The determinants of national innovative capacity

Research Policy

Volumn 31, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 899-933

  Furman, Jeffrey L ^a   Porter, Michael E ^a   Stern, Scott ^a  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

D productivity; Endogenous technological change; National innovation systems; National innovative capacity; Patents; R

Indexed keywords

EID: 31244433600     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00152-4     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Ambramovitz, M., 1956. Catching up, forging ahead and falling behind. Journal of Economic History 46, 385-406.
2. Arora, A., Landau, R., Rosenberg, N., 1998. Chemicals and Long-Term Economic Growth: Insights from the Chemical Industry. Wiley, New York.
3. Audretsch, D., Stephan, P., 1996. Company-scientist locational links: the case of biotechnology. American Economic Review 86 (3), 641-652.
4. Bostic, R., Gans, J., Stern, S., 1996. Urban productivity and factor growth in the late nineteenth century. Journal of Urban Economics 41 (1), 38-55.
5. Carlsson, B., Stankiewicz, J., 1991. On the nature, function, and composition of technological systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 1 (2), 93-118.
6. Cockburn, I., Henderson, R., 1994. Racing to invest? The dynamics of competition in ethical drug discovery. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 3 (3), 481-519.
7. Coe, D., Helpman, E., 1995. International R&D spillovers. European Economic Review 39, 859-887.
8. Dosi, G. (Ed.), 1988. Technical Change and Economic Theory. Pinter Publishers, London, UK.
9. Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Silverberg, G., Soete, L., 1988. Technical Change and Economic Theory. Pinter Publishers, London, UK.
10. Dosi, G., Pavitt, K., Soete, L., 1990. The Economics of Technical Change and International Trade. Columbia University Press, New York.
11. Eaton, J., Kortum, S., 1996. Trade in ideas: patenting and productivity in the OECD. Journal of International Economics 40 (3/4), 251-278.
12. Eaton, J., Kortum, S., 1999. International technology diffusion: theory and measurement. International Economic Review 40 (3), 537-570.
13. Edquist, C. (Ed.), 1997. Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions, and Organizations. Pinter Publishers, London, UK.
14. Ellison, G., Glaeser, E., 1997. Geographic concentration in US manufacturing industries: a Dartboard approach. Journal of Political Economy 105 (5), 889-927.
15. Evenson, R., 1984. International invention: implications for technology market analysis. In: Griliches, Z. (Ed.), R&D, Patents, and Productivity. Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 89-126.
16. Freeman, C., 1988. Japan: a new system of innovation. In: Dosi, G. (Ed.), Technical Change and Economic Theory. Pinter Publishers, London, UK, pp. 330-348.
17. Glaeser, E., Kallal, H., Scheinkman, J., Shleifer, A., 1992. Growth in cities. Journal of Political Economy 100 (6), 1126-1152.
18. Griliches, Z. (Ed.), 1984. R&D, Patents and Productivity. Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL.
19. Griliches, Z., 1990. Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature 92, 630-653.
20. Griliches, Z., 1994. Productivity, R&D, and the data constraint. American Economic Review 84, 1-23.
21. Griliches, Z., 1998. R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence. Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL.
22. Grossman, G., Helpman, E., 1991. Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
23. IMD Competitiveness Report, 1989-1999. World Competitiveness Yearbook. Lausanne, Switzerland.
24. Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., 1993. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 434, 577-598.
25. Jones, C., 1995. R&D based models of economic growth. Journal of Political Economy 103, 739-784.
26. Jones, C., 1998. Introduction to Economic Growth. WW Norton & Co., New York.
27. Keller, W., 2000. Geographic localization of international technology diffusion. NBER Working Paper #7509.
28. Kortum, S., 1997. Research, patenting, and technological change. Econometrica 65 (6), 1389-1419.
29. Krugman, P., 1991. Geography and Trade. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
30. Lim, K., 2000. Basic research, applied research, and innovation in the semiconductor and pharmaceutical industries. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT Sloan School of Management.
31. Lundvall, B.A., 1988. Innovation as an interactive process: from user-producer interaction to the national system of innovation. In: Dosi, G. (Ed.), Technical Change and Economic Theory. Pinter Publishers, London, UK, pp. 349-369.
32. Merges, R.P., Nelson, R., 1990. On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Review 90, 839-916.
33. Mowery, D., 1984. Firm structure, government policy, and the organization of industrial research: Great Britain and the United States, 1900-1950. Business History Review 58, 504-531.
34. Mowery, D., Rosenberg, N., 1998. Paths to Innovation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
