[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jfr/rwe111/v1y2010i1p56-65.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Note on the Drivers of R&D Intensity

Author

Listed:
  • Azele Mathieu
  • Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie
Abstract
This research note evaluates the extent to which national industrial structure affects country rankings based on aggregate R&D intensity. The econometric analysis performed on a cross-country cross-industry panel dataset (21 industrial sectors, 18 countries, and 5 years) suggests that accounting for industrial structure substantially affects the traditional country rankings. Sweden, the USA, France and Japan have an ¡®above-than-average¡¯ R&D intensity in most industries, whereas the high level of aggregate R&D intensity in South Korea and Finland, for instance, is essentially due to the importance of R&D-intensive industries in their economy (telecom and computers), and not to a macroeconomic environment particularly favourable to R&D. The US, Japanese and Swedish ¡®exceptions¡¯ might result from higher ¡®expected¡¯ returns to R&D in these countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Azele Mathieu & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2010. "A Note on the Drivers of R&D Intensity," Research in World Economy, Research in World Economy, Sciedu Press, vol. 1(1), pages 56-65, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:jfr:rwe111:v:1:y:2010:i:1:p:56-65
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciedu.ca/journal/index.php/rwe/article/view/8/15
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.sciedu.ca/journal/index.php/rwe/article/view/8
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dominique Guellec & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2004. "From R&D to Productivity Growth: Do the Institutional Settings and the Source of Funds of R&D Matter?," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 66(3), pages 353-378, July.
    2. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    3. Carmichael, Jeffrey, 1981. "The Effects of Mission-Oriented Public R&D Spending on Private Industry," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 36(3), pages 617-627, June.
    4. Mansfield, Edwin, 1991. "Academic research and industrial innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    5. Faulkner, Wendy & Senker, Jacqueline, 1994. "Making sense of diversity: public-private sector research linkage in three technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 673-695, November.
    6. Daron Acemoglu & Philippe Aghion & Fabrizio Zilibotti, 2006. "Distance to Frontier, Selection, and Economic Growth," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 4(1), pages 37-74, March.
    7. Parente, Stephen & Desmet, Klaus, 2006. "Bigger is Better: Market Size, Demand Elasticity and Resistance to Technology Adoption," CEPR Discussion Papers 5825, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Copenhagen Economics, 2004. "Economic effects of tax cooperation in an enlarged European Union," Taxation Studies 0012, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    9. 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.
    10. K. J. Arrow, 1971. "The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: F. H. Hahn (ed.), Readings in the Theory of Growth, chapter 11, pages 131-149, Palgrave Macmillan.
    11. Anthony Arundel & Aldo Geuna, 2004. "Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(6), pages 559-580.
    12. Dalum, Bent & Laursen, Keld & Verspagen, Bart, 1999. "Does Specialization Matter for Growth?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 8(2), pages 267-288, June.
    13. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2003. "Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D," Chapters, in: Aldo Geuna & Ammon J. Salter & W. Edward Steinmueller (ed.), Science and Innovation, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Dominique Guellec, 1999. "A la recherche du tant perdu," Revue Française d'Économie, Programme National Persée, vol. 14(1), pages 117-169.
    15. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 17-45, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Wolff, Guntram B. & Reinthaler, Volker, 2008. "The effectiveness of subsidies revisited: Accounting for wage and employment effects in business R&D," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1403-1412, September.
    17. Dominique Guellec & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie, 2003. "The impact of public R&D expenditure on business R&D," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(3), pages 225-243.
    18. Richard Levin & Peter C. Reiss, 1984. "Tests of a Schumpeterian Model of R&D and Market Structure," NBER Chapters, in: R&D, Patents, and Productivity, pages 175-208, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Bruno Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2008. "Europe's R&D: Missing the Wrong Targets?," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 43(4), pages 220-225, July.
    20. Martin Falk, 2004. "What Drives Business R&D Intensity Across OECD Countries?," WIFO Working Papers 236, WIFO.
    21. Lichtenberg, Frank R, 1984. "The Relationship between Federal Contract R&D and Company R&D," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(2), pages 73-78, May.
    22. Adams, James D, 1990. "Fundamental Stocks of Knowledge and Productivity Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(4), pages 673-702, August.
    23. Bernard Jullien & U. Juergens, 2006. "Special issue: Selection of Papers Presented at the 13th GERPISA International Conference," Post-Print hal-00400010, HAL.
    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. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Jürgen Janger, 2015. "Business Science Links For a New Growth Path. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 107," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 58413.
    3. Toole, Andrew A., 2012. "The impact of public basic research on industrial innovation: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 1-12.
    4. Toole, Andrew A., 2011. "The impact of public basic research on industrial innovation: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," ZEW Discussion Papers 11-063, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    5. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," 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 129-213, Elsevier.
    6. Rachel Levy & Pascale Roux & Sandrine Wolff, 2009. "An analysis of science–industry collaborative patterns in a large European University," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 1-23, February.
    7. Gersbach, Hans & Schneider, Maik & Schetter, Ulrich, 2015. "How Much Science? The 5 Ws (and 1 H) of Investing in Basic Research," CEPR Discussion Papers 10482, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Gersbach, Hans & Sorger, Gerhard & Amon, Christian, 2018. "Hierarchical growth: Basic and applied research," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 434-459.
    9. Nola Hewitt-Dundas, 2013. "The role of proximity in university-business cooperation for innovation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 93-115, April.
    10. David, Paul A. & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Toole, Andrew A., 2000. "Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 497-529, April.
    11. Malo, Stéphane, 2009. "The contribution of (not so) public research to commercial innovations in the field of combinatorial chemistry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 957-970, July.
    12. Perkmann, Markus & King, Zella & Pavelin, Stephen, 2011. "Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 539-552, May.
    13. Nelson, Andrew J., 2012. "Putting university research in context: Assessing alternative measures of production and diffusion at Stanford," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 678-691.
    14. Archibugi, Daniele & Filippetti, Andrea, 2018. "The retreat of public research and its adverse consequences on innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 97-111.
    15. Thomas H. W. Ziesemer, 2021. "The Effects of R&D Subsidies and Publicly Performed R&D on Business R&D: A Survey," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 236(1), pages 171-205, March.
    16. Raaj Kishore Biswas & Enamul Kabir & Refat Bin Reza Rafi, 2019. "Investment in Research and Development Compared to Military Expenditure: Is Research Worthwhile?," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(7), pages 846-857, November.
    17. Pierre Courtioux & François Métivier & Antoine Reberioux, 2019. "Scientific Competition between Countries: Did China Get What It Paid for?," Post-Print halshs-02307534, HAL.
    18. Crespi, Gustavo A. & Geuna, Aldo, 2008. "An empirical study of scientific production: A cross country analysis, 1981-2002," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 565-579, May.
    19. Antonelli, Cristiano & Fassio, Claudio, 2012. "University-industry relations and the evolution of knowledge governance. the italian evidence in the first part of the xx century," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201212, University of Turin.
    20. Pierre Courtioux & François Métivier & Antoine Reberioux, 2019. "Scientific Competition between Countries: Did China Get What It Paid for?," Working Papers halshs-02307534, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    R&D intensity; S&T policies; high-tech industries;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • E22 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment - - - Investment; Capital; Intangible Capital; Capacity
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O57 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - Comparative Studies of Countries

    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:jfr:rwe111:v:1:y:2010:i:1:p:56-65. 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: Gina Perry (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://rwe.sciedupress.com .

    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.