An introduction to the economy of the knowledge society

David, Paul A.; Foray, Dominique

doi:10.1111/1468-2451.00355

Cited by 274 publications

(194 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

179

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some of these results are consistent with the findings in the literature (cf. David, 1996, 1998;David and Foray, 2001;Loof and Heshmati, 2002). Our results in Tables 2 and 3 illustrate the importance of knowledge at the aggregate/macro level.…”

Section: The Empirical Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Importance (Impacts) of Knowledge at the Macro–Micro Levels in the Arab Gulf Countries

Nour

2014

J Knowl Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Empirical Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, since 1960s annual investment rates in R&D, public education and software have grown steadily at an annual rate of 3 per cent in the OECD countries" (David and Foray, 2001: pp. 1-2).…”

Section: Definition Importance Sources and Measurement Of Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

The Importance (Impacts) of Knowledge at the Macro–Micro Levels in the Arab Gulf Countries

Nour

2014

J Knowl Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As a consequence, we can reasonably expect that agents will almost never go through this process in isolation, but interact with other agents to acquire and exchange knowledge, information, and other resources [1]. Social and technological changes in past decades induced more complexity on the innovation process, increasing the potential connections among actors [2]. Indeed, it has been argued that innovation increasingly depends on external knowledge sources [3].…”

Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Non-Parametric Delphi Approach to Foster Innovation Policy Debate in Spain

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The aim of this paper is to identify some changes needed in Spain's innovation policy to fill the gap between its innovation results and those of other European countries in lieu of sustainable leadership. To do this we apply the Delphi methodology to experts from academia, business, and government. To overcome the shortcomings of traditional descriptive methods, we develop an inferential analysis by following a non-parametric bootstrap method which enables us to identify important changes that should be implemented. Particularly interesting is the support found for improving the interconnections among the relevant agents of the innovation system (instead of focusing exclusively in the provision of knowledge and technological inputs through R and D activities), or the support found for "soft" policy instruments aimed at providing a homogeneous framework to assess the innovation capabilities of firms (e.g., for funding purposes). Attention to potential innovators among small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and traditional industries is particularly encouraged by experts.Keywords: innovation policy; Delphi; bootstrap; intangibles; intellectual capital; Spain Conceptual FrameworkInnovation is a complex process where agents produce knowledge based on other pieces of disperse and fragmented knowledge. As a consequence, we can reasonably expect that agents will almost never go through this process in isolation, but interact with other agents to acquire and exchange knowledge, information, and other resources [1]. Social and technological changes in past decades induced more complexity on the innovation process, increasing the potential connections among actors [2]. Indeed, it has been argued that innovation increasingly depends on external knowledge sources [3].The theoretical approaches to assess innovation have reacted to such changes, shifting from a "linear" and autonomous perspective on the production of knowledge [4] to a comprehensive approach where the innovation process is the result of the co-evolution of society and technology, where agents do not innovate in isolation but within a "system", and where interactions and feedback processes are key to explaining innovation paths [5][6][7][8]. This holistic vision of the innovation process gave rise to new research agendas, such as "open innovation", in which the discussion is centered at acknowledging the value of using external knowledge [9][10][11]. There has been an increasing interest in the research of empirical evidence relating open innovation and innovation performance [12], but its implications for public policy-making have not yet been analyzed in detail (with few exceptions [13]).These changes in innovation practice and theory also induced changes in innovation policy [14,15]. For example, they showed the increasing need to manage interfaces between users and producers of innovations beyond the pure transfer of knowledge and technologies (e.g., stimulating demand articulation and bridging gaps between actors). These changes also urged policy-m...

show abstract

“…A third coordination mechanism prevailing at the level of society since the 19th century-that is, since the techno-scientific revolution of the period 1870-1910 (Braverman 1974, Noble 1977)-has been the socially organized production of knowledge (Whitley 1984) in research laboratories both in industrial and state-financed settings. The additional option allows for the gradual transition from a political economy to a knowledge-based economy (David and Foray 2002;Foray 2004;Leydesdorff 2006).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sociological and Communication-Theoretical Perspectives on the Commercialization of the Sciences

Leydesdorff

2012

Sci & Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both self-organization and organization are important for the further development of the sciences: the two dynamics condition and enable each other. Commercial and public considerations can interact and ''interpenetrate'' in historical organization; different codes of communication are then ''recombined''. However, self-organization in the symbolically generalized codes of communication can be expected to operate at the global level. The Triple Helix model allows for both a neo-institutional appreciation in terms of historical networks of university-industry-government relations and a neo-evolutionary interpretation in terms of three functions: (1) novelty production, (2) wealth generation, and (3) political control. Using this model, one can appreciate both subdynamics. The mutual information in three dimensions enables us to measure the trade-off between organization and self-organization as a possible synergy. The question of optimization between commercial and public interests in the different sciences can thus be made empirical.

show abstract

An introduction to the economy of the knowledge society

Cited by 274 publications

References 14 publications

The Importance (Impacts) of Knowledge at the Macro–Micro Levels in the Arab Gulf Countries

The Importance (Impacts) of Knowledge at the Macro–Micro Levels in the Arab Gulf Countries

A Non-Parametric Delphi Approach to Foster Innovation Policy Debate in Spain

Sociological and Communication-Theoretical Perspectives on the Commercialization of the Sciences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About