|
I. INTRODUCTION
- Course overview and course
requirements.
- The “taking off” of economic
prosperity
- What is innovation and how does it
affect economic growth?
- The process of creative destruction
- Other definitions in the literature:
science, technology, invention.
Reading
Jeffrey D. Sachs (2005), The end of poverty, Chapter 2 The
spread of economic prosperity, pp.26-50 (R) (*)
Simon Kuznets
(1973), Modern economic growth: findings and reflections, American Economic
Review 63(3), pp.247-258 (R)
Robert W. Fogel (1999), Catching up with the economy, American Economic
Review 89(1), pp.1-21 (R)
Richard A. Easterlin (2000), The worldwide standard of living since
1800, Journal of
Economic Perspectives 14(1), pp.7-26 (R)
David B.
Audretsch et.al. (2002), The economics of science and technology, Journal
of Technology Transfer 27(2), pp.155-203 (R)
Joseph A.
Schumpeter (1942), Capitalism, socialism and democracy, Chapter 7 Creative
Destruction, pp.81-86 (R) (*)
William
J. Baumol (2002), The free-market innovation machine: analyzing the growth
miracle of capitalism. Introduction.
Princeton University
Press (*)
Vania Sena (2004),
The Return of the Prince of Denmark: A Survey on Recent Developments in the
Economics of Innovation, Economic Journal 114 (496), pp.312-32 (*)
Daniel
Lederman and Laura Saenz (2005), Innovation and Development around the world,
1960-2000, World
Bank WP 3774
Robert J. Barro and Xavier Sala-i Martin (1999). Economic Growth. MIT
Press. Chapter 1, pp.14-58 (e-book)
Media Articles
q The growth machine, The
Economist, May 18, 2002.
q The road to riches, The
Economist, Millennium Special Edition, December 31, 1999.
q Survey on technology and
innovation The
Economist, November 10, 2001. Including: Getting better all the time,
Feeding the five billion, Brains v bugs, Fishermen on the net, Wired schools,
wired nations, How countries go high-tech, Keep it simple, Fewer buffaloes.
q Catch the wave, The
Economist, February 20, 1999.
q
Industry gets religion, The
Economist, February 20, 1999.
II. MAJOR THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS ON INNOVATION
2.1
Neoclassical Perspectives
- Early hypothesis: the view of classical economics.
- Solow’s residual and the production function.
- Endogenous growth models. Romer’s contribution.
Reading
Gene Grossman
and Elhanan Helpman (1994), Endogenous Innovation in the Theory of Growth, Journal of Economic
Perspectives 8(1), pp.23-44 (R)
Zvi Griliches
(1996), The Discovery of the Residual: A Historical Note, Journal of Economic
Literature 34(3), pp.1324-30 (R)
Robert Solow
(1957),Technical change and the aggregate production function, Review of Economic
and Statistics 39(3), pp.312-320
Nicholas Kaldor
(1957), A model of economic growth, Economic Journal 67, pp.591-624
Paul M. Romer
(1994), The Origins of Endogenous Growth, Journal of Economic
Perspectives 8(1), pp.3-22
Paul M. Romer
(1990), Endogenous Technological Change, Journal of
Political Economy 98 (5), pp.71-102
Media Articles
q
The growth of growth theory, The
Economist, May 18, 2006.
2.2 The Evolutionary School
- Learning and uncertainties.
- The role of routines and organizational memory.
- The searching process.
- Natural selection and the idea of evolution.
Reading
Christopher
Freeman (1994), The Economics of Technical Change, Cambridge Journal of
Economics 18 (5), pp.463-514 (R) (*)
Richard R.
Nelson and Sidney G. Winter (2002), Evolutionary Theorizing in Economics, Journal of Economic
Perspectives 16(1,2), pp.23-46 (R)
Giovanni Dosi
(1988), Sources, Procedures and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation, Journal of Economic
Literature 26(3), pp.1120-1171
Richard R. Nelson and
Sidney G. Winter (1982), An evolutionary theory of technical change. Belknap
Press (*)
2.3 The
Systemic Approach
- The lineal model of innovation versus the chained-linked model.
