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

Conclusion

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen, W. & Levinthal, D. (1989). Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, 99(3), 569–596.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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).

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Narin, F. & Olivastro, D. (1992). Status report: linkage between technology and science. Research Policy, 21, 237–249.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Romer, P. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, S71-S102.

    Article  Google 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.

  24. Tilton, J. (1971). International Diffusion of Technology: The Case of Semiconductors. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institute.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

the author of The Economic Laws of Scientific Research, Macmillan/St Martin’s Press, 1996.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kealey, T., Al-Ubaydli, O. A critique of science and R&D-based models of endogenous growth. Know Techn Pol 13, 37–48 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02693988

Download citation

Keywords

  • Human Capital
  • Endogenous Growth
  • Academic Science
  • Technological Spillover
  • Pure Science