Advertisement

Public Management of Positive Research Externalities

  • Patrick Cohendet
  • Dominique Foray
  • Dominique Guellec
  • Jacques Mairesse

Abstract

The purpose of this text is to highlight certain limitations of the traditional approach to positive research externalities, in the current context of knowledge-based economies (Section 2). We shall start by showing that the two basic assumptions equating knowledge with information and limiting agent interaction to competitive commercial exchanges are no longer valid, and that it is necessary to reformulate the theoretical framework of this approach (Section 3). Next we shall give some preliminary suggestions on how to rethink the principles and practices of public management of research externalities (Sections 4 and 5). Finally, in the conclusion, we shall stress that the importance of externalities is not the only justification for public intervention in the field of research, but that issues of intergenerational and intercommunity equity are also crucial, especially with regard to the allocation of resources to long-term scientific research.

Keywords

Institutional Arrangement Private Initiative Negative Externality Private Return Public Management 
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. Aghion, P. and P. Howitt, “Un modele de croissance par destruction créatrice,” in D. Foray and C. Freeman (eds.), Technologie et richesse des nations. Paris: Economica, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. Bach, L. and S. Lhuillery, “Recherche et externalités: tradition économique et renouveau,” in D. Foray and J. Mairesse (eds.), Innovations et performances: Approches interdisciplinaires. Paris: Editions de l’EHESS, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. BETA, “Les effets économiques des programmes Brite-Euram.” Rapport à la Commission économique européenne, BETA. Strasbourg: Université Louis Pasteur, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. Coase, R.M., “The Problem of Social Costs.” Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1960, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, W.H. and D. Levinthal, “Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D.” The Economic Journal,99, 1989, 569–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. David, P.A., “Knowledge, Property and the System Dynamics of Technological Change,” in L. Summers and S. Shah (eds.), Supplement to World Bank Economic Review. Annual Bank Conference on Development Economics, Washington, DC, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. Foray, D. and B.A. Lundvall, “Une introduction à l’économie fondée sur la connaissance,” in B. Guilhon, P. Huard, M. Orillard and J.B. Zimmermann (eds.), Économie de la connaissance et organisations. Paris: L’ Harmattan, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. Guellec, D., “Externalités et asymétries d’information dans un modèle de croissance.” Revue Economique, 46(3), 1995, 837–847.Google Scholar
  9. Hirschleifer, J., “The Private and Social Value of Information and the Reward to Inventive Activity.” American Economic Review, 61, 1971, 561–574.Google Scholar
  10. Joly, P.B., “Le rôle des externalités dans les systèmes d’innovation.” Revue Économique, 43(4), 1992, 785–796.Google Scholar
  11. Joly, P.B., “A quoi servent les brevets en biotechnologie,” in Changement institutionnel et changement technologique. Paris: CNRS Éditions, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. Kremer, M., “Patent Buy-Outs: A Mechanism for Encouraging Innovation.” National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, Working Paper no. 6304, 1997.Google Scholar
  13. Machlup, F., Knowledge: Its Creation,Distribution and Economic Significance — The Branches of Learning, Vol. 2. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  14. Romer, P., “Increasing Returns and Long Run Growth.” Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1986, 1002–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Romer, P., “Endogenous Technical Change.” Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 1990, S7–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Romer, P., “Implementing a National Technology Strategy with Self-Organizing Industry Boards.” Brooking Papers in Microeconomics, 2, 1993, 345–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Scotchmer, S., “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Laws.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 1991, 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Cohendet
    • 1
  • Dominique Foray
    • 2
  • Dominique Guellec
    • 3
  • Jacques Mairesse
    • 4
  1. 1.Université Louis-PasteurFrance
  2. 2.Université Paris-DauphinéFrance
  3. 3.OECDFrance
  4. 4.CREST & NBERFrance

Personalised recommendations