- User-producer relationships.
- Innovation systems and knowledge economy.
- Comparing innovation systems.
- Regional and. national innovation systems.
Reading
Charles
Edquist (2006), Systems of innovation, perspectives and challenges, in The
Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Jan Fagerberg, David C. Mowery and Richard
R. Nelson (eds.), Oxford University Press, pp.181-208 (R) (*)
Science, The
Endless Frontier, A report to the President by Vannevar Bush, July 1945 http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm
Pari Patel and
Keith Pavitt (1994), National innovation systems: why they are important, and
how they may be measured and compared, Economics of Innovation and New
Technology 3 (1), pp.77-95. (*)
Steven Kline
and Nathan Rosenberg (1986), An Overview of Innovation, in The Positive
Sum Strategy, Ralph Landau and Nathan Rosenberg, Washington: National
Academy Press, pp. 275-305. (*)
Phil Cooke,
Introduction: Regional innovation systems, an evolutionary approach, in Regional
Innovation Systems, Philip Cooke, Martin Heidenreich and Hans-Joachim
Braczyk (eds.). Routledge. (*)
Bengt-Åke
Lundvall (1992), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of
Innovation and Interactive Learning, London: Pinter. (*)
Richard R.
Nelson (1993), National Systems of Innovation: A Comparative Study,
Oxford University Press. (*)
Phil Cooke,
Mikel Gomez Uranga and Etxebaria (1998), Regional systems of innovation: and
evolutionary perspective. Environment and Planning 30, pp. 1563-1583. (*)
Recommended Websites
q Lecture by Nathan
Rosenberg on double causality relationship between science and technology http://video.haas.berkeley.edu:24874/ramgen/media-services/Rosenberg.rm
q Network of Innovation
Regions in Europe: http://www.innovating-regions.org/
q Innovation Systems
Research Network: http://www.utoronto.ca/isrn/
q Swedish Governmental
Agency for Innovation Systems: http://www.vinnova.se/
Media Articles
q Out
of the dusty labs, The
Economist, March 2007
III. MEASURING ISSUES
3.1. Commonly used measures in Knowledge and
Innovation
- Census data, growth accounting and total factor productivity
measurement.
- Types of spillovers measures: vertical relationships,
technological distance & geographic proximity.
Reading
Ishaq Nadiri (1993), Innovation and technological
spillovers, NBER WP 4423
(R)
Adam B. Jaffe
(1986), Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from
Firms' Patents, Profits, and Market Value, American Economic
Review 76 (5) pp.984-1001.
Adam B. Jaffe,
Manuel Trajtenberg and Rebecca Henderson (1993), Geographic Localization of
Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations Quarterly Journal
of Economics 108 (3) pp.577-598.
3.2 Patents, patent citations and blibliometric
indicators
- Ways to protect inventions.
- The market value of a patent. Ways to measure it.
- Other patent indicators: originality, generality.
- Differences across sectors. University and corporate patents.
- Impacts of patents on firms performance.
Reading
Zvi Griliches
(1990), Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey, Journal of Economic
Literature 28(4), pp. 1661-1707 (R)
Bjorn L.
Basberg (1987), Patents
and the measurement of technological change: A survey of the literature,
Research Policy 16 (2,4), pp.131-141 (R)
Nancy T.
Gallini (2002), The Economics of Patents: Lessons from Recent U.S. Patent
Reform, Journal
of Economic Perspectives 16 (2), pp.131-154
Adam B. Jaffe
and Josh Lerner (2001), Reinventing Public R&D: Patent Policy and the
Commercialization of National Laboratory Technologies, Rand Journal of
Economics 32, pp.167-198
Hal R. Varian
(2005), Copying and Copyright, Journal of Economic
Perspectives 19 (2), pp.121-138
Stanley M.
