Advertisement

Innovation, Institutions, Space

Two Research Traditions in National Systems of Innovation
  • Michel Bellet
  • Nadine Massard
  • Philippe Solal
Part of the Economics of Science, Technology and Innovation book series (ESTI, volume 25)

Abstract

The concept of a national system of innovation (NSI) was resuscitated by several authors in Dosi et al. (1988) and followed by several specific works (Lundvall 1992; Nelson 1993). This concept endeavored to explain economic evolution, taking into account the increasingly prominent role of innovation, by interweaving the themes of industrial and spatial organization as well as institutions. Despite recent developments (Edquist 1997), two characteristics warrant mention. First, the origin of the notion has not been made clear: the majority of authors all recognize List 1909 but without paying complete attention to his ideas. In addition, the concept continues to raise questions about “the not unproblematic concept of a national innovation system itself” (Nelson 2000: 13).

Keywords

Innovation System Productive Force National System National Innovation System French Model 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amable, B., R. Barré, and R. Boyer. (1997). Les systèmes d’innovation à l’ère de la globalisation. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, E. S., and B.-A. Lundvall. (1994). “Innovation Systems and Economic Evolution: A Division-of-Labour Approach.” Paper presented at the EUNETIC Conference on Evolutionary Economics of Technological Change, Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  3. Andersen, E. S., and M. Teubal. (1999). “The Transformation of Innovation Systems: Towards a Policy Perspective.” Paper presented at the DRUID Conference on National Innovation Systems, Industrial Dynamics and Innovation Policy, Rebild, Denmark.Google Scholar
  4. Autant-Bernard, C. (2000). “Géographie de l’innovation et extemalités locales de connaissances. Une étude sur données françaises” Ph.D. dissertation, University Jean Monnet St-Étienne.Google Scholar
  5. Autant-Bernard, C., and N. Massard. (1999). “Économétrie des extemalités technologiques locales et géographie de l’innovation: une analyse critique.” Économie Appliquée 4: 35–68.Google Scholar
  6. Barré, R. (1996). “Relations entre les stratégies technologiques des entreprises multinationales et les systèmes nationaux d’innovations: modèle et analyse empirique.” In Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Innovation, brevets et stratégies technologiques. Paris:OECD.Google Scholar
  7. Barré, R., and P. Papon. (1993). Économie politique de la science et de la technologie. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
  8. Bellet, M., and N. Massard. (1996). “Technology Policies: Foundations and Rationale of Their Territorialization.” Paper presented at the European Regional Science Association, Thirty-sixth European Congress, Zurich, Switzerland, August.Google Scholar
  9. Branstetter, L. (1996). “Are Knowledge Spillovers International or Intranational in Scope? Microeconometric Evidence from the U.S. and Japan.” NBER Working Paper 5800, October.Google Scholar
  10. Brocard, M. (1991). La science et les régions. Géoscopie de la France. Paris: Reclus, La Documentation Française.Google Scholar
  11. Carey, H. C. (1963). Principles of Social Science, (3 vols.) 1858–1859. New York: Kelley.Google Scholar
  12. Chesnais, F. (1993). “The French National System of Innovation.” In R. Nelson, ed., National Innovation Systems. A Comparative Analysis: New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Commissariat Général du Plan (CGP). (1999). Recherche et innovation: La France dans la compétition mondiale. Paris: La Documentation Française.Google Scholar
  14. Debresson, C., ed. (1996). Economic Interdependence and Innovative Activity. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar.Google Scholar
  15. De la Mothe, J., and G. Paquet. (2000). “National Innovation Systems and Instituted Processes.” In Z. J. Acs, ed., Regional Innovation, Knowledge and Global Change. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  16. Dopfer, K. (1994). “The Phenomenon of Economic Change: Neoclassical vs. Schumpeterian Approaches.” In L. Magnusson, ed., Evolutionary and Neo-Schumpeterian Approaches to Economics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  17. Dosi, G., C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, and L. Soete. (1988). Technical Change and Economic Theory. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  18. Edquist, C., ed. (1997). Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  19. Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. (2000). “The Dynamics of Innovations. From National Systems and `Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations.” Research Policy 29: 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. European Commission (EC). (1996). Green Paper on Innovation. Luxembourg: EC.Google Scholar
  21. Fagerberg, J. (2000). “Europe at the Crossroads: The Challenge from Innovation-Based Growth.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Technological Policy and Innovation, Paris, November.Google Scholar
  22. Feldman, M. P. (1999). “The New Economics of Innovation, Spillovers and Agglomeration: A Review of Empirical Studies.” Economics of Innovation and New Technology 8: 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Foray, D. (2000). “On the French System of Innovation: Between Institutional Inertia and Rapid Changes.” Paper presented at the Workshop on Innovation Paradigm: The Impact of Economic Ideas on RTD Policies, 4S/EASST Conference 2000, Vienna, September.Google Scholar
  24. Freeman, C. (1987). Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  25. Freeman, C. (1995). “The National Innovation Systems in Historical Perspective.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 19(1):.Google Scholar
  26. Gomez, L. (1987). Foreign Trade and the National Economy: Mercantilist and Classical Perspectives. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  27. Grossetti, M. (1996). Science, industrie et territoire. Toulouse: Presse Universitaire du Mirail.Google Scholar
