Comparative Study Of The Role Of Institutions In Shaping Inventive Activity In Mid-Range Emerging Economies

Irina Ervits; Małgorzata Żmuda

doi:10.1515/cer-2016-0031

Autor

Irina Ervits Miami University of Ohio, Cologne Business School
Małgorzata Żmuda Krakow University of Economics, Cologne Business School

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1515/cer-2016-0031

Słowa kluczowe:

innowacje, statystyki patentowe, działalność patentowa, działalność wynalzcza, instytucje, wskaźnik jakości instutycji

Abstrakt

Celem artykułu jest ukazanie znaczenia instytucji w kształtowaniu poziomu narodowej działalności wynalazczej. „Wynalazczość”, jako część składowa procesu innowacji, mierzona liczbą przyznanych patentów, uważana jest za jedną z sił napędzających wzrost gospodarczy. W ujęciu ekonomii instytucji, czynnikiem stymulującym wzrost gospodarczy są sprawne instytucje. Stąd artykuł bada zależność między krajową zdolnością patentową, a jakością krajowych instytucji. W wyniku przeprowadzonej analizy, zaobserwowano wystąpienie efektu „progu działalności wynalazczej“. Efekt ten obrazuje, że w momencie osiągnięcia przez kraj określonego poziomu rozwoju otoczenia instytucjonalnego, w rezultacie poprawy klimatu sprzyjającego powstawaniu innowacji, liczba zgłaszanych wniosków patentowych zaczyna szybko wzrastać. Artykuł wzbogaca międzynarodowy dorobek naukowy, potwierdzając znaczenie fundamentalnych instytucji, jak rządy prawa i wolność wypowiedzi, w stymulowaniu krajowej innowacyjności. Ukazano, że kraje na średnim poziomie rozwoju, w tym gospodarki Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, w których jakość instytucji nadal nie osiągnęła poziomu krajów najwyżej rozwiniętych, nie przekroczyły jeszcze „progu działalności wynalazczej”. Jednak w tych spośród państw regionu, które jako pierwsze przystąpiły do Unii Europejskiej, w wyniku harmonizacji otoczenia instytucjonalnego, nastąpiła intensyfikacja działalności patentowej.

Pobrania

Brak dostępnych danych do wyświetlenia.

Bibliografia

Abramovitz M. (1956), Resource and output trends in the United States since 1870, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Google Scholar

Acemoglu D., Johnson S., and Robinson J.A. (2001), The colonial origins of comparative development: an empirical investigation, ‘American Economic Review’, no. 91.
Google Scholar

Acemoglu D., Johnson S., Robinson J.A., and Yared, P. (2008), Income and democracy, ‘American Economic Review’, no. 98(3).
Google Scholar

Ahlstrom D., and Bruton G.D. (2010), Rapid institutional shifts and the co-evolution of entrepreneurial firms in transition economies, ‘Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice’, no. 34(3).
Google Scholar

Amsden A. (1985), The State and Taiwan’s economic development, [in:] Evans P. B., Rueschemeyer D. and Skocpol T. (eds.) Brining the state back in, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Google Scholar

Amsden A. (1989), Asia’s next giant, Oxford University Press, New York.
Google Scholar

Barro R.J. (1996), Determinants of economic growth: A cross-country empirical study, Working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA, no. 5698.
Google Scholar

Breznitz D. (2007), Innovation and the state: Political choice and strategies for growth in Israel, Taiwan, and Ireland,Yale University Press, New Haven.
Google Scholar

Carlsson B. (2006), Internationalization of innovation systems: A survey of the literature, ‘Research Policy’, no. 35.
Google Scholar

Chong A., and Calderon C. (2000), Causality and feedback between institutional measures and economic growth, ‘Economics and Politics’, no. 12.
Google Scholar

Cieslik J., and Kaciak E. (2009), The speed of internationalization of entrepreneurial start-ups in a transition environment, ‘Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship’, no. 14(4).
Google Scholar

Comanor W.S., and Scherer F. (1969), Patent statistics as a measure of technical change, ‘Journal of Political Economy’, no. 77(3).
Google Scholar

Cumingsn B. (1999), Webs with no spiders, spiders with no webs: The genealogy of the developmental state, [in:] Woo-Gumings M. (ed.) The developmental state, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London.
Google Scholar

Cvetanovic S., and Sredojevic D. (2012), The concept of national innovation system and economy's competitiveness, ‘Economic Themes’, no. 50(2).
Google Scholar

Davis L. (2010), Institutional flexibility and economic growth, ‘Journal of Comparative Economics’, no. 38(3).
Google Scholar