Besen and Leo J. Raskind (1991), An Introduction to the Law and Economics of
Intellectual Property, Journal of Economic
Perspectives 5(1), pp. 3-27.
Zvi Griliches
(1995), R&D and Productivity: Econometric Results and Measurement Issues,
in Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change,
Paul Stoneman, ed. pp.52-89. (*)
Manuel
Trajtenberg (2002), A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value
of Innovations, in Patents, citations and innovation a window on the
knowledge economy, Adam B. Jaffe and Manuel Trajtenberg The MIT Press.
(*)
Manuel
Trajtenberg, Rebeca Henderson and Adam B. Jaffe (2002), University versus
Corporate Patents: A Window on the Basicness of Invention, in Patents,
Citations and innovation a window on the knowledge economy, Adam B. Jaffe
and Manuel Trajtenberg The MIT Press. (*)
Josh Lerner
(2002), Patent protection and innovation over 150 years. NBER working paper No. 8977.
Mariko
Sakakibara and Branstetter (2001), Do stronger patents induce more innovation?
Evidence from the 1998 Japanese patent law reforms, Rand Journal of
Economics 32, pp.77-100.
Bronwyn H. Hall and R.H. Ziedonis (2001),
The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the US
Semiconductor industry, 1979-1995, Rand Journal of
Economics 32, pp.101-128.
Wesley M. Cohen, Richard R. Nelson R., and
John P. Walsh (2000), Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability
Conditions and Why US Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not), NBER WP 7552
Media Articles
q Twist and shout, The
Economist, June 11, 2005.
q Survey on patents, The
Economist, October 22, 2005. Including: A market for ideas, An open
secret, Patent sense, The liquidity of innovation, Thinking for themselves,
Voracious venture.
q Free ideas, The
Economist, October 15, 2005.
q Monopolies of the mind, The
Economist, November 13, 2004.
q Scientific publishing, the
paperless library, The
Economist, September 24, 2005.
q Robert M. May (1997), The
Scientific Wealth of Nations, Science
7 February 1997, Vol. 275. no. 5301, pp. 793 – 796.
Recommended Websites
q
Center for Economic Studies, US Census Bureau http://www.ces.census.gov
q
Science and Engineering Statistics, National Science Foundation http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/
q
World Intellectual Property Organization http://www.wipo.int
q
US Patent Office http://www.uspto.gov/
q
European Patent Office http://www.european-patent-office.org/index.en.php
q
Japan Patent Office http://www.jpo.go.jp/
q
The Science Citation Index http://www.isinet.com/products/citation/sci/
q
NBER Patent Database http://www.nber.org/patents/
q
Totally Absurd Inventions http://totallyabsurd.com/archive.htm
Other free patent databases
q
www.patentstorm.us (by
category, by inventor’s name and by date)
q
www.freepatentsonline.com
q
www.patentdebate.com
q
www.freshpatents.com
3.3 Innovation Surveys
- Innovation surveys and their relationship with evolutionary and
systemic approaches.
- Innovation measurement in the service sector: trends and future.
- Strengths and weaknesses of qualitative indicators.
- Sectoral taxonomies, Pavitt vs. the OECD classification
Reading
Daniele
Archibugi and Mario Pianta (1996), Measuring technological change through
patents and innovation surveys, Technovation,
16(9) pp.451-468 (R)
John A. Hansen
(1999), Technology Innovation Indicators: A Survey of Historical Development
and Current Practice, Mimeo (R)
Matteo
Richiardi (2000), Learning from the CIS-2: methodological recommendations,
and research and policy implications, Mimeo
Keith Pavitt
(1984), Sectoral Patterns of Technical Change: Towards a Taxonomy and a
Theory, Research Policy 13 (6), pp.343-73 (*)
Ian Miles
(2006), Innovation in Services, in The Oxford Handbook of Innovation,
pp.433-458. (*)
Mónica Salazar and Adam Holbrook (2003), A debate
on innovation surveys, Mimeo.
