From Academic Publications and Patents to the Technological Development of the Economy: Short and Long Run Causalities

Marta Orviská, Ján Huňady, Peter Pisár, John Hudson

Abstract


Purpose: The paper examines the potential effects of academic publications on patenting and the share of high technology exports. We test the short-run and the long-run causalities among high technology exports, the number of academic publications and the number of patents in three separate models.

Methodology/Approach: Our sample consists of panel data for 61 countries and 20 years. The panel Granger causality and vector error correction model have been used in order to capture the short-run causalities. Furthermore, panel cointegration regressions have been applied to test for long-run causalities.

Findings: Our results strongly suggest that there is a positive long-run effect of academic publications on both patenting and the share of high technology exports. This suggests that the outcomes of basic science in the form publications strongly support technological development, and thus emphasises the importance of basic research. In addition the effect of patents on high technology exports is mostly insignificant when controlling for academic publications and GDP.

Research Limitation/implication: First, the variables used in the analysis are only proxies. The scope of the data has been significantly limited by the data availability. This leads also to limited the number of control variables.

Originality/Value of paper: There are still only a very limited number of studies testing the effect of academic outcomes on the technological development of the economy. Our research brings new empirical insights into this problem.


Keywords


academic research; academic publication; patent; technological development; high-technology exports

Full Text:

PDF

References


Anselin, L., Varga, A. and Acs, Z., 1997. Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. Journal of urban economics, 42(3), pp.422-448. https://doi.org/10.1006/juec.1997.2032.

Artz, K.W., Norman, P.M., Hatfield, D.E. and Cardinal, L.B., 2010. A longitudinal study of the impact of R&D, patents, and product innovation on firm performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(5), pp.725-740. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00747.x.

Asheim, B. and Gertler, M., 2005. The geography of innovation‘. In: J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery and R. Nelson, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.291-317.

Bercovitz, J. and Feldman, M., 2006. Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), pp.175-188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-005-5029-z.

Breitung, J., 2000. The local power of some unit root tests for panel data. In: B.H. Baltagi, eds. Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration, and Dynamic Panels - vol. 15. Amsterdam: Elsevier. pp.161-177.

Breschi, S., Lissoni, F. and Montobbio, F. 2005. From publishing to patenting: Do productive scientists turn into academic inventors?. Revue d'économie industrielle, 110(1), pp.75-102. https://doi.org/10.3406/rei.2005.3073.

Carayol, N. and Matt, M., 2004. Does research organization influence academic production?: Laboratory level evidence from a large European university. Research Policy, 33(8), pp.1081-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol. 2004.03.004.

Castellacci, F. and Natera, J.M., 2013. The dynamics of national innovation systems: A panel cointegration analysis of the coevolution between innovative capability and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 42(3), pp.579-594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.10.006.

Chatterton P. and Goddard, J., 2000. The response of higher education institutions to regional needs. European Journal of Education, 35(4), pp.475-496.

Chesbrough, H.W., 2006. Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Choi, I., 2001. Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(2), pp.249-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5606(00)00048-6.

Czarnitzki, D., Glänzel, W. and Hussinger, K., 2007. Patent and publication activities of German professors: An empirical assessment of their co-activity. Research Evaluation, 16(4), pp.311-319. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820207X254439.

Czarnitzki, D., Hussinger, K. and Schneider, C., 2012. The nexus between science and industry: evidence from faculty inventions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(5), pp.755-776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-011-9214-y.

Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L., 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), pp.109-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4.

Freeman, C., 1987. Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.

Gunasekara, C., 2006. Reframing the role of universities in the development of regional innovation systems. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), pp.101-113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-005-5016-4.

Herrera, L., Muñoz-Doyague, M.F. and Nieto, M., 2010. Mobility of public researchers, scientific knowledge transfer, and the firm’s innovation process. Journal of Business Research, 63(5), pp.510-518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.04.010.

Hudson, J. and Minnea, A., 2013. Innovation, intellectual property rights, and economic development: A unified empirical investigation. World Development, 46, pp.66-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.023.

Im, K.S., Pesaran, M.H. and Shin, Y., 2003. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), pp. 53-74.

Jaffe, A.B., 1989. Real effects of academic research. American Economic. Review, 79(5), pp.957-970.

