Knowledge, Technology & Policy

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 37–48 | Cite as

A critique of science and R&D-based models of endogenous growth

  • Terence Kealey
  • Omar Al-Ubaydli


We have argued against the conventional treatment of science from two directions: firstly, we show that its assumptions about the mechanics of technology transfer are at odds with what occurs in practice. Secondly, the predictions of models based on conventional assumptions receive little support empirically, and are on some occasions contradicted by the data. We believe that the weaknesses we have discussed prompt a re-analysis of science as the workings of invisible colleges. Moreover, we note that there appears, at present, to be no empirical or sound theoretical reason to suppose that, for reasons of economic growth, governments need fund science.


Human Capital Endogenous Growth Academic Science Technological Spillover Pure Science 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ACOST. (1990). Developments in Biotechnology. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  2. Aghion, P., and Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60, 323–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for inventions. In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity edited by R. Nelson. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Braun, T., Glanzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1987). One more version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation output of 107 countries 1978–1980. Scientometrics, 11, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, W. & Levinthal, D. (1989). Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, 99(3), 569–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. David, P. (1991). Computer and dynamo: the modern productivity paradox in a not-too-distant mirror. In Technology and Productivity. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  7. Goeddel, D. & Levinson, A. (2000) Robert A. Swanson. Nature, 403, 264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Griliches, Z. (1986). Productivity, R&D and basic research at the firm level in the 1970s. American Economic Review, 76, 141–151.Google Scholar
  9. Grossman, G. & Helpman, E. (1991). Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hicks, D. & Katz, S. (1997). The Changing Shape of British Industrial Research. Brighton: Sussex University.Google Scholar
  11. Information, Institute of Scientific. (1994). Current Contents, 37(4).Google Scholar
  12. Kealey, T. (1994). The economic laws of research. Science and Technology Policy, 7, 21–27.Google Scholar
  13. Kealey, T. (1996). The Economic Laws of Scientific Research. London: Macmillans.Google Scholar
  14. Mansfield, E. (1980). Basic research and productivity increases in manufacturing. American Economic Review, 70, 863–873.Google Scholar
  15. Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 20, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Narin, F. & Olivastro, D. (1992). Status report: linkage between technology and science. Research Policy, 21, 237–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Odagiri, H. & Murakimi, N. (1992). Private and quasi-social rates of return on pharmaceutical R&D in Japan. Research Policy, 21, 335–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. OECD. (1981). The Measurement of Scientific and Technical Activities. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
  19. Price, D. da S. (1963). Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Price, W. & Bass, L. (1969). Scientific research and the innovative process. Science, 164, 802–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Romer, P. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, S71-S102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rosenberg, N. (1990). Why do firms do research with their own money? Research Policy, 21, 237–249.Google Scholar
  23. Sirilli, G. (1982). The Researcher in Italian Industry, mimeo.Google Scholar
  24. Tilton, J. (1971). International Diffusion of Technology: The Case of Semiconductors. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terence Kealey
    • 1
    • 2
  • Omar Al-Ubaydli
    • 3
  1. 1.Oxford UniversityUK
  2. 2.Buckingham UniversityBuckinghamU.K.
  3. 3.the Department of Clinical BiochemistryUniversity of Cambridge, and a member of Queens’ CollegeCambridge

Personalised recommendations