OECD (2005),
The Oslo Manual.3rd Edition at www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/61/2367580.pdf
Recommended Websites
q Community Innovation
Survey: http://cordis.europa.eu/innovation-smes/src/cis.htm
q Georgia Manufacturing
Survey: http://www.cherry.gatech.edu/survey/
q Malaysia Knowledge Content
Survey: http://www.cherry.gatech.edu/myke-team/documents/MyKe-survey-2003-05-30.doc
q The South African
Innovation Survey: http://www.up.ac.za/up/web/resources/academic/engineering_and_technology_management/downloads/sais2001/index.htm
q Korean R&D survey: http://www.kistep.re.kr/index.jsp
IV. MICROECONOMICS OF INNOVATION. THEORY AND
EVIDENCE.
4.1 The Innovative Firm
- Innovation strategies.
- Learning by doing and learning by using.
- Relationship between experience and efficiency: learning curves.
- Demand-pull vs. technology-push theories.
- R&D and the idea of absorptive capacity. Tacit knowledge vs
codified knowledge.
Reading
Christopher
Freeman and Luc Soete (1997), The Economics of Industrial Innovation,
3rd ed., The MIT Press, Chapter 11 Innovation and the Strategy of
the Firm (R) (*)
Kenneth J.
Arrow (1962), The Economic implications of learning by doing, Review of Economic
Studies 29 (2), pp.155-173 (R)
Nathan
Rosenberg (1982), Inside the Black Box, Cambridge University Press,
Chapter 6 Learning by using, pp.120-140 (OnLine e-book)
David Teece
(1986), Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for
Integration, Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy, Research Policy 15
(6), pp.285-305 (*)
Nathan
Rosenberg (1990), Why Do Firms Do Basic Research (with Their Own Money)?,
Research Policy 19 (2) pp.165-174 (*)
Wesley M. Cohen and Daniel A. Levinthal
(1990), Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation.
Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1), pp.128-52 (*)
Edith Penrose (1995), The Theory of the
Growth of the Firm. Third Edition (*)
Recommended Websites
q Innobarometer: opinions of
European managers on their needs in innovation and performance: http://cordis.europa.eu/innovation-smes/src/innobarometer.htm
q The World's Most
Innovative Companies according to BUSINESS WEEK
4.2 Market
Structure and the Incentives to Innovate
- The relationship between a firm size and innovation.
- Innovation, market structure and competition.
- The industry-specific argument.
- Early and late Schumpeter: the role of entrepreneurs.
Reading
Wesley M.
Cohen and Richard C. Levin (1989), Empirical studies of innovation and market
structure, in Handbook of Industrial Organization, Volume II, Edited by R.
Schmalensee and R.D. Willig, Elsevier Science Publishers (R) (*)
Chris Freeman
and Luc Soete (1997), The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd
ed., The MIT Press. Chapter 9 Innovation and the Size of the Firm (R) (*)
Zoltan J. Acs
and David B. Audretsch (1988), Innovation in large and small firms: an
empirical analysis, American Economic
Review 78(4), pp. 678-690.
Joseph A. Schumpeter (1942), Capitalism, Socialism
and Democracy, Chapter VIII, pp. 87-106. (*)
Media Articles
q S&T, The
Economist, Millennium Special Edition, 1999.
q Searching for the
invisible man, The
Economist, March 11, 2006.
4.3 The
Impact of Innovation on a Firm’s Performance
- Measures of firms’ performance.
- Basic theoretical and microeconometric models.
- Empirical evidence.
Reading
Zvi Griliches (1995),
R & D and Productivity: Econometric Results and Econometric and
Measurement Issues, Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological
Change, Paul Stoneman (Harvard University) (R) (*)
Crépon, Duguet
and Mairesse (1998), Research, innovation and productivity: an econometric
analysis at the firm level. NBER
Working Paper 6696(R)
David J.
Teece (1996), Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological
innovation, Journal
of Economic Behavior & Organization 31 (2), pp.193-224
Hans Lööf and Almas Heshmati (2006), On the relationship between innovation and performance:
A sensitivity analysis, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Volume
15, Number 4-5 / June / July 2006 , pp. 317 -344 (*)
Media Articles
q Slackers or pace-setters?,
The
Economist, May 22, 2004.
q The new ‘new economy’, The
Economist, September 2003.
