innovation: The case of Mexico, in Crespi, G. and Dutrénit, G. (eds.), Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for Development: The Latin American Experience (15–43). Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, R. and Foray, D. 2002. Evolutionary economics and the counterfactual threat: on the nature and role of counterfactual history as an empirical tool in economics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 12(5): 539–562. doi:10.1007/s00191-002-0134-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crespi, G. and Dutrénit, G. 2014. Introduction to science, technology and innovation policies for development: The Latin American experience, in Crespi, G. and Dutrénit, G. (eds.), Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for Development: The Latin American Experience (1–14). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978–3-319-04108-7_1.Google Scholar
Dutrénit, G., Capdevielle, M., Corona, J. M., Puchet, M., Santiago, F., and Vera-Cruz, A. O. 2010. El sistema nacional de innovación mexicano: estructuras, políticas, desempeño y desafíos. CDMX: UAM/Textual S.A.Google Scholar
Dutrénit, G., Lee, K., Nelson, R., Soete, L., and Vera-Cruz, A. 2013. Learning, Capability Building and Innovation for Development. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137306937.Google Scholar
Edquist, C. and Hommen, L. 2008. Small Country Innovation Systems: Globalization, Change and Policy in Asia and Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Retrieved from http://books.google.es/books?id=s9giP7KhtJ0C.Google Scholar
Engle, R. F. and Granger, C. W. J. 1987. Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica 55(2): 251–276. doi:10.2307/1913236.Google Scholar
Fagerberg, J. 1994. Technology and international differences in growth rates. Journal of Economic Literature 32(3): 1147–1175.Google Scholar
Fagerberg, J., Guerrieri, P., and Verspagen, B. 1999. The Economic Challenge for Europe: Adapting to Innovation Based Growth. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Fagerberg, J., Srholec, M., and Knell, M. 2007. The competitiveness of nations: Why some countries prosper while others fall behind. World Development 35(10): 1595–1620. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.01.004.Google Scholar
Fagerberg, J. and Verspagen, B. 2002. Technology-gaps, innovation-diffusion and transformation: An evolutionary interpretation. Research Policy 31(8–9): 1291–1304. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00064-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagerberg, J. and Verspagen, B. 2007. Innovation, growth and economic development: Have the conditions for catch-up changed? International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development 1(1): 13–33.Google Scholar
FCCT. 2006. Diagnóstico de la Política Científica, Tecnológica y de Fomento a la Innovación en México (2000–2006). Mexico: Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico.Google Scholar
FCCT-AMC. 2005 [Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico-Academia Mexicana de Ciencias] Una Reflexión Sobre el Sistema Nacional de Investigadores a 20 Años de su Creación. Mexico: Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico, 146; www.foroconsultivo.org.mx/libros_editados/20_sni.pdf.Google Scholar
Foster, J. and Pyka, A. 2014. Introduction: Co-evolution and complex adaptive systems in evolutionary economics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 24(2): 205–207.Google Scholar
Freeman, C. 1987. Technology, Policy, and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
Freeman, C. 1991. Networks of innovators: A synthesis of research issues. Research Policy 20(5): 499–514. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(91)90072-X.Google Scholar
Frydman, R. and Goldberg, M. D. 2008. Macroeconomic theory for a world of imperfect knowledge. Capitalism and Society 3(3). doi:10.2202/1932-0213.1046.Google Scholar
Greene, W. H. and Zhang, C. 1997. Econometric Analysis (Vol. 3). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Retrieved from http://cs5538.userapi.com/u11728334/docs/2ff8c8aa9672/William_H_Greene_Econometric_analysis_283011.pdf.Google Scholar
Granger, C. J. 1969. Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 37(3): 424-438.Google Scholar
Haskel, J., Hughes, A., and Bascavusoglu-Moreau, E. 2014. The economic significance of the UK science base. Report. London: Campaign for Science and Engineering. Retrieved from file:///Users/GabMacAir/Downloads/economicsignificanceofuksciencebase2014.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hendry, D. F. Juselius, K. 2000. Explaining cointegration analysis: Part 1. Energy Journal 21(1): 1. Retrieved from http://content.ebscohost.com/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=AN&K=2692256&S=R&D=aph&EbscoContent=dGJyMNLr40SeqLQ4y9fwOLCmr0uep69Sr6a4S6+WxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGusU+wrLRQuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA.Google Scholar
Hobday, M. 1995. Innovation in East Asia: Diversity and development. Technovation 15(2): 55–63. doi:10.1016/0166-4972(95)96610–6.Google Scholar