Descotes M.R., Walliser B., and Guo X. (2007), Capturing the relevant institutional profile for exporting SMEs: empirical evidence from France and Romania, ‘International Management Review’, no. 3(3).
Google Scholar

Dolinšek S., and Poglajen M. (2009), Research to innovation models in Central Europe, PICMET Proceedings 2009, August 2–6, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Google Scholar

Dosi G., Pavitt K., and Soete L. (1990), The Economics of technical change and international trade. Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Saint Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa.
Google Scholar

Easterly W., and Levine R. (1997), Africa's growth tragedy: policies and ethnic divisions, ‘Quarterly Journal of Economics’, no. 112(4).
Google Scholar

Engerman S.L., and Sokoloff K.L. (1997), Factor endowments, institutions and different paths of growth among new world economies: a view from economic historians of the United Stated, [in:] Haber S. (ed.) How Latin America fell behind, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Google Scholar

Evans P. (1992), The state as problem and solution: Predation, embedded autonomy, and structural change, [in:] Haggard S. and Kaufman R. (eds.) The politics of economic adjustment. International constraints, distributive conflicts, and the state, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Google Scholar

Evans P. (1995), Embedded autonomy: States and industrial transformation, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Google Scholar

European Commission (2015), Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015, Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT), Belgium.
Google Scholar

Fields Karl J. (1995), Enterprise and the state in Korea and Taiwan, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y., USA.
Google Scholar

Freeman C. (1995), The national system of innovation in historical perspective, ‘Cambridge Journal of Economics’, no. 19.
Google Scholar

Glaeser E.L., La Porta R., Lopez-de-Silanes F., and Shleifer A. (2004), Do institutions cause growth? ‘Journal of Economic Growth’, no. 9(3).
Google Scholar

Gradstein M. (2003), Governance and economic growth, ‘World Bank Policy Research’, Working Paper, the World Bank, Washington, DC, no. 3098
Google Scholar

Griliches Z. (1990), Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey, ‘Journal of Economic Literature’, no. 28(4).
Google Scholar

Hall R.E., and Jones C.I. (1999), Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others? ‘The Quarterly Journal of Economics’, no. 114 (1).
Google Scholar

Hoskisson R. E., Wright M., Filatotchev I., and Peng, M. W. (2013), Emerging multinationals from mid-range economies: The influence of institutions and factor markets, ‘Journal of Management Studies’, no. 50(7).
Google Scholar

Huang H., and Xu C. (1999), Institutions, innovations, and growth, ‘American Economic Review’, no. 89(2).
Google Scholar

Jaffe A.B., and Trajtenberg M. (2002), Patents, citations, and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy, MIT Press, Boston.
Google Scholar

Johnson C. (1982), MITI and the Japanese miracle: The growth of industrial policy, 1925–1975, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Google Scholar

Kaufmann Kraay and Mastruzzi. (2010), The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and analytical issues, ‘World Bank Policy Research’, Working Paper, The World Bank, Washington, DC, no. 5430. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1682130. Accessed on January 2, 2015.
Google Scholar

Kendrick J. (1956), Productivity trends: Capital and labor, National Bureau of Economic Research, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Google Scholar

King J.L., Gurbaxani V., Kraemer K.L., McFarlan F.W., Raman K.S., and Yap C.S. (1994), Institutional factors in information technology innovation, ‘Information Systems Research’, no. 5(2).
Google Scholar

Knack S., and Keefer P. (1995), Institutions and economic performance: Cross-country tests using alternative institutional indicators, ‘Economics and Politics’, no. 7(3).
Google Scholar

Kuznets S. (1962), Inventive activity: Problems of definition and measurement, [in:] National Bureau of Economic Research (ed.) The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Google Scholar

Lamoreaux N., and Sokoloff K. (1996), Long-term change in the organization of inventive activity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, Washington DC, no. 93.
Google Scholar

Lu Y., Tsang E.W.K., and Peng M.W. (2008), Knowledge management and innovation strategy in the Asia Pacific: Toward an institution-based view, ‘Asia Pacific Journal of Management’, no. 25(3).
Google Scholar

Mauro P. (1995), Corruption and growth, ‘The Quarterly Journal of Economics’, no. 110 (3).
Google Scholar

Metcalfe S. (1997), Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework, [in:] Archibugi D., Michie J. (eds.) Technology, Globalisation and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 268–296.
Google Scholar

Mueller D.C. (1966), Patents, research and development, and the measurement of inventive activity, ‘Journal of Industrial Economics’, no. 15(1).
Google Scholar

Nelson R. (1993), National innovation systems: A comparative analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Google Scholar

North D. (1990), Institutions, institutional change and economic performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Google Scholar

North D. (1991), Institutions, ‘The Journal of Economic Perspectives’, no. 5(1).
Google Scholar