4.4 Funding
Innovation
Guest Lecture. Maria Hill, financial advisor EDI.
Minority Business Development Center.
Required readings
TBA
Media Articles
q Innovation in industry:
Silicon envy, The
Economist, February 20, 1999.
4.5
Innovation Partnerships
- Types of partnerships.
- Evolution of research partnerships.
- Advantages and disadvantages of cooperative agreements.
- Welfare effects of cooperation.
- Subsidized programs: The Advanced Technology Program. SEMATCH.
EU Framework Programs.
- Empirical findings: Who cooperates in R&D?. Effects of
cooperation on firm’s performance.
Reading
John Hagedoorn (1993), Understanding the rationale of strategic
partnerships. Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral
differences. Strategic
Management Journal 14, pp. 371-385 (R)
Yannis Caloghirou, Stavros Ioannides, and Nicolas Vonortas (2003),
Research Joint Ventures, Journal
of Economic Surveys 7 (4), pp.541-570 (R)
David B. Audretsch and Maryann P. Feldman (2003), Small-Firm
Strategic Research Partnerships: The Case of Biotechnology, Technology
Analysis & Strategic Management 15(2), pp.273-288
Michael R. Darby, Lynne G. Zucker and Andrew Wang (2003),
Universities, joint ventures and success in the Advanced Technology Program, NBER WP9463
Stephen Martin (2003), The Evaluation of Strategic Research
Partnerships, Technology
Analysis & Strategic Management 15 (2) pp. 159-176
D’Aspremont and Jacquemin (1988), Cooperative and noncooperative
R&D in a duopoly with spillovers, American Economic Review
78, pp. 1133-1138
Kamien, Muller, and Zang. (1992), Research joint ventures and R&D
cartels, American
Economic Review 82, pp. 1293-1307
Nicolas Carayol (2003), Objectives, agreements and matching in
science-industry collaborations: reassembling the pieces of the puzzle Research
Policy 32, pp. 887-908
John Hagedoorn, Albert N. Link and Nicholas S. Vonortas (2000),
Research partnerships, Research
Policy 29 (4-5), pp.435-678
Bruno Cassiman and Reinhilde Veugelers (2002),R&D cooperation and
spillovers: some empirical evidence from Belgium, American Economic
Review 92(4), pp.1169-1184
Alfred Kleinknecht and Jeronen Reijnen (1992), Why do firms cooperate
on R&D? An empirical study. Research Policy 21, pp. 347-360 (*)
Roberto Hernán , Pedro L. Marín and Georges Siotis (2003), An
Empirical Evaluation of the Determinants of Research Joint Venture Formation,
Journal of Industrial Economics 1, pp.55-89
Media Articles
q
Out of the dusty labs, The
Economist, March 2007
q
An open secret, The
Economist, October 22, 2005.
q
Merky Waters, The
Economist, April 24, 1997.
4.6 Technology Diffusion Models
- Why is technology adoption important?
- Griliches model of adoption and diffusion of hybrid corn.
- Epidemic, rank and duration models.
Reading
Bronwyn H.
Hall (2004), Innovation and Diffusion, NBER Working Paper No. 10212 (R)
Karshenas and
Stoneman (1995), Technological Diffusion, in Paul Stoneman (ed.), Handbook of
the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change, Blackwell, Oxford, pp.
265-29 (R) (*)
Zvi
Griliches (1957), Hybrid corn: an exploration in the economics of
technological change, Econometrica 25, 4 pp 501-522 (*)
Rogers
(1995), Diffusion
of Innovations,
4th edition. New York. (*)
Paul A. Geroski (2000), Models of technology
diffusion, Research
Policy 29 (4/5), pp. 603-25.
