Innovation Drivers in Developing Countries


While Romer (Journal of Political Economy, 98(5, Part 2), S71-S102, 1990) and Weitzman (The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(2), 331-360, 1998) consider the importance of the effect of supply-side factors on innovation, Schmookler (1966) emphasizing the importance of demand-side factors. On the other hand, Acemoglu and Robinson (The American Economic Review, 90(2), 126–130, 2000) stress the effect of institutional quality on the behavior of elites who could prevent innovation changes. Since these three different theories have different viewpoints about the drivers of innovation, in this study we try to test which one is more important in developing countries. For this purpose, we choose a sample consists of 24 developing countries over the period 2011–2016. Also, we consider entrepreneurship as a demand-side factor and the lagged value of innovation and FDI as supply-side factors. The results show that, while entrepreneurship is statistically insignificant but the lagged value of innovation, FDI and institutional quality have a positive and significant impact on innovation. Also, findings show that the effect of the lagged value of innovation is more than the other factors. Furthermore, based on the viewpoint of Olsson (Journal of Economic Growth, 5(3), 253–275, 2000), which regards institutional quality as a structural variable, we found that the improvement in institutional quality makes a suitable groundwork for other variables to be effective in innovation activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. 1.

    Worldwide Governance Indicator

  2. 2.

    Kuznets, Simon. (1968). Towards a theory of economic growth. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  3. 3.

    Parente, S. L., & Prescott, E. C. (1999). Monopoly rights: a barrier to riches. The American Economic Review, 89(5), 1216–1233.

  4. 4.


  1. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2000). Political losers as a barrier to economic development. The American Economic Review, 90(2), 126–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 29–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baltagi, B. (2012). Econometric analysis of panel data. John Wiley & Sons.

  5. Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bond, S., Hoeffler, A., & Temple, J. (2001). GMM Estimation of empirical growth models (no. 2001-W21). Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford., (Accessed November 7, 2018).

  7. Costantini, V., Crespi, F., Martini, C., & Pennacchio, L. (2015). Demand-pull and technology-push public support for eco-innovation: the case of the biofuels sector. Research Policy, 44(3), 577–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dawid, H., Pellegrino, G., & Vivarelli, M. (2017). Demand and innovation: theory and evidence (no. 92). Global Labor Organization (GLO)., (Accessed November 7, 2018).

  9. Di Stefano, G., Gambardella, A., & Verona, G. (2012). Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: current findings and future research directions. Research Policy, 41(8), 1283–1295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Erdal, L., & Göçer, İ. (2015). The effects of foreign direct investment on R&D and innovations: panel data analysis for developing Asian countries. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 749–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gao, Y., Zang, L., Roth, A., & Wang, P. (2017). Does democracy cause innovation? An empirical test of the popper hypothesis. Research Policy, 46(7), 1272–1283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Godin, B., & Lane, J. P. (2013). Pushes and pulls: Hi (S) tory of the demand pull model of innovation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 38(5), 621–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hsiao, C. (2014). Analysis of panel data. Cambridge University Press.

  14. Kardos, M. (2012). The relationship between entrepreneurship, innovation and sustainable development. Research on European Union Countries. Procedia Economics and Finance, 3, 1030–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Keely, L. C. (2002). Pursuing problems in growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 7(3), 283–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim, W., & Lee, J. D. (2009). Measuring the role of technology-push and demand-pull in the dynamic development of the semiconductor industry: the case of the global DRAM market. Journal of Applied Economics, 12(1), 83–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kirzner, I. M. (2011). Between useful and useless innovation: the entrepreneurial role. Handbook of research on innovation and entrepreneurship, 12–16.

  19. Kontolaimou, A., Giotopoulos, I., & Tsakanikas, A. (2016). A typology of European countries based on innovation efficiency and technology gaps: the role of early-stage entrepreneurship. Economic Modelling, 52(PB), 477–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kuznets, S. (1968). Towards a theory of economic growth. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Loukil, K. (2016). Foreign direct investment and technological innovation in developing countries. Oradea Journal of Business and Economics, 1(2), 31–40.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mises, L. V. (1996). Human action: a treatise on economics. San Francisco: Fox & Wikes.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Motiei, M. (2011). Spillover effects of FDI on innovation in developing countries. Quarterly Journal of Economic Growth and Development Research, 1(2), 41–69.

    Google Scholar 

  24. OECD. (2011). Entrepreneurship at a Glance 2011. Paris: OECD Publishing.

  25. OECD/Eurostat (2005), Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd Edition, The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities. OECD Publishing, Paris.

  26. Olsson, O. (2000). Knowledge as a set in idea space: an epistemological view on growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 5(3), 253–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Papageorgiadis, N., & Sharma, A. (2016). Intellectual property rights and innovation: a panel analysis. Economics Letters, 141(C), 70–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Parente, S. L., & Prescott, E. C. (1999). Monopoly rights: a barrier to riches. The American Economic Review, 89(5), 1216–1233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Popescu, N. E. (2014). Entrepreneurship and SMEs innovation in Romania. Procedia Economics and Finance, 16, 512–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pratono, A. H. (2014). The impact of entrepreneurship orientation, human capital and social capital on innovation success of small firms in east java. Jurnal Manajemen dan Teknologi, 13(2), 117–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5, Part 2), S71–S102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Romer, P. (1993). Idea gaps and object gaps in economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 32(3), 543–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Roodman, D. (2009). How to do xtabond2: an introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. Stata Journal, 9(1), 86–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Schmookler, J. (1966). Invention and economic growth. Harvard University Press.

  35. Sivalogathasan, V., & Wu, X. (2014). The effect of foreign direct investment on innovation in south Asian emerging markets. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 33(3), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tebaldi, E., & Elmslie, B. (2013). Does institutional quality impact innovation? Evidence from cross-country patent grant data. Applied Economics, 45(7), 887–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Weitzman, M. L. (1996). Hybridizing growth theory. The American Economic Review, 86(2), 207–212.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Weitzman, M. L. (1998). Recombinant growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(2), 331–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Further Reading

  1. GEM (2017). Global entrepreneurship monitor. Available at:

  2. GII (2017). Global innovation index. Available at:

  3. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2011). The worldwide governance indicators: methodology and analytical issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3(2), 220–246.

  4. Schwab, K., & Porter, M. (2016). The global competitiveness report 2016–2017. World Economic Forum., (Accessed November 7, 2018).

  5. WDI (2017). World development indicators. Available at:

  6. WGI (2017). World governance indicator. Available at:

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vahid Omidi.

Additional information

This article is base on Vahid Omidi Ph.D. thesis entitled "Institution, Innovation & Entrepreneurship" by A. Shahabadi as a supervisor and N. Mehregan as an advisor in Bu-Ali Sina University.

Electronic Supplementary Material


(XLSX 18 kb)



Table 1 Summary statistics
Table 2 Correlation matrix
Table 3 Innovation equation (system GMM)
Table 4 Sample countries

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Omidi, V., Shahabadi, A. & Mehregan, N. Innovation Drivers in Developing Countries. J Knowl Econ 11, 707–720 (2020).

Download citation


  • Innovation
  • Entrepreneurship
  • FDI
  • Institutional quality

JEL Classification

  • O57
  • O31
  • O33