35. Mowery, D., Nelson, R.R. (Ed.), 1999. Sources of Industrial Leadership: Studies of Seven Industries. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
36. Murmann, J.P., 1998. Knowledge and competitive advantage in the synthetic dye industry, 1850-1914: the coevolution of firms, technology, and national institutions in Great Britain, Germany, and the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Columbia University.
37. Nelson, R.R., 1988. Institutions supporting technical change in the united states. In: Dosi, G. (Ed.), Technical Change and Economic Theory. Pinter Publishers, London, UK, pp. 312-329.
38. Nelson, R.R. (Ed.), 1993. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford University Press, New York.
39. Nelson, R.R., Wright, G., 1992. The rise and fall of American technological leadership: the postwar era in historical perspective. Journal of Economic Literature 30 (4), 1931-1964.
40. Nelson, R.R., Rosenberg, R., 1994. American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy 23 (3), 323-348.
41. Niosi, J. (Ed.), 1991. Technology and National Competitiveness: Oligopoly, Technological Innovation, and International Competition. Mc-Gill-Queen's University Press, Montreal.
42. Park, W.G., 1995. International R&D spillovers and OECD Economic Growth. Economic Inquiry 33 (4), 571-591.
43. Patel, P., Pavitt, K., 1994. National innovation systems: why they are important, and how they might be measured and compared. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 3 (1), 77-95.
44. Pavitt, K., 1982. R&D, patenting, and innovative activities: a statistical exploration. Research Policy 11 (1), 33-51.
45. Pavitt, K., 1988. Uses and abuses of patent statistics. In: van Raan, A. (Ed.), Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science Policy. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
46. Porter, ME., 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Free Press, New York.
47. Porter, M.E., 1998. Clusters and Competition: New Agendas for Companies, Governments, and Institutions, on Competition. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
48. Porter, ME., Stem, S., 1999. The New Challenge to America's Prosperity: Findings from the Innovation Index. Council on Competitiveness, Washington, DC.
49. Porter, M.E., Stern, S., 2001. Measuring the 'Ideas' Production Function: Evidence from International Patent Output. MIT Sloan School of Management, Mimeo.
50. Romer, P., 1990. Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy 98, S71-S102.
51. Romer, P., 1996. Why, indeed, in America? American Economic Review 86 (2), 202-206.
52. Rosenberg, N., 1963. Technological change in the machine tool industry, 1840-1910. Journal of Economic History 23,414-443.
53. Rosenberg, N. (Ed.), 1969. The American System of Manufactures. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
54. Rosenberg, N., 1972. Technology and American Growth. Harper, New York.
55. Rosenbloom, R., Cusumano, M., 1987. Technological pioneering and competitive advantage: the birth of the VCR industry. California Management Review 29 (4), 51-76.
56. Sakakibara, M., Porter, M.E., 2000. Competing at home to win abroad: evidence from Japanese industry. Review of Economics and Statistics 53 (2), 310-322.
57. Saxenian, A., 1994. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
58. Scherer, F.M., 1983. The propensity to patent. International Journal of Industrial Organization 1, 107-128.
59. Schmookler, J., 1966. Invention and Economic Growth. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
60. Silverberg, G., Dosi, G., Orsenigo, L., 1988. Innovation, diversity, and diffusion: a self organizing model. Economic Journal 98 (393), 1032-1054.
61. Solow, R.M., 1956. A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 70, 65-94.
62. Thomas, L.G., 1994. Britain versus France in global pharmaceuticals. Industrial and Corporate Change 3 (2), 451-489.
63. Trajtenberg, M., 1990. Patents as Indicators of Innovation, Economic Analysis of Product Innovation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
64. USPTO, 2000a. US Patent and Trademark Office, 2000. Technology Assessment and Forecast Report. Chemical Classes 1977-December 1999. Information Products Division, TAP Branch, Washington, DC.
65. USPTO, 2000b. US Patent and Trademark Office, 2000. Technology Assessment and Forecast Report. Electrical Classes 1977-December 1999. Information Products Division, TAP Branch, Washington, DC.
66. USPTO, 2000c. US Patent and Trademark Office, 2000. Technology Assessment and Forecast Report. Mechanical Classes 1977-December 1999. Information Products Division, TAP Branch, Washington, DC.
67. Vertova, G., 1999. Stability in national patterns of technological specialisation: some historical evidence from patent data. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 8 (4), 331-354.
68. Ziegler, N., 1997. Governing Ideas: Strategies for Innovation in France and Germany. Cornell University Press, Cornell, NY.
69. Zucker, L., Darby, M., Brewer, M., 1998. Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review 88 (1), 290-306.