North D., and Thomas R. (1973), The rise of the Western world: A New Economic History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Google Scholar

Pavitt K., and Soete L. (1980), Innovative activities and export shares: Some comparisons between industries and countries, [in:] Pavitt K. (ed.) Technical innovation and British economic performance, Macmillan, London.
Google Scholar

Polanyi K. (1944), The great transformation, Rinehart, New York.
Google Scholar

Porter M.E. (1990), The competitive advantage of nations, Free Press, New York.
Google Scholar

Przeworski A. (2004), Institutions matter? ‘Government and Opposition’, no. 39(2).
Google Scholar

Rodrik D., Subramanian A., and Trebbi F. (2004), Institutions rule: The primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development, ‘Journal of Economic Growth’, no. 9(2).
Google Scholar

Rosenberg N., and Birdzell L.E. (1987), How the West grew rich: The economic transformation of the industrial world, Basic Books, New York.
Google Scholar

Rueschemeyer D., and Evans P.B. (1985), The State and economic transformation: Toward an analysis of the conditions underlying effective intervention, [in:] Evans P. B., Rueschemeyer D., and Skocpol T. (eds.) Brining the state back in, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Google Scholar

Sala-i-Martin X. (2002), 15 years of new growth economics: What have we learnt? ‘UPF Economics and Business’, Working Paper, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, no. 620. http://ssrn.com/abstract=320765. Accessed on March 3, 2015.
Google Scholar

Sára Z., Csedő Z., Fejes J., Tóth T., Pörzse G. (2013), Innovation management in Central and Eastern Europe: Technology perspectives and EU policy implications, ‘Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development’, no. 4(4).
Google Scholar

Scherer F.M. (1992), Competing for comparative advantage through technological innovation, ‘Business and the Contemporary World’, no. 4.
Google Scholar

Schmookler J. (1966), Invention and economic growth, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Google Scholar

Schmookler J., and Brownlee O. (1962), Determinants of inventive activity, ‘American Economic Review’, no. 52(2).
Google Scholar

Schumpeter J. (1952), Capitalism, socialism and democracy, Unwin University Books, London.
Google Scholar

Shirokova G., and McDougall-Covin P. (2012), The role of social networks and institutions in the internationalization of Russian entrepreneurial firms: Do they matter? ‘Journal of International Entrepreneurship’, no. 10 (3).
Google Scholar

Shirokova G.V., and Tsukanova T.V. (2012), The influence of institutional environment on the degree of SMEs internationalization from transition, ‘Vestnik of Saint Petersburg State University’, Management series, Saint Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg, no. 1.
Google Scholar

Solow R. (1957), Technical change and the aggregate production function, ‘Review of Economics and Statistics’, no. 39(3).
Google Scholar

Sood J., and DuBois F. (1995), The use of patent statistics to measure and predict international competitiveness, ‘International Trade Journal’, no. 9(3).
Google Scholar

Sung T.K., Carlsson B. (2003), The evolution of a technological system: the case of CNC machine tools in Korea, ‘Journal of Evolutionary Economics’, no. 13 (4).
Google Scholar

Sweet S.A., and Grace-Martin K. (2008), Data analysis with SPSS, Pearson, Boston.
Google Scholar

Taylor M.Z. (2009), International linkages and national innovation rates: an exploratory probe, ‘Review of Policy Research’, no. 26(1–2).
Google Scholar

Tebaldi E., and Elmslie B. (2013), Does institutional quality impact innovation? Evidence from cross-country patent grant data, ‘Applied Economics’, no. 45(7).
Google Scholar

The World Bank. Distance to Frontier and Ease of Doing Business ranking, Doing Business (2015), The World Bank, Washington, DC. http://www.doingbusiness.org. Accessed on January 10, 2015.
Google Scholar

van Waarden F. (2001), Institutions and innovation: The legal environment of innovating firms, ‘Organization Studies’, no. 22 (5).
Google Scholar

Weber M. (1946), Politics as a vocation, [in:] H.H.Gerth and C. Wright Mills (eds.) Essays in sociology, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Google Scholar

Woo-Cumings M. (1999), Introduction: Chalmers Johnson and the politics of nationalism and development, [in:] Woo-Gumings M. (ed.) The developmental state, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London.
Google Scholar

Yamakawa Y., Peng M.W., and Deeds D. L. (2008), What drives new ventures to internationalize from emerging to developed economies? ‘Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice’, no. 32(1).
Google Scholar

Zhu Y., Wittmann X., and Peng M., 2012. Institution-based barriers to innovation in SMEs in China, ‘Asia Pacific Journal of Management’, no. 29(4).
Google Scholar