Scientific or technological driving force? Constructing a system of national innovative capacity

Purpose Innovation plays a pivotal role in a national economy and in the research and development of science and technology. Because the elements, capability and development direction of innovation in various countries are dissimilar, national innovative capacity also varies by country. However, previous studies have predominantly measured national innovative capacity through empirical studies by using a single index of innovation output, ignoring that the forms of innovation are heterogeneous across countries and failing to examine the influence exerted by various innovation models on economic development. Thus, the purpose of this study is to fill this gap by using scientific driving force and technological driving force to present the influence of national innovative capacities on economic development. Design/methodology/approach This study used regression models to test the influence of different national innovative capacities (i.e. scientific and technological driving forces) on economic development and stability. Findings Using the data of 60 countries, this study determined that both scientific and technological driving forces influenced economic development; specifically, scientific driving force affected economic development through technological driving force. Moreover, both research paper quality and patent quality positively influenced economic stability, but patent quality was the mediator. Originality/value This study examined scientific output from both quantitative and qualitative perspectives to determine their influence on economic growth and particularly on economic stability, which lacks dedicated studies. This study strives to bridge this gap in the literature by asserting, from the concept of economic resilience, that high-quality science and technology can strengthen the stability of a country’s economy.

[1]  Sumiko Niwa.  Patent claims and economic growth , 2016 .

[2]  Scheherazade S. Rehman,et al.  The Future of the European Union , 2015 .

[3]  K. Briggs,et al.  More is better: evidence that joint patenting leads to quality innovation , 2014 .

[4]  R. Karpagam.  Global Research Output of Nanobiotechnology Research: a Scientometrics Study , 2014 .

[5]  Contributing Institutions and Authors in International Business Research: A Quality-Based Assessment , 2014 .

[6]  Christoph Deutschmann.  The future of the European Union , 2014 .

[7]  Shu-Hao Chang,et al.  Study on national innovation capacity and international connection , 2013 .

[8]  Ming-Fong Lai,et al.  Applying Hybrid-Quantity Analysis in the Asia Semiconductor Industry , 2013 .

[9]  Fulvio Castellacci,et al.  The dynamics of national innovation systems: A panel cointegration analysis of the coevolution between innovative capability and absorptive capacity , 2013 .

[10]  T. Gries,et al.  Unsustainable sovereign debt—is the Euro crisis only the tip of the iceberg? , 2013 .

[11]  Federica Rossi,et al.  Finding the Right Partners: Institutional and personal modes of governance of university-industry interactions , 2013 .

[12]  Chun-Yao Tseng,et al.  Patent analysis for technology development of artificial intelligence: A country-level comparative study , 2012 .

[13]  G. D. Stefano,et al.  Technology Push and Demand Pull Perspectives in Innovation Studies: Current Findings and Future Research Directions , 2012 .

[14]  Roger Sørheim,et al.  How governments seek to bridge the financing gap for university spin-offs: proof-of-concept, pre-seed, and seed funding , 2012, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[15]  Ehsan Mohammadi,et al.  Knowledge mapping of the Iranian nanoscience and technology: a text mining approach , 2012, Scientometrics.

[16]  Chih-Hai Yang,et al.  An international comparison of R&D efficiency of multiple innovative outputs: The role of the national innovation system , 2011 .

[17]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Innovation systems as patent networks: The Netherlands, India and nanotech , 2011, 1108.0381.

[18]  Thomas B. Astebro,et al.  Startups by Recent University Graduates and their Faculty - Implications for University Entrepreneurship Policy , 2011 .

[19]  Junichi Nishimura,et al.  R&D productivity and the organization of cluster policy: an empirical evaluation of the Industrial Cluster Project in Japan , 2011 .

[20]  Peder Olesen Larsen,et al.  The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index , 2010, Scientometrics.

[21]  Wen-Cheng Lu,et al.  Malmquist Indices of R&D Productivity Growth in Taiwanese IC-Design Industry , 2010 .

[22]  Lukasz A. Kurgan,et al.  Discovery of factors influencing patent value based on machine learning in patents in the field of nanotechnology , 2009, Scientometrics.

[23]  K. Aiginger.  Strengthening the resilience of an economy , 2009 .

[24]  Lino Briguglio,et al.  Economic Vulnerability and Resilience: Concepts and Measurements , 2009 .

