[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ssa/lemwps/2003-25.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the Uneven Evolution of Human Know-How

Author

Listed:
  • Richard R. Nelson
Abstract
It is widely recognized that advances in knowhow have been the key driving force between the great improvements in human material well-being that have been achieved over the past two centuries. However, not much attention has been directed to the fact that the advances in knowhow that have been achieved have been highly uneven across different human wants. Thus advances in communications and computation technology have been dramatic. We have learned to eliminate or cure a wide variety of human diseases. Yet on the other hand, we have made little progress on certain kinds of diseases. And there has been very little progress on the processes of primary and secondary education. This paper explores the reasons behind the unevenness. Education is used as a canonical example of an area where little progress has been made. The analytic argument makes considerable use of a comparison between research and problem-solving in education, and research and problem-solving in various areas of medicine.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard R. Nelson, 2003. "On the Uneven Evolution of Human Know-How," LEM Papers Series 2003/25, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    • Handle: RePEc:ssa:lemwps:2003/25
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.lem.sssup.it/WPLem/files/2003-25.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nelson, Richard R. & Wolff, Edward N., 1997. "Factors behind cross-industry differences in technical progress," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 205-220, June.
    2. Klevorick, Alvin K. & Levin, Richard C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Winter, Sidney G., 1995. "On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 185-205, March.
    3. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1994. "The changing technology of technological change: general and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labour," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 523-532, September.
    4. Nathan Rosenberg, 2009. "Uncertainty and Technological Change," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Studies On Science And The Innovation Process Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, chapter 8, pages 153-172, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Cowan, Robin & Foray, Dominique, 1997. "The Economics of Codification and the Diffusion of Knowledge," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 6(3), pages 595-622, September.
    6. Mowery, David & Rosenberg, Nathan, 1993. "The influence of market demand upon innovation: A critical review of some recent empirical studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 107-108, April.
    7. David, Paul A., 1989. "COMPUTER AND DYNAMO: The Modern Productivity Paradox in a Not-Too Distant Mirror," Economic Research Papers 268373, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    8. Giovanni Dosi, 2000. "Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation," Chapters, in: Innovation, Organization and Economic Dynamics, chapter 2, pages 63-114, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Nelson, Katherine & Nelson, Richard R., 2002. "On the nature and evolution of human know-how," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 719-733, July.
    10. Murnane, Richard J. & Nelson, Richard R., 1984. "Production and innovation when techniques are tacit : The case of education," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 5(3-4), pages 353-373.
    11. Nelson, Katherine & Nelson, Richard R., 2002. "Erratum to "On the nature and evolution of human know-how" [Research Policy 31 (2002) 719-733]," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1510-1510, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    2. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    3. Bastian Rake, 2017. "Determinants of pharmaceutical innovation: the role of technological opportunities revisited," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 691-727, September.
    4. Nightingale, Paul, 2004. "Technological capabilities, invisible infrastructure and the un-social construction of predictability: the overlooked fixed costs of useful research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1259-1284, November.
    5. Taalbi, Josef, 2017. "What drives innovation? Evidence from economic history," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1437-1453.
    6. Hoppmann, Joern & Wu, Geng & Johnson, Jillian, 2021. "The impact of demand-pull and technology-push policies on firms’ knowledge search," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    7. Harabi, Najib, 1994. "Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz: Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht [Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz:Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht]," MPRA Paper 6725, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Vivarelli, Marco, 2018. "Globalisation, structural change and innovation in emerging economies: The impact on employment and skills," MERIT Working Papers 2018-037, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    9. Richard R. Nelson, 2006. "The Market Economy and the Scientific Commons," Chapters, in: Birgitte Andersen (ed.), Intellectual Property Rights, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. José García-Quevedo & Gabriele Pellegrino & Marco Vivarelli, 2011. "The determinants of YICs’ R&D activity," Working Papers 2011/31, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
    11. Di Stefano, Giada & Gambardella, Alfonso & Verona, Gianmario, 2012. "Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1283-1295.
    12. García-Quevedo, José & Pellegrino, Gabriele & Vivarelli, Marco, 2011. "R&D Drivers in Young Innovative Companies," IZA Discussion Papers 6136, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Attila Havas, 2015. "The persistent high-tech myth in the EC policy circles - Implications for the EU10 countries," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1517, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    14. Laursen, Keld, 1999. "The impact of technological opportunity on the dynamics of trade performance," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3-4), pages 341-357, December.
    15. García-Quevedo, José & Pellegrino, Gabriele & Vivarelli, Marco, 2014. "R&D drivers and age: Are young firms different?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1544-1556.
    16. Lee, Chang-Yang & Sung, Taeyoon, 2005. "Schumpeter's legacy: A new perspective on the relationship between firm size and R&D," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 914-931, August.
    17. José García-Quevedo & Gabriele Pellegrino & Marco Vivarelli, 2011. "The determinants of YIc's R&D activity," Working Papers XREAP2011-20, Xarxa de Referència en Economia Aplicada (XREAP), revised Dec 2011.
    18. Nemet, Gregory F., 2009. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 700-709, June.
    19. Chang-Yang Lee & Ji-Hwan Lee & Ajai S. Gaur, 2017. "Are large business groups conducive to industry innovation? The moderating role of technological appropriability," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 313-337, June.
    20. Cimoli, Mario & Primi, Annalisa & Rovira, Sebastián, 2011. "National innovation surveys in latin America: empirical evidence and policy implications," Documentos de Proyectos 3897, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Know-How; Research; Problem-Solving.;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ssa:lemwps:2003/25. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/labssit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.