Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 120, Issue 3, pp 1411–1426 | Cite as

The increasing dominance of science in the economy: Which nations are successful?

  • Ali GazniEmail author
  • Zahra Ghaseminik
Article

Abstract

We analyzed breakthrough patents that serve as the basis of emerging technological trajectories and paradigm over 25-years. The results showed that although technological fields have a different degree of dependency on science, the major part of the patents is now science-dependent. The results suggest that the relationship of science to economic growth has fundamentally changed. Over time, science-dependent innovations increasingly have dominated in the innovation-based economy; however, a large number of most productive countries in scientific research even with strong technological, and financial backing doesn’t have the motivation and ability to turn science to wealth-generating innovations.

Keywords

Science-technology linkage Science impact Science policy Innovative science Economic value of science 

References

  1. Ahuja, G., & Morris Lampert, C. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 521–543.Google Scholar
  2. Albert, M. B., Avery, D., Narin, F., & McAllister, P. (1991). Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents. Research Policy, 20(3), 251–259.Google Scholar
  3. Bacchiocchi, E., & Montobbio, F. (2010). International knowledge diffusion and home-bias effect: Do USPTO and EPO patent citations tell the same story? Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 112(3), 441–470.Google Scholar
  4. Bhattacharya, S., Kretschmer, H., & Meyer, M. (2003). Characterizing intellectual spaces between science and technology. Scientometrics, 58(2), 369–390.Google Scholar
  5. Caraça, J., Lundvall, B. Å., & Mendonça, S. (2009). The changing role of science in the innovation process: From Queen to Cinderella? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(6), 861–867.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, L. (2017). Do patent citations indicate knowledge linkage? The evidence from text similarities between patents and their citations. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 63–79.Google Scholar
  7. Didegah, F., & Gazni, A. (2011). The extent of concentration in journal publishing. Learned Publishing, 24(4), 303–310.Google Scholar
  8. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Gambardella, A., Harhoff, D., & Verspagen, B. (2008). The value of European patents. European Management Review, 5(2), 69–84.Google Scholar
  10. Gibney, E. (2017). Britain pins economic hopes on science. Nature, 551(7682), 549.Google Scholar
  11. Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., & Meyer, M. (2007). ‘Triad’or ‘tetrad’? On global changes in a dynamic world. Scientometrics, 74(1), 71–88.Google Scholar
  12. Guan, J., & He, Y. (2007). Patent-bibliometric analysis on the Chinese science—technology linkages. Scientometrics, 72(3), 403–425.Google Scholar
  13. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36, 16–38.Google Scholar
  14. Hicks, D. (2005). America’s innovative edge at risk? Research-Technology Management, 48(6), 8–12.Google Scholar
  15. Huang, C., Notten, A., & Rasters, N. (2011). Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: a review of social science studies and search strategies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(2), 145–172.Google Scholar
  16. Huang, M. H., Yang, H. W., & Chen, D. Z. (2015). Increasing science and technology linkage in fuel cells: A cross citation analysis of papers and patents. Journal of Informetrics, 9(2), 237–249.Google Scholar
  17. Hullmann, A., & Meyer, M. (2003). Publications and patents in nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 58(3), 507–527.Google Scholar
  18. Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B. A. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36(5), 680–693.Google Scholar
  19. Kelly, M. (2009). Science for the greater economic good. Nature, 458(7237), 410.Google Scholar
  20. Klitkou, A., Nygaard, S., & Meyer, M. (2007). Tracking techno-science networks: A case study of fuel cells and related hydrogen technology R&D in Norway. Scientometrics, 70(2), 491–518.Google Scholar
  21. Lane, J., & Bertuzzi, S. (2011). Measuring the results of science investments. Science, 331(6018), 678–680.Google Scholar
  22. Lemley, M. A., & Sampat, B. (2012). Examiner characteristics and patent office outcomes. Review of Economics and Statistics, 94(3), 817–827.Google Scholar
  23. Macilwain, C. (2010). Science economics: What science is really worth. Nature News, 465(7299), 682–684.Google Scholar
  24. Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: sources, characteristics, and financing. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 55–65.Google Scholar
  25. Meyer, M. (2000a). Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29(3), 409–434.Google Scholar
  26. Meyer, M. (2000b). Patent citations in a novel field of technology—What can they tell about interactions between emerging communities of science and technology? Scientometrics, 48(2), 151–178.Google Scholar
  27. Meyer, M. (2002). Tracing knowledge flows in innovation systems. Scientometrics, 54(2), 193–212.Google Scholar
  28. Meyer, M. (2003). Academic patents as an indicator of useful research? A new approach to measure academic inventiveness. Research Evaluation, 12(1), 17–27.Google Scholar
  29. Meyer, M. (2006). Measuring science-technology interaction in the knowledge-driven economy: The case of a small economy. Scientometrics, 66(2), 425–439.Google Scholar
  30. Montecchi, T., Russo, D., & Liu, Y. (2013). Searching in cooperative patent classification: Comparison between keyword and concept-based search. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 27(3), 335–345.Google Scholar
  31. Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between US technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317–330.Google Scholar
  32. Narin, F., & Noma, E. (1985). Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics, 7(3–6), 369–381.Google Scholar
  33. Nomaler, Ö., & Verspagen, B. (2008). Knowledge flows, patent citations and the impact of science on technology. Economic Systems Research, 20(4), 339–366.Google Scholar
  34. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.Google Scholar
  35. Rabesandratana, T. (2015). Europe’s research chief wants scientists to speak up. Science, 350, 897–898.Google Scholar
  36. Roach, M., & Cohen, W. M. (2013). Lens or prism? Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows from public research. Management Science, 59(2), 504–525.Google Scholar
  37. Rodríguez-Navarro, A., & Brito, R. (2018). Technological research in the EU is less efficient than the world average. EU research policy risks Europeans’ future. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 718–731.Google Scholar
  38. Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Research Policy, 30(3), 509–532.Google Scholar
  39. Stephan, P. E. (2012). How economics shapes science (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Stokes, D. E. (2011). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  41. Sung, H. Y., Wang, C. C., Huang, M. H., & Chen, D. Z. (2015). Measuring science-based science linkage and non-science-based linkage of patents through non-patent references. Journal of Informetrics, 9(3), 488–498.Google Scholar
  42. Tijssen, R. J. (2001). Global and domestic utilization of industrial relevant science: Patent citation analysis of science–technology interactions and knowledge flows. Research Policy, 30(1), 35–54.Google Scholar
  43. Unknown quantities. (2010). Nature, 465(7299), 665–666.  https://doi.org/10.1038/465665b.
  44. Van Looy, B., Magerman, T., & Debackere, K. (2007). Developing technology in the vicinity of science: An examination of the relationship between science intensity (of patents) and technological productivity within the field of biotechnology. Scientometrics, 70(2), 441–458.Google Scholar
  45. Wang, G., & Guan, J. (2011). Measuring science–technology interactions using patent citations and author-inventor links: an exploration analysis from Chinese nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13(12), 6245–6262.Google Scholar
  46. Wong, C. Y., & Wang, L. (2015). Trajectories of science and technology and their co-evolution in BRICS: Insights from publication and patent analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 90–101.Google Scholar
  47. Yeom, H. W. (2018). Restructure science in South Korea. Nature, 558(7711), 511–513.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Regional Information Center for Science and TechnologyShirazIran
  2. 2.ISCShirazIran

Personalised recommendations