An Analysis of the Policy Rationales of Conventional Economics in the Field of Science, Technology & Innovation Policy-making Based on Thematic Method

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Tarbiat Modares University

2 AL Zahra University

Abstract

Policy rationales act as intermediator between theoretical foundations and policy implications, which are rooted in abstract concepts on the one hand, and present empirical implications in the field of policy-making on the other. Although conventional economics, also known as open market economy or neoclassic economy, evades offering any prescriptions, it implicitly and explicitly leads to policy rationales based on which specific policy implications are possible. Due to the significance of clear expression of these rationales in the field of science, technology and innovation policy-making, and purely implicit expression of the aforementioned concepts in the field of conventional economics, their explicit elicitation, especially by considering the role of conventional economics in science, technology and innovation policy decisions in Iran's society, bears considerable importance. Accordingly, eliciting conventional economics rationales in the field of science and technology in this study is examined drawing upon valid and relevant studies. By using thematic analysis and data-based strategy, we examine the core rationales of policy-making in the field of science, technology and innovation, having conventional economics approach in mind. As the findings show, some rationales and specific procedures are obtained alongside the concept of market as the core theme. The accumulation of intellectual and human capital, internalizing knowledge activities costs, the development of general-purpose technologies and improving business environment are among the most important rationales.

Keywords

References

 
Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. (2005). Institutions as the Fundamental Cause of Long-Run Growth. In P. Aghion, & S. Durlauf, Handbook of Economic Growth. ELSEVIER.
Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction,. Econometrica, 60, 323-351.
Aghion, P., david, P., & foray, D. (2009). science, technology and innovation for economic growth: linking policy research and practice in " STIG systems". research policy, 38, 681-693.
Arrow, K. (1962). Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, 609–625.
Bach, B., & Matt, M. (2005). From Economic Foundations to S&T Policy Tools: a Comparative Analysis of the Dominant Paradigms.  P. Llerena, & M. Matt, Innovation Policy in a Knowledge-Based Economy,Theory and Practice. Strasbourg: Springer.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. california : sage.
Chavance, B. (2011). Institutional Economics (Routledge Frontiers of Political Economy). translated by: Motavaseli, M., & Nikou Nesbati, N., & Farzizadeh Miyandehi, Z. Tehran: University of Tehran Press (UTP).
Coase, R. H. (1992). The Institutional Structure of Production. American Economic Review, 82(4), 713-19.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. california: sage.
Dasgupta, P., & David, P. (1994). Towards a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23, 487-521.
David, P., Hall, B., & Toole, A. (2000). Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D ? A review of the econometric evidence. Research Policy, 29, 497-529.
Dodgson, M., Hughes, A., Foster, J., & Metcalfe, S. (2011). Systems thinking, market failure, and the development of innovation policy: The case of Australia. Research Policy.
Eparvier, P. (2005). Some Comments on the Methodological Principles of Nelson and Winter’s Evolutionary Theory. Evol. Inst. Econ. Rev., 1(2), 221-234.
Foray, D., & Lundvall. (1996). the Knowledge-Based Economy: From the Economics of Knowledge to the Learning Economy.
Friedman, M. (1953). The methodology of positive economics. In: Friedman M (ed) Essays in positive economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gorges, M. (2001). New Institionalist Explations for Institutional Change:A Note for Caution (جلد 2). Politics.
Griliches, Z. (1957). ‘Hybrid corn, An exploration in the Economics of Technological Change. Econometrica, 25(4).
Gustafsson, R., & Autio, E. (2011). A failure trichotomy in knowledge exploration and exploitation. Research Policy, 40, 819-831.
Hunt, E., & Colander, D. ( 2004). Social Science: An Introduction to the Study of Society. Allyn and Bacon.
Jaffe, A. e. (2005). A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy. Ecological Economics , 54, 164– 174.
Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577-598.
