The innovation–economic growth nexus: Global evidence

Hasan, Iftekhar; Tucci, Christopher L.

doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.07.005

Cited by 310 publications

(176 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

151

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The conclusions seem unanimous in holding the important contribution of innovation, and its quality and quantity, to economic growth. Moreover, this close relationship is confirmed not only globally (at country or sectors level), but also at the level of individual organizations or companies, and is usually geographically bound (Hasan & Tucci, 2010).…”

Section: Innovation and Socio-economic Developmentmentioning

confidence: 82%

Beauty as a factor of economic and social development

Baggio

Moretti²

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss how aesthetic features can be the basis for a virtuous chain that leads to social and economic development. Design/methodology/approach The aesthetic characteristics of a destination are an important attractive feature. More than that, they can be considered a key determinant for economic and social growth. A conceptual support to this idea is presented here by following a line which links beauty to creativity, innovation and socio-economic development. Findings A purely qualitative and logical-deductive line shows how beauty, creativity and innovation are connected in a chain that leads to socio-economic well-being. Research limitations/implications This paper is conceptual in nature. The authors intend to use these considerations as a basis for future research. Originality/value This paper contributes to the literature on destination governance highlighting a number of factors that are often underestimated.

show abstract

Section: Innovation and Socio-economic Developmentmentioning

confidence: 82%

Beauty as a factor of economic and social development

Baggio

Moretti²

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hasan & Tucci, 2010;Siddiqui & Ahmed, 2013;Su & Moaniba, 2017b) and sectoral-level analysis (e.g. Bertoni, Colombo, & Grilli, 2011;Colombo, Croce, & Guerini, 2013;Dosi et al, 2015;Onishi, 2013).…”

Section: Dynamic Gmm Approach Using Lags As Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By contrast, studies conducted on a national scale have tended to focus on technological specialization and economic performance (e.g. Archibugi & Pianta, 1992a, 1992bAttaran, 1986;Cantwell & Vertova, 2004;Evangelista & Vezzani, 2010;Hasan & Tucci, 2010;Mancusi, 2001;Pianta & Meliciani, 1996). Others have indicated that larger countries tend to diversify their technological activities, whereas smaller economies focus on specific fields (Archibugi & Pianta, 1992a, 1992bCantwell & Vertova, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Reverse Causality Explains the Relationship Between Economic Performance and Technological Diversity?

Moaniba

Lee

2018

Technological and Economic Development of Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Previous studies have highlighted technological innovation as a key instrument for economic development. However, although the relationship between innovation and economic growth has been extensively explored, few studies have investigated the impacts of crucial dimensions of innovation on economic growth. This paper presents one of the first empirical attempts to analyze how the "diversity" aspect of technological progress (or innovation) influences economic performance by considering the possible bidirectional causal effects between these two factors. A series of econometric techniques, including a two-stage-least-squares instrumental variable and dynamic autoregressive distributed lag model, are applied on a dataset of 55 countries. The dataset includes patent data from the United States Patent and Trademark Office and combined macroeconomic data from the World Bank's development indicators and International Monetary Fund's economic outlook databases. The results show that generally, technological diversity does not directly affect economic growth. By contrast, a negative effect of diversity on GDP per capita is observed in nonhigh-income countries. This study contributes to the macroeconomics and innovation management literature by providing an integrated empirical application of various popular firm management theories and a well-known endogenous economic growth theory.

show abstract

“…Qualitative change, and not only quantitative change, is important in the analysis of the innovation system. Hasan and Tucci (2010) used global patent data to investigate empirically the importance of both the quantity and quality of innovation to economic growth under various economic structures and stages of economic development. A sample of 58 countries for the period 1980-2003 was used by them and the results from a correlation matrix and regression analysis indicated that those countries hosting firms with "higher quality" patents have higher economic growth and that those countries that "increase the level" of patenting also witnessed a concomitant increase in economic growth.…”

Section: Maria Elizabeth Eggink (2013) Journal Of Economicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Change in post 1980 Economic Development and Innovation Studies towards Evolutionary Economics

Eggink¹

2013

JESR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of innovation in economic growth is perceived differently by the different schools of thought. The neoclassical theories emphasise equilibrium in the economy and cannot explain the role of innovation, because the effect of innovation is actually a disturbance of equilibrium. Schumpeter (1961) has shown that growth and development can only take place if the economy is constantly disturbed to an out-of-equilibrium phase. In some of the later neoclassical theories, innovation was considered as a factor that causes growth, but was treated as an exogenous factor. The "new growth theories" were developed later, including innovation as an endogenous factor, but these theories were still based on the equilibrium principle. In the Schumpeterian and neoSchumpeterian theories, innovation is treated as endogenous to the economy. Schumpeter had not been acknowledged as a mainstream economist during the time that he developed and first published his theory. It was not until the 1980s that economists started paying attention to his works and to the importance of innovation in development. The aim of this article is to determine how the studies since 1980 have changed regarding their foundation in the different schools of thought. A methodological and theoretical review is conducted of post 1980 empirical studies that determined the relationship between innovation and economic development. It was found that many empirical studies still make use of neoclassical equilibrium models and that the studies that consider the complexity of the innovation system are not yet sufficiently developed to explain the relationship between innovation and economic development. JEL Codes: B52 and O30

show abstract

The innovation–economic growth nexus: Global evidence

Cited by 310 publications

References 54 publications

Beauty as a factor of economic and social development

Beauty as a factor of economic and social development

Does Reverse Causality Explains the Relationship Between Economic Performance and Technological Diversity?

The Change in post 1980 Economic Development and Innovation Studies towards Evolutionary Economics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About