Research output and economic productivity: a Granger causality test


The correlation between GDP and research publications is an important issue in scientometrics. This article provides further empirical evidence connecting revealed comparative advantage in national research with effects on economic productivity. Using quantitative time series analysis, this study attempts to determine the nature of causal relationships between research output and economic productivity. One empirical result is that there is mutual causality between research and economic growth in Asia, whereas in Western countries the causality is much less clear. The results may be of use to underdeveloped nations deciding how to direct their academic investment and industry policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2


  1. Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In B. N. Petrov & F. Csaki (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international symposium on information theory, pp. 267–281.

  2. Archibugi, D., & Coco, A. (2004). A new indicator of technological capabilities for developed and developing countries (ArCo). World Development, 32, 629–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chuang, Y. W., Lee, L. C., Hung, W. C., & Lin, P. H. (2010). Forgoing into the innovation lead—A comparative analysis of scientific capacity. International Journal of Innovation Management, 14(3), 511–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Desai, M., Fukuda-Parr, S., Johansson, C., & Sagasti, F. (2002). Measuring the technology achievement of nations and capacity to participate in the network age. Journal of Human Development, 3(1), 95–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 427–431.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49, 1057–1072.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dodgson, M. (2000). Policies for science, technology, and innovation in Asian newly industrializing economies. In L. Kim & R. Nelson (Eds.), Technology, learning, and innovation: Experiences of newly industrializing economies. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Granger, C. W. J. (1980). Testing for causality: A personal viewpoint. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 2, 329–352.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Granger, C. W. J., & Newbold, P. (1974). Spurious regressions in econometrics. Journal of Econometrics, 2, 111–120.

    MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Green, W. (2003). Econometric analysis (5th ed). Prentic Hall.

  11. Hobday, M. (2000). East versus Southeast Asian Innovation System: Comparing OEM—And TNCled growth in electronics. In L. Kim & R. Nelson (Eds.), Technology, learning, and innovation: Experiences of newly industrializing economies. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hung, W. C., Lee, L. C., & Tsai, M. H. (2009). An international comparison of relative contribution to academic productivity. Scientometrics, 81(3), 703–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kealey, T. (1996). The economic laws of scientific research. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. King, D. A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. What different countries get for their research spending. Nature, 430, 311–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Marsh, I. (1997). Economic governance in industrialising Asia: Structure, comparisons and impact. Sydney: Australian Graduate School of Management Working Paper, pp. 97–017.

  16. Mathew, J. (1996). High technology industrialisation in East Asia. Journal of Industry Studies, 3(2), 1–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Price, D. S. (1978). Toward a model for science indicators. In Y. Elkana, G. J. Lederber, R. K. Merton, A. Thackray, & H. Zuckerman (Eds.), Toward a metric of science: the advent of science indicators (pp. 69–95). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rai, L. P., & Lal, K. (2000). Indicators of the information revolution. Technology in Society, 22, 221–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461–464.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Vinkler, P. (2006). Composite scientometrics indicators for evaluating publications of research institutes. Scientometrics, 68, 629–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Vinkler, P. (2008). Correlation between the structure of scientific research, scientometric indicators and GDP in EU and non-EU countries. Scientometrics, 74, 237–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank the help from Mr. Chu-Tzu-Liang. We also gratefully acknowledge financial support from the National Science Council in Taiwan (NSC 99-2410-H-301-003-).

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ling-Chu Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, LC., Lin, PH., Chuang, YW. et al. Research output and economic productivity: a Granger causality test. Scientometrics 89, 465 (2011).

Download citation


  • Research output
  • Economic productivity
  • Time series analysis
  • Granger causality