Hoover, K. D., Johansen, S., and Juselius, K. 2008. Allowing the data to speak freely: The macroeconometrics of the cointegrated vector autoregression. The American Economic Review 98(2): 251–255. doi:10.2307/29730029.Google Scholar
Johansen, S. 1991. Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration vectors in gaussian vector autoregressive models. Econometrica 59(6): 1551–1580. doi:10.2307/2938278.Google Scholar
Johansen, S. 1995. Identifying restrictions of linear equations with applications to simultaneous equations and cointegration. Journal of Econometrics. 69(1): 111–132. doi:10.1016/0304-4076(94)01664-L.Google Scholar
Juselius, K. 2006. The Cointegrated VAR Model: Methodology and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.es/books?id=N6LmgE8vl1EC.Google Scholar
Kim, L. 1997. Imitation to Innovation: The Dynamics of Korea’s Technological Learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
Lee, K. 2013. Schumpeterian Analysis of Economic Catch-Up: Knowledge, Path-Creation, and the Middle-Income Trap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, K. and Kim, B.-Y. 2009. Both institutions and policies matter but differently for different income groups of countries: Determinants of long-run economic growth revisited. World Development 37(3): 533–549. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loayza, N. and Ranciere, R. 2005. Financial development, financial fragility, and growth. Financial Fragility, and Growth (September 2004). Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=859565.Google Scholar
Lundvall, B.-A. (ed.). 1992. National Innovation System: Toward a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter publishers.Google Scholar
Lundvall, B.-Å., Johnson, B., Andersen, E. S., and Dalum, B. 2002. National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy 31(2): 213–231. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00137–8.Google Scholar
Lundvall, B.-Å., Joseph, K. J., Chaminade, C., and Vang, J. 2009. Handbook of Innovation Systems and Developing Countries: Building Domestic Capabilities in a Global Setting. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Malerba, F. 2002. Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy 31(2): 247–264. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00139–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malerba, F., Nelson, R., Orsenigo, L., and Winter, S. 1999. “History-friendly” models of industry evolution: The computer industry. Industrial and Corporate Change 8(1): 3–40. doi:10.1093/icc/8.1.3.Google Scholar
Malerba, F., Nelson, R., Orsenigo, L., and Winter, S. 2016. Innovation and the Evolution of Industries: History Friendly Models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. 1993. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PNPCyT [Política Nacional y Programas en Ciencia y Tecnología]. 1970. Mexico: CONACYT. Retrieved from www.siicyt.gob.mx/siicyt/cms/paginas/PolNacProgCyT70.jsp.Google Scholar
Santiago, F. and Natera, J. M. 2014. Tiempos de respuesta de la dinámica económica asociados a la inversión en ciencia, tecnología e innovación en México. Working Paper. Mexico: Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico. Retrieved from www.foroconsultivo.org.mx/libros_editados/tiempos_respuesta_fernando_santiago.pdf.Google Scholar
Santiago, F. 2006. Valoración del Sistema Nacional de Investigadores in FCCT (2006), Diagnóstico de la Política Científica, Tecnológica y de Fomento a la Innovación en México (2000–2006), (Estudio 2; 158–174). Mexico: Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico.Google Scholar
Saviotti, P. P., Cassiolato, J. E., and Pessoa de Matos, M. 2014. The role of the National Innovation System in the growth of Latin American countries. Paper presented at the 12th Globelics International Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 28–31 October. www.researchgate.net/publication/271828038_The_role_of_the_National_Innovation_System_in_the_growth_of_Latin_American_countries.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. 1939. Business cycles: A theoretical, historical and statistical analysis of the capitalist process. NBER Books, 1950(1939): 461. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.11.007.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. 1942. Socialism, Capitalism and Democracy. London: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
Solow, R. M. 1956. A contribution to the theory of economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 70(1): 65–94. doi:10.2307/1884513.Google Scholar
Sotarauta, M. and Srinivas, S. 2006. Co-evolutionary policy processes: Understanding innovative economies and future resilience. Futures 38(3): 312–336. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2005.07.008.Google Scholar
Vega y León, S. (coord.) 2012. Sistema Nacional de investigadores. Retos y perspectivas de la ciencia en México. Mexico: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco.Google Scholar
Wong, C.-Y. 2016. Evolutionary targeting for inclusive development. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 26(2): 291–316. doi:10.1007/s00191-015-0441-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar