1 / 24

Innovation, Technology and Productivity

Innovation, Technology and Productivity. Luc Soete University of Maastricht

kentaro
Download Presentation

Innovation, Technology and Productivity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Innovation, Technology and Productivity Luc Soete University of Maastricht “The Network Society and the Knowledge Economy: Portugal in the global context”, A Seminar promoted by His Excellency the President of the Portuguese Republic, Dr. Jorge Sampaio, March 4th and 5th, 2005, Lisbon, Centro Cultural de Belém.

  2. Outline • US-EU growth and productivity gap • Follow-up on Jorgenson paper • Relationship with ICT investment (see e.g. EIU-report) complex and unclear • Focus on knowledge investments • US-EU investment gap at the centre of Lisbon and… • Poor EU growth performance (Sapir, Kok) • Policy proposal: “Activating knowledge”

  3. 1. Productivity Growth and the Network Society • Growth Accounting • Assumptions: • Homogeneous Production Function • Competitive Markets (output and input) • Optimizing firm behaviour • Contribution of each factor of input to output growth and productivity growth • Per Sector: contribution of ICT sector to macro (productivity) growth • Remainder (residual): Total Factor Productivity

  4. Spillovers? • Growth accounting -> just direct effects • Investment in and use of ICT -> network effects • Direct: increase of the value of the network due to increased number of users • Indirect or virtual: market mediated effect • Network externalities • Likelihood of important time lags: importance of organisational structural changes • If network effects exist, they are captured by TFP (the residual) in the traditional accounting framework • Quid about other network effects more associated with notion of network society?

  5. ICT network effects?

  6. Adding network effects to growth accounting Traditional: New:

  7. Results (Meijers 2004) • ICT is clearly different from other capital • Software shows additional contribution of about 8 and 11% • Telcom between 0 and 6% • Hardware shows negative contribution between 0 and -6% • In total roughly half to equal to the direct effect • Considerable time lags involved

  8. Network society effects?

  9. ICT use and culture • On the horizontal axis, a principal component measure of 13 different aspects of leisure activities is plotted (a principal of culture indicates the differences/closeness of cultural indicators, from left to right does not mean better, it just indicates that countries are different in a cultural sense) • On the vertical axis the Info-state as measured by George Sciadas(2003 Ed.) http://www.orbicom.uqam.ca/index_en.html. • Need for further investigation, just a start

  10. 2. Knowledge investments “It’s growth stupid” • Lisbon anno 2004: lack of internal growth dynamics in Europe since Lisbon striking • macro-economic sound policies but… • little growth incentives with respect to enhancing structural reform • holds for common agricultural policy, regional social cohesion policy but also RTD support policies • Without growth enhancing policies, the “non-active” nature of knowledge activities is exacerbated: • emigration of S&E • outsourcing of private knowledge activities • Remember: the EU has 70,000 PhDs a year, the US 40,000

  11. An emerging knowledge gap • From a long term perspective: lagging behind in private R&D in post-war Europe, but 60’s till 90-’s characterized by catching up • EU-US Business Enterprise R&D gap has suddenly grown rapidly over 90’s, declined since 2000 because of reduction in US BERD • Gap most significant in ICT sectors and life sciences; in traditional sectors, gap non-existent • Gap also in government funding, foreign funding biased in favour of EU because of inclusion of intra-European R&D flows

  12. US-EU BERD gap by sector

  13. Diagnosis • Fragmented RD in the 70’s across the various EU countries, strongly linked to national champions efforts • Emerging specialisation across the EU of business RD during 80’s/90’s. Impact of 1992 Single Market on rationalisation of R&D of large MNC’s • “Attraction” of US in the late 90’s a new phenomenon: concentration of R&D worldwide. • Efficiency of outside links of R&D activities as important as internal one’s. Hence interest of firms to locate their R&D labs in best local conditions • Emerging interest in Asia: outsourcing of certain R&D activities (Manuel Godinho’s paper) • Reduction in BERD in the US reducing the gap, importance in Europe of foreign EU spending, likely to grow further with off-shoring to new member countries

  14. 3. “Activating” policies • “Activating” labour market policies in the 80’s and 90’s as a general, now broadly accepted policy framework (Luxembourg process) • Today need for “activating knowledge” policies: • Recognition of existing strengths, of unused or unexploited knowledge which needs to be activated (“Backing winners”, key areas, selection of excellence) • Covers full spectrum of knowledge creation and use • Includes both public sector and private sector • Chimney growth effects: • importance of linkages: getting a virtuous growth circle off the ground

  15. A systemic policy view • Need to link supply (functioning higher education, public and private research) and demand elements (functioning of markets, consumers preferences, clustering effects) with respect to the knowledge economy • Focus on “systemic” aspects of the knowledge system: link to the external environment, upstream and downstream linkages, institutional set-up (national, regional, European), availability and use of ICT infrastructure • Complexity of policy conclusions: policies shifting from specific issues towards more “systemic” aspects: from best to worse practice?

  16. Knowledge system • Four concepts emerge as particularly relevant for a country’s international competitiveness and virtuous growth cycle of its knowledge system : • renewal and sustainability of its social and human capital • quality and performance of public research institutions • technological and organisational innovative performance and renewal of its firms • absorptive capacity of local firms and citizens, closely linked to ICT use • Linkages between these concepts is ultimately what matters for a virtuous growth cycle

  17. SOCIAL & HUMAN CAPITAL A virtuous cycle ABSORTION CAPACITY (incl ICT use) RESEARCH CAPACITY TECH. & INNOVAT. PERFORMANCE

  18. SOCIAL & HUMAN CAPITAL RESEARCH CAPACITY ABSORPTION CAPACITY TECH. & INNOVAT. PERFORMANCE

  19. Diagnosis • Supply side part (left side of the previous picture) contrasts sharply with the demand side (right side of the picture) • At the EU level a virtuous growth cycle did not take off • History of emergence of Europe’s knowledge/innovation system very much one of individual member countries: • Sweden, Finland at one extreme • Italy, Portugal, Greece at the other extreme • Catching up Ireland, new member countries

  20. Innovation Scoreboard

  21. Diagnosis (ctd) • EU’s S&E human capital potential underexploited: • Little intersectoral mobility between public and private S&E • Little international mobility: • Low immigration levels of S&E except for the UK • High emigration levels in those countries with low levels of private BERD • Phenomenon of “Dutch knowledge disease”: a dual phenomenon of “crowding out” • Crowding out of fundamental research in private sector • Crowding out of applied research in public sector • European (global) knowledge specialisation in private sector • National oriented improvements in quality in public sector. • Growing national and European mismatch between private and public research activities despite EU funds and programmes for networking

  22. Conclusions • Need for a policy of “activating” knowledge addressing: • At human capital level (“activate” unused potential of S&E, PhDs, etc.) • At research level (“activate” budget using the public 1% Barcelona target) • At private R&D and innovation level • At entrepreneurial, financial and technology transfer level • Essence of the activation policy challenge: crowding in • of fundamental research, of SMEs, in private research, notion of “open” innovation • of private research within university walls, notion of entrepreneurial excellence • of intersectoral mobility: scientific entrepreneurship in universities and professional schools

More Related