Jones, G., & Schneider, W. (2006). Intelligence, human capital, and economic growth: A Bayesian Averaging of Classical Estimates (BACE) approach. Econ Growth , 11, 71-93.
Kanth, R. (1999). Against Eurocentred Epistemologies: a critique of science realism and economics. در S. Fleetwood, Critical Realism in Economics: development and debate. London and New York: Routledge.
Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility. American Economic Review, 75(3), 424-440.
Kim, E., Morse, A., & Zingales, L. (2006). What Has Mattered to Economics Since1970. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(4), 189-202.
Lall, S., & Teubal, M. (1998). Market-Stimulating Technology Polices in Developing Countries: a framework with examples from East Asia. World Development , 26(8), 1369-1385.
Laranja, M., Uyarra, E., & Flanagan, K. (2008). Policies for science, technology and innovation: Translating rationales into regional policies in a multi-level setting. Research Policy, 37, 823–835.
Lawson, T. (2006). The Nature of Heterodox Economics. Camb. J. Econ. , 30(4), 483-505.
Lee, F., & Keen, S. (2004 ). The Incoherent Emperor: A Heterodox Critique of Neoclassical Microeconomic Theory. Review of Social Economy, 26(2).
Loasby, B. (2000). Market Institutions and Economic Evolution. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10(3), 297-309.
Martina, B. (2012). The evolution of science policy and innovation studies. research policy.
Moreau, F. (2004). The role of the state in evolutionary economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28, 847–874.
morse, J. (2001). Situating Grounded Theory Within Qualitative Inquery . R. Schreiber, & P. Noerager Stern, Using Grounded Theory In Nursing. Springer Publishing Company.
Morse, J. (2001). Situating Grounded Theory Within Qualitative Inquery .  R. Schreiber, & P. Noerager Stern, Using Grounded Theory In Nursing. Springer Publishing Company.
Muldera, P., Henri, H., & Hof kes, M. (2001). Economic growth and technological change: A comparison of insights from a neo-classical and an evolutionary perspective. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 68, 151–171.
Mytelka, L., & Smith, K. (2002). Policy learning and innovation theory: an interactive and co-evolving process. Research Policy, 31(8), 1467–1479.
Narimani, M., & Ghazinoori, S., & Mir Emadi, T. (2013). Policy Implication Extracting of Evolutionary Approach in Science and Technology Sector: A Thematic Analysis. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 5(2), 1-16.
Nelson, P., & Winter, S. (2002). Evolutionary Theorizing in Economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(2), 23-46.
Nelson, R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67, 323-348 .
Nelson, R. (1959). The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research. Journal of Political Economy, 67(3), 297–306.
Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1974). Neoclassical vs Evolutionary Theories of Economic Growth. Economic Journal , 84(336), 886–905.
Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
North, D. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97-112.
North, D. (1994). Economic Performance through Time. American Economic Review, 84(3), 359-68.
Romer, P. (1986). Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002–1037.
Romer, P. (1994). The Origins of Endogenous Growth. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 3-22.
Rosenberg, A. (1992). Neo-Classical Economics and Evolutionary Theory: Strange Bedfellows?  roceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 174-183.
Salmenkaita, J., & Salo, A. (2002). Rationales for government intervention in the commercialization of new technologies. Technology, Analysis & Strategic Management , 14, 183–200.
Solow, R. (1957). Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 39, 312-320.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. california: sage.
Verspagen, B. (2004). Innovation and Economic Growth. در Fagerberg, The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, ( 487-513).
Wieczorek, A. J., Hekkert, M. P., & Smits, R. (2009). Contemporary innovation policy and instruments:Challenges and implications.
Williamson, O. (1979). Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractural Relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233-61.
Witt, U. (2003). The Evolving Economy: essays on the evolutionary approach to economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
 
Innovation Management Journal
Volume 3, Issue 2 - Serial Number 8
September 2014
Pages 1-22

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 02 November 2013
  • Accept Date: 30 November 2014

Share

How to cite

Statistics