Nathan
Rosenberg (1976), Factors Affecting the Diffusion of Technology. Perspectives
on Technology.Cambridge University Press: 189-212 (*)
Paul David
(1990), The Dynamo and the Computer: An Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity
Paradox, American
Economic Review 80 (2), pp. 355-361
V. INNOVATION AND PUBLIC POLICY
5.1 Economic Rationale for Public Intervention
·
Market failures in innovation.
·
Rationale public support to innovation.
·
Microeconomic model on the effects of
R&D subsidies.
·
Perverse incentives and crowding-out.
Reasons to crowd-out public money.
·
Empirical evidence on the impact of R&D
subsidies.
·
Mansfield and the computation of social and
private rates of return.
Reading
Richard R. Nelson (1959), The simple economics of basic scientific
research, The
Journal of Political Economy 67, pp. 297-306 (R)
Edwin Mansfield, John Rapoport, Anthony Romeo, Samuel Wagner and George
Beardsley (1977), Social and Private Rates of Return from Industrial
Innovations, The
Quarterly Journal of Economics 91(2), pp. 221-240 (R)
Stan Metcalfe (1995), The economic foundations of technology policy:
equilibrium and evolutionary perspectives, in Handbook of the Economics of
Innovation and Technological Change, Paul Stoneman (ed.), Oxford, UK:
Blackwell, pp. 410-512 (*)
David Mowery (1995), The practice of technology, in Handbook of the
Economics of Innovation and Technological Change, Paul Stoneman (ed.),
Oxford, UK: Blackwell, pp. 513-563
(*)
Kenneth Arrow (1962), Economic welfare and the allocation of resources
for invention, in The rate and direction of inventive activity, Nelson
R.R. (ed.), Princeton University Press, pp. 609-625 (*)
5.2 Evaluation of Science and Technology Policies
- Traditional vs
evolutionary and systemic approaches.
- Additionality and
counterfactuals.
- Behavioral
additionality.
- Evidence from microeconometric analysis.
Reading
Paul A. David, Bronwyn H. Hall and Andrew
A.Toole (2000), Is public R&D a complement or a substitute for private
R&D? A review of the econometric evidence, Research
Policy 29, pp. 497-529 (R)
Buisseret,
Cameron, and Georghiou (1995), What difference does it make? Additionality in
the public support of R&D in large firms, International Journal of Technology
Management 10, pp. 587-600 (R) (*)
Isabel Busom
and Andrea Fernández-Ribas (2006), The Impact of Firm Participation in
R&D Programs on R&D partnerships. Summer School on Economics of
Innovation «Zvi Griliches», Universidad Internacional Menéndez Pelayo (*)
Maryann P.
Feldman, Government R&D subsidies, economic incentives and knowledge
spillovers. Mimeo.
Josh Lerner
(1996), The Government as Venture Capitalist: The Long-Run Impact of the SBIR
Program, NBER WP No. W5753
Scott J. Wallsten (2000), Effects of Government-Industry R&D
Programs on Private R&D: The Case of the Small Business Innovation
Research Program. Rand
Journal of Economics 31, pp. 82-100.
Saul Lach (2002), Do R&D subsidies stimulate or displace private
R&D? Evidence from Israel, Journal of
Industrial Economics 50, pp. 369-390
Bronwyn H.
Hall and J. van Reenen (2000), How effective are fiscal incentives for
R&D? A review of the evidence, Research
Policy 29, pp. 449-469
Richard Blundell and Mónica Costa Dias (2002), Alternative approaches
to evaluation in empirical microeconomics, The Institute for Fiscal Studies,
Working paper CWP10/02
Recommended Webpages
q Advance
Technology Program (ATP): http://www.atp.nist.gov/
q Also
look at the ATP assessment and the Congress recommendation to terminate this
program: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail.10000030.2005.html
q ERAWATCH: project on
benchmarking of institutions and innovation policies: http://erawatch.jrc.es/public/implementation.htm
VI. INNOVATION IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
6.1 The Role
of Multinational Enterprises
- Cost doctrine and market-based theories versus decentralized
competence models.