[25]  Hakyeon Lee,et al.  Comparative evaluation of performance of national R&D programs with heterogeneous objectives: A DEA approach , 2009, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[26]  A. Maddison.  Measuring the Economic Performance of Transition Economies: Some Lessons from Chinese Experience , 2009 .

[27]  Sorin M. S. Krammer,et al.  Drivers of national innovation in transition: Evidence from a panel of Eastern European countries , 2009 .

[28]  Raúl García-Heras.  Economic Stability and Sustainable Development in Argentina , 2009 .

[29]  J. Fagerberg,et al.  National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development , 2008 .

[30]  Chih-Kai Chen,et al.  Causal modeling of knowledge‐based economy , 2008 .

[31]  Jeremy L. Hall.  Informing State Economic Development Policy in the New Economy: A Theoretical Foundation and Empirical Examination of State Innovation in the United States , 2007 .

[32]  W. Glänzel,et al.  Patent and Publication Activities of German Professors: An Empirical Assessment of Their Co-Activity , 2007 .

[33]  M. Taylor.  Political decentralization and technological innovation: testing the innovative advantages of decentralized states , 2007 .

[34]  E. Wang,et al.  Relative efficiency of R&D activities: A cross-country study accounting for environmental factors in the DEA approach , 2007 .

[35]  James Bessen.  The Value of U.S. Patents by Owner and Patent Characteristics , 2006 .

[36]  Hao Chen,et al.  Technology clusters: Using multidimensional scaling to evaluate and structure technology clusters , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[37]  Picheng Lee.  The Big Bath Hypothesis: Accruals Management in Response to Dividend Reduction and Omission , 2006 .

[38]  Naubahar Sharif,et al.  Emergence and development of the National Innovation Systems concept , 2006 .

[39]  B. Carlsson.  Internationalization of innovation systems: A survey of the literature ☆ , 2006 .

[40]  J. Solleiro,et al.  Competitiveness and innovation systems: the challenges for Mexico's insertion in the global context , 2005 .

[41]  D. Archibugi,et al.  Measuring technological capabilities at the country level: A survey and a menu for choice , 2005 .

[42]  Yong-Tae Park,et al.  An international comparison of R&D efficiency: DEA approach , 2005 .

[43]  H. Grupp,et al.  Indicators for national science and technology policy: how robust are composite indicators? , 2004 .

[44]  P. Chang,et al.  The innovation systems of Taiwan and China: a comparative analysis , 2004 .

[45]  David J. Teece,et al.  Royalties, evolving patent rights, and the value of innovation , 2004 .

[46]  S. Radosevic.  A TWO-TIER OR MULTI-TIER EUROPE: ASSESSING THE INNOVATION CAPACITIES OF CENTRAL AND EAST EUROPEAN , 2003 .

[47]  R. Kaplan,et al.  Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes , 2003 .

[48]  P. Intarakumnerd,et al.  National innovation system in less successful developing countries: the case of Thailand , 2002 .

[49]  P. Aghion,et al.  Distance to Frontier, Selection, and Economic Growth , 2002 .

[50]  Claire L. Felbinger,et al.  GLOBALIZATION'S IMPACT ONSTATE AND LOCAL POLICY: The Rise of Regional Cluster‐Based Economic Development Strategies1 , 2001 .

[51]  Curba Morris Lampert,et al.  Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions , 2001 .

[52]  Jeffrey L. Furman,et al.  The Determinants of National Innovative Capacity , 2000 .

[53]  U. Schmoch,et al.  Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields , 1998 .

[54]  Mark G. Brown,et al.  RTM Classic: Measuring R&D Productivity , 1998 .

[55]  E. Geisler,et al.  An integrated cost-performance model of research and development evaluation , 1995 .

[56]  A. Basilevsky.  Statistical Factor Analysis and Related Methods: Theory and Applications , 1994 .

[57]  Alexander Basilevsky,et al.  Statistical Factor Analysis and Related Methods , 1994 .

[58]  Z. Griliches.  Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: a Survey , 1990 .

[59]  Raynold A. Svenson,et al.  Measuring R&D Productivity , 1988 .

[60]  C. Freeman.  Technology policy and economic performance : lessons from Japan , 1987 .

[61]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.