سیستم ملی نوآوری، توانایی ها و توسعه اقتصادی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|6951||2008||19 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||12450 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Research Policy, Volume 37, Issue 9, October 2008, Pages 1417–1435
This paper focuses on the role of capabilities in economic development. In recent years, the quality and availability of data on different aspects of development have improved, and this provides new opportunities for investigating the reasons behind the large differences in economic development. Using factor analysis on data for 25 indicators and 115 countries between 1992 and 2004, we identify four different types of “capabilities”: the development of the “innovation system”, the quality of “governance”, the character of the “political system” and the degree of “openness” of the economy. Innovation systems and governance are shown to be of particular importance for economic development.
Not long ago most economists believed that differences in development levels across countries were to be explained by one single factor, namely differences in the amount of accumulated capital per worker (Solow, 1956, see Fagerberg, 1994 for an overview). However, from the 1960s onwards the idea that differences in development are mainly caused by technological differences received increasing support (Gerschenkron, 1962). This view was, of course, consistent with the perspective on growth developed by Schumpeter, 1934 and Schumpeter, 1943, and during the 1980s a lot of new work on cross-country differences in levels of development and growth performance inspired by this perspective emerged (Freeman et al., 1982, Fagerberg, 1987, Fagerberg, 1988, Dosi et al., 1990 and Verspagen, 1991). The focus on technology as the driving force of growth and development has also been taken up by advocates of the so-called “new growth theory” (Lucas, 1988, Romer, 1990 and Aghion and Howitt, 1992). Authors that emphasize the crucial role of technology for development tend to stress that catching up in technology is by no means a free ride. According to this perspective, countries that do not succeed in developing appropriate technological capabilities and other complementary factors should be expected to continue to lag behind. Concepts such as “social capability” (Ohkawa and Rosovsky, 1974 and Abramovitz, 1986), “technological capability” (Kim, 1980 and Kim, 1997), “absorptive capacity” (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990) and “innovation system” (Lundvall, 1992, Nelson, 1993 and Edquist, 1997) have been suggested and a burgeoning empirical literature has emerged focusing on these aspects of development (see Fagerberg and Godinho, 2004 and Archibugi and Coco, 2005 for overviews). However, as we show in the next section of this paper, there is a big overlap between several of these concepts and the relationship between conceptual and empirical work in this area is often weak. To some extent this reflects that, until recently, there was a lack of appropriate data that could be used to put numbers on the various aspects emphasized by the theoretical literature. But in recent years, the quality and availability of data on different aspects of development have improved, and this may give researchers a new opportunity for investigating the reasons behind the large differences in economic performance. In the third section of the paper we therefore, following the theoretical work in this area, proceed to an empirical analysis of the capabilities needed to succeed in development. Rather than picking individual indicators and combine them in an essentially arbitrary way we follow Adelman and Morris, 1965 and Adelman and Morris, 1967 and Temple and Johnson (1998) in mapping the most central elements with the help of factor analysis. The underlying assumption behind this approach is that indicators reflecting the same dimension of the reality will tend to be correlated. The results, presented in the fourth section of the paper, clearly illustrate the multidimensional character of “capabilities”, resulting in four different dimensions, which we label “innovation system”, “governance”, “political system” and “openness”, respectively. Finally, we explore the extent to which cross-country differences in capabilities may help us understand why some countries excel economically while other continue to be poor. We show that what matters most for success is a well-functioning innovation system and good governance.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
In recent years, the quality and availability of data on different aspects of development have improved, and this might give researchers in this area new opportunities for investigating the reasons behind the large differences in economic performance across countries. Based on a review of the existing theoretical and empirical literature and an extensive search for available data sources this paper has, with the help of factor analysis, identified a set of “capabilities” which – following (one or more of) the theoretical perspectives that have been advanced in this area – should be assumed to be of critical importance for catch-up: The development of the “innovation system”. The quality of “governance”. The character of the “political system”. The degree “openness” to trade and foreign direct investment. The empirical analysis suggests that a well-developed innovation system is essential for countries that wish to succeed in catch-up. There is a strong, significant and robust statistical relationship between (level and change of) GDP per capita on the one hand, and (level and change of) the innovation system on the other. Historical and descriptive evidence also suggest that countries that have succeeded in catch-up have given a high priority to this dimension of development (Wade, 1990, Nelson, 1993 and Kim, 1997). Although a well-functioning innovation system emerges from the analysis as an essential prerequisite for development, it is not sufficient. Good governance is also critical for the ability to realize the desired economic results. Sometimes it is asserted that this is mainly a question of successfully “westernising” the political system, e.g., adapting to the institutional arrangements that have proved to be successful in the United States and other western democracies. This study, confirming previous research by Barro (1996) and Glaeser et al. (2004), finds the support for these assertions to be rather weak. On the contrary we show that it is among the richer economies that a political system of the Western type is shown to be conducive to growth. For the poor countries it is, if anything, the other way around. In fact, among the countries that over the years have succeeded in catching up there are several examples of countries with institutional arrangements that differ a lot from western ideals (such as the recent performance of China and Vietnam, the Asian Tigers before the 1990s or pre-world-war-two Japan). Another result from the study is that there is little support for the argument that differences in openness to trade and foreign direct investments matter much for development. This holds even when, as in the present case, country size is controlled for. The result is consistent with previous research by Rodrik et al. (2004). It also accords with previous findings by Xu (2000) and Dunning and Narula (2000) that poor countries due to lack of absorptive capacity are much less likely than other countries to benefit from foreign direct investments. Although a positive correlation between openness and growth is reported in some cases, the degree of correlation is low, and sensitive to changes in the composition of the sample. Again, it is among the richer economies that openness to trade and foreign direct investment seems to matter most for growth. In general the picture that emerges from this study is one of a global knowledge-based economy with strong elements of endogenous growth. Countries that succeed in developing and sustaining strong innovation capabilities and well-functioning systems of governance do well economically while those that fail tend to fall behind. However, many countries in the poorer part of the globe find it hard to develop the capabilities, a well-functioning innovation system in particular, necessary for joining this virtuous dynamics. An innovation system is something that is built incrementally over many years. The results reported here suggest that many present-day poor countries have been hampered in developing an innovation system by unfavourable aspects related to geography, nature and history. This arguably provides an additional argument for development aid, since some countries are much worse placed than others for reasons that are beyond the control of people living today.