Kao, C. and Chiang, M.H., 2000. On the estimation and inference of cointegrated regression in panel data. Advances in. Econometrics, 15, pp.179-222.

Kao, C., 1999. Spurious regression and residual based Tests for cointegration in panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 90(1), pp.1-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00023-2.

Lebeau, L.M., Laframboise, M.C., Larivière, V. and Gingras, Y., 2008. The effect of university–industry collaboration on the scientific impact of publications: the Canadian case, 1980 -2005. Research Evaluation, 17(3), pp.227-232. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820208X331685.

Levin, A., Lin, C.F. and Chu, C.S.J., 2002. Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), pp.1-22.

Lundvall, B-Å., 1992. National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter.

Maddala, G.S. and Wu, S., 1999. A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 61(S1), pp.631-652. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1631.

Maglio, P.P., Srinivasan, S., Kreulen, J.T. and Spohrer, J., 2006. Service systems, service scientists, SSME, and innovation. Communications of the ACM, 49(7), pp.81-85.

McMillan, G.S., Mauri, A. and Casey, D.L., 2014. The scientific openness decision model: “Gaming” the technological and scientific outcomes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 86, pp.132-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.021.

Minguillo, D. and Thelwall, M., 2015. Research excellence and university–industry collaboration in UK science parks. Research Evaluation, 24(2), pp.181-96. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu032.

Montobbio, F. and Rampa, F., 2005. The impact of technology and structural change on export performance in nine developing countries. World Development, 33(4), pp.527-547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.01.001.

Mowery, D.C. and Sampat, B.N., 2004. Universities in National Innovation Systems. In: J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery and R.N. Nelson, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.209-239. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.001.0001.

Nelson, R.R., 1993. National Innovation Systems: a Comparative Study. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nguyen, T.V. and Pham, L.T., 2011. Scientific output and its relationship to knowledge economy: an analysis of ASEAN countries. Scientometrics, 89(1), pp.107-117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0446-2.

Pedroni, P., 2000. Fully modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels. Advances in Econometrics, 15, pp.93-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0731-9053(00)15004-2.

Pedroni, P., 2001. Purchasing power parity tests in cointegrated panels. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83, pp.727-31. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465301753237803.

Pedroni, P., 2004. Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econometric theory, 20(3), pp.597-625. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266466604203073.

Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., ... and Krabel, S., 2013. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), pp.423-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007.

Phillips, P.C.B. and Moon, H.R., 1999. Linear regression limit theory for nonstationary panel data. Econometrica, 67, pp.1057-1111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00070.

Soh, P.H. and Subramanian, A.M., 2014. When do firms benefit from university–industry R&D collaborations? The implications of firm R&D focus on scientific research and technological recombination. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(6), pp.807-821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.11.001.

Solow, R., 1957. Technical change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economics and. Statistics, 39, pp. 312-320.

Stankevice, I. and Jucevicius, G., 2013. Institutional vs. sectoral dimension of innovation strategies of firms. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 19(sup1), pp.360-382. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2013.879752.

Stephan, P.E., Gurmu, S., Sumell, A.J. and Black, G., 2007. Who’s patenting in the university? Evidence from the survey of doctorate recipients. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(2), pp.71-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590600982806.

Tether, B.S., 2002. Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 31(6), pp.947-967.

Thomas, V.J., Sharma, S. and Jain, S.K., 2011. Using patents and publications to assess R&D efficiency in the states of the USA. World Patent Information, 33(1), pp.4-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00172-X.

Veugelers, R., Callaert, J., Song, X. and Van Looy, B., 2012. The participation of universities in technology development: do creation and use coincide? An empirical investigation on the level of national innovation systems. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 21(5-6), pp.445-472. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2012.656527.

Zachariadis, M., 2003. R&D Innovation and technological progress: A test of the Schumpeterian framework without scale effects. Canadian Journal of Economics, 36(3), pp.566-586. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5982.t01-2-00003.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12776/qip.v23i1.1166

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2019 Marta Orviská, Ján Huňady, Peter Pisár

ISSN 1335-1745 (print)
ISSN 1338-984X (online)
CCBY crossref cope
Covered, abstracted, indexed in:
 
Clarivate Analytics Emerging Sources Citation Index; Scopus; Google Scholar; IDEAS; EconPapers; RePEc; Cabells' Directories; Google Scholar