Knowledge investments, business R&D and innovativeness of countries: A qualitative meta-analytic comparison

Abstract

The relationship between knowledge investments, innovation and competitiveness is an important topic in both academic research and economic policy and has been studied extensively over the past decades. Nowadays, investments in private and public R&D are believed to make up the heart of a modern knowledge economy. The present paper adopts an evolutionary economics perspective and investigates whether, in addition to private R&D activities, also institutional support systems and policy interventions play a role in inducing innovation initiatives and creating impacts on the performance and competitiveness of industries. We aim to find support for the hypothesis that the competitiveness of industries in the international arena is sustained by the dynamic interaction between national, regional and sectoral innovation systems. This may provide stakeholders with a better understanding of the context in which they operate. Since according to the evolutionary metaphor, the growth of an innovation system follows complex dynamics that cannot simply be analysed within a static quantitative equilibrium framework, here we use an alternative approach based on qualitative pattern recognition analysis originating from artificial intelligence analysis. Besides R&D expenditures, human capital expenditures are regarded as the major input in the knowledge creation process in our analytical framework. To this end, in our paper a qualitative causal model that maps out conditional relations between key factors in national innovation systems will be described. The focus of our investigation is on systematic patterns in the competitiveness of the EU Member States, using statistical information on innovation input and output data from the European Innovation Scoreboard. In our analysis we find support for the hypothesis that there are indeed significant interactions between distinct institutional levels, which may provide guidance to the strategic orientation of nations and the European Union in terms of the emphasis on competitiveness vis-à-vis cohesion.

Much Ado About Something? An Appraisal of the Relationship Between Smart City and Smart Specialisation Policies

“…(), which to date provide one of the few definitions allowing the inclusion of both technological elements and context conditions within the idea of SC. This definition is based on the idea that all actors, and not only firms and institutions, can co‐participate in enhancing the effectiveness of a local economy by dynamically interacting (van Hemert & Nijkamp ). Caragliu et al .…”

Exploring the structure of international technology diffusion

“…Numerous studies (Griliches, 1991(Griliches, , 1998Hu and Tseng, 2007;van Hemert and Nijkamp, 2010) indicate total national R&D expenditure is positively and significantly related to international technology diffusion. Thus, Xu and Wang (1999) and Shih and Chang (2009) proposed that international technology diffusion is measured based on national R&D expenditure, which must be multiplied by a weighted coefficient.…”

“…As total national R&D expenditure is positively and significantly related to international technology diffusion (Griliches, 1991(Griliches, , 1998Hu and Tseng, 2007;van Hemert and Nijkamp, 2010), Xu and Wang (1999) and Shih and Chang (2009) propose that international technology diffusion can be measured based on national R&D expenditure, which must be multiplied by a weighted coefficient. This study considers total national R&D expenditure when measuring the degree of international technology diffusion.…”

“…In most countries, the main sources of technological progress leading to productivity gains are acquired from abroad rather than domestically, as demonstrated by recent research (Keller, 2004). International interactions affect countries in terms of their economic performance, politics and culture (Clarysse and Muldur, 2001;van Hemert and Nijkamp, 2010). Theories of interdependence support mutual interdependence between nations resulting from close interactions which lead to political reciprocity and complicity (Koka et al, 1999;Kuhlmann and Edler, 2003;Staniland, 1985).…”

“…Despite numerous studies which examine technology dissemination and global interactivity and propose contingency perspectives (Akamatsu, 1962;Kuhlmann and Edler, 2003;van Hemert and Nijkamp, 2010;Vernon, 1966;Wallerstein, 1974), it is still questionable whether these structural perspectives can perfectly interpret current complex global circumstances. More specifically, it remains uncertain which characteristics of a network structure exist within international technology diffusion.…”