- Home-base exploiting and home-based augmenting R&D.
- Knowledge accumulation and network of innovators.
- Advantages and disadvantages of hosting MNCs.
Reading
Raymond Vernon
(1966), International investment and international trade in the product
cycle, Quarterly
Journal of Economics 80(2), pp.190-207 (R)
Cantwell
(1995), The globalisation of technology: what remains of the product cycle
model, Cambridge Journal of Economics 19, pp. 155-174 (R) (*)
Antonello
Zanfei (2000), Transnational Firms and the Changing Organisation of
Innovative Activities, Cambridge Journal
of Economics 24 (5), pp. 515-54 (R)
Kuemmerle,
W. 1997. Building effective R&D capabilities abroad, Harvard Business
Review, March-April, 61-69 (R)
Andrea
Fernández-Ribas, Philip Shapira and Jan Youtie (2006), Innovation strategies
of multinational enterprises in developing countries: some empirical evidence
for Malaysia. Working Papers. School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of
Technology.
Yamin, M., and
Otto, J. (2004), Patterns of knowledge flows and MNE innovative performance,
Journal of International Management 10, pp. 239-258.
Pari Patel and
Modesto Vega (1999), Patterns of internationalisation of corporate
technology: location vs. home country advantages, Research
Policy 28, pp.145-155.
Helene Blanc
and Christophe Sierra (1999), The internalization of R&D by
multinationals: a trade-off between external and internal proximity, Cambridge Journal
of Economics 23 (2), pp.187-206.
Jerry Thursby
and Marie Thursby (2006), Here or There?,
A Survey on the Factors in Multinational R&D Location, Report to
the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable. National Academies Press.
Media articles and policy reports
q Scattering
the seeds of invention: The globalisation of research and development.
Economist Intelligence Unit September 2004.
q UNCTAD (2005), The impact
of FDI on Development: globalization of R&D by transnational corporations
and implications for developing countries. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/com2em16d2_en.pdf
q
Council on Competitiveness (2005), National Innovation Survey,
(Washington, DC).
6.2 The
International Diffusion of Innovation
- Internationalisation of R&D: evidence and trends.
- Factors facilitating the international diffusion of innovation.
- Obstacles to international diffusion.
Reading
Wolfgang Keller
(2001), International Technology Diffusion, NBER Working Paper 8573 (R)
OCDE (1998),
Internationalisation of Industrial R&D, Patterns and Trends.
http://cdnet.stic.gov.tw/ebooks/OECD/26.pdf (R)
OECD (2005),
Measuring Globalisation: OECD Economic Globalisation Indicators. Paris
http://www.oecd.org/department/0,2688,en_2649_34443_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
Yasuyuki Todo and Koji Miyamoto (2006) Knowledge Spillovers from
Foreign Direct Investment and the Role of Local R&D Activities: Evidence from
Indonesia , Economic Development and Cultural Change, vol. 55, pp. 173–200 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/
6.3
International Technology Policy
- Policies to attract foreign resources from abroad.
- Innovation and developing countries.
- Promotion of international research linkages.
- Brain gain policies.
Reading
Rajneesh
Narula and Antonello Zanfei (2006), The international dimension of
innovation, in The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Jan Fagerberg, David
C. Mowery and Richard R. Nelson (eds.), Oxford University Press (R) (*)
Moses
Abramovitz (1986), Catching Up, Forging Ahead, or Falling Behind, Journal of Economic
History 46(2), pp. 385-406 (R)
Douglas H. Brooks and Hal Hill (2004) Divergent Asian Views on
Foreign Direct Investment and Its Governance, Asian Development Review vol.
21, no1, pp 1-36 http://www.adb.org/documents/periodicals/adr/default.asp
Media articles
q Fruit that falls far from
the tree, The
Economist, November 3, 2005.
q A new map of the world. The
Economist, June 24, 2000.
q Brain drain. The
Economist, May 6, 2006.
q The
brain drain: Old myths, new realities, The OECD observer, May 2002.
|