  28. Hamilton, A. (1934). “Report on Manufactures.” 1787. In S. MacKee, Jr., ed., Papers on Public Credit,Commerce and Finance. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hamilton, A., J. Jay, and J. Madison. (1957). The Federalist Papers. 1788. French translation Le fédéraliste. Paris: Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence.Google Scholar
  30. Kaldor, N. (1981). “The Role of Increasing Returns, Technical Progress and Cumulative Causation in the Theory of International Trade and Economic Growth.” Économie Appliquée 34 (4). Reprinted in F. Targetti and A. P. Thirlwall, eds. (1989). The Essential Kaldor (pp.327 — 350. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  31. Kaplan, A. D. H. (1931). “Henry Charles Carey. A Study in American Economic Thought.” Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science 49: 9–93.Google Scholar
  32. Katz, J. S. (1994). “Geographical Proximity and Scientific Collaboration.” Scientometrics 31(1): 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Laredo, P., and M. Callon. (1990). L’impact des programmes communautaires sur le tissu scientifique et technique français. Paris: La Documentation Française.Google Scholar
  34. Lefebvre, G., and B. Madeuf. (1999). “Firmes, territoires et réseaux. La globalisation de la recherche industrielle face aux systèmes nationaux d’innovation.” Sciences de la Société 48: 91–109.Google Scholar
  35. List, F.(1837).Le monde marche.Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  36. List, F. (1909). The National System of Political Economy. 1841. New York: Longmans, Green.Google Scholar
  37. Lundvall, B.-A., ed. (1992). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  38. Lundvall, B.-A. (1997). “National Systems and National Styles of Innovation.” Paper presented at the Fourth International ASEAT Conference, Manchester.Google Scholar
  39. Mailfert, A. (1991). Recherche et Territoire. Paris: La Documentation Française.Google Scholar
  40. Massard, N. (1996). Territoires et politiques technologiques: comparaisons régionales. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  41. Masser, I. (1996). “Hasard ou intention: réflexions a propos de quelques expériences de développement local par la technologie.” In N. Massard, ed., Territoires et politiques technologiques: comparaisons régionales (pp. 221–232). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  42. Maurseth, P. B., and B. Verspagen. (1998). “Knowledge Spillovers in Europe and its Consequences for Systems of Innovation.” ECIS Working Paper, Eidhoven University of Technology.Google Scholar
  43. Melin, G., and O. Persson. (1996). “Studying Research Collaboration Using Co-authorships.” Scientometrics 36(3): 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Midelfart-Knarvik, K. H., H. G Overman, S. J. Redding, and A. J. Venables. (2000). The Location of European Industry. Report prepared for the European Commission, CEPR.Google Scholar
  45. Mohnen, P. (1998). “International R/D Spillovers and Economic Growth.” Paper presented at the UNU Project Meeting on Information Technology and Economic Development, June 12–13.Google Scholar
  46. Mowery, D. C. (1998). “The Changing Structure of the U.S. National Innovation System: Implications for International Conflict and Cooperation in R&D Policy.” Research Policy 27 (6): 639–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mustar, P. (1994). “La politique d’innovation en France: le colbertisme entamé.” In F. Sachwald, ed., Les défis de la mondialisation. Innovation et concurrence. Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
  48. Nelson, R. R., ed. (1993). National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Nelson, R. R. (2000). “National Innovation Systems.” In Z. J. Acs, ed., Regional Innovation,Knowledge and Global Change (chapter 2). London and New York: Pinter.Google Scholar
  50. Notz, W. (1926). “Frederick List in America” American Economic Review 16(2).Google Scholar
  51. Oechssler, J. (1997). “Decentralization and the Coordination Problem.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 32: 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (1992). La technologie et l’économie. Les relations déterminantes. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  53. Patel, P., and K. Pavitt. (2000). “Les systèmes nationaux d’innovation sous tension: l’internationalisation de la R&D des firmes.” In M. Delapierre, P. Moati, and E. M. Mouhoud, eds., Connaissance et mondialisation. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  54. Pavitt, K. (1984). “Patterns of Technical Change: Toward a Taxonomy and a Theory.” Research Policy 13(3): 343–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Salomon, J. J. (1991). Le gaulois, le cow-boy et le samouraï la politique française de la technologie. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  56. Schumpeter, J. A. (1954). History of Economic Analysis. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  57. Sherwood, S. (1897). “Tendencies in American Economic Thought.” Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science 12: 7–42.Google Scholar
  58. Solal, P. (1997). “Système national d’innovation, division du travail et territoire: un retour à F. List et H. C. Carey.” Revue d’Économie Régionale et Urbaine 4: 545–564.Google Scholar
  59. Science and Technology Observatory (STO). (2000). Science and Technology Indicators 2000. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  60. Tjissen, R., and E. Van Wijk. (1999). “In Search of the European Paradox: An International Comparison of Europe’s Scientific Performance and Knowledge Flows in Information and Communication Technologies Research.” Research Policy 28(5): 519–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Young, A. (1928). “Increasing Returns and Economic Progress” Economic Journal 38.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michel Bellet
    • 1
  • Nadine Massard
    • 1
  • Philippe Solal
    • 1
  1. 1.University Jean Monnet Saint-ÉtienneUSA

Personalised recommendations