Research output and economic productivity: A Granger causality test

Scientometrics

Volumn 89, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 465-478

  Lee, Ling Chu ^a   Lin, Pin Hua ^a,c   Chuang, Yun Wen ^a   Lee, Yi Yang ^b  

^a Science and Technology Policy Research and Information Center   (Taiwan)

^b Taiwan Institute of Economic Research   (Taiwan)

^c NATIONAL CENTRAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

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

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053967049     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0476-9     Document Type: Article

References (21)

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.
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.
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.
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.
6. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49, 1057-1072.
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.
8. Granger, C. W. J. (1980). Testing for causality: A personal viewpoint. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 2, 329-352.
9. Granger, C. W. J., & Newbold, P. (1974). Spurious regressions in econometrics. Journal of Econometrics, 2, 111-120.
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.
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.
13. Kealey, T. (1996). The economic laws of scientific research. New York: St. Martin's Press.
14. King, D. A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. What different countries get for their research spending. Nature, 430, 311-316.
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.
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.
18. Rai, L. P., & Lal, K. (2000). Indicators of the information revolution. Technology in Society, 22, 221-235.
19. Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461-464.
20. Vinkler, P. (2006). Composite scientometrics indicators for evaluating publications of research institutes. Scientometrics, 68, 629-642.
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.