Advertisement

Introduction

  • Elias G. Carayannis
  • David F. J. Campbell
  • Evangelos Grigoroudis
  • Sara Paulina De Oliveira Monteiro
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth book series (DIG)

Abstract

This book aims at defining the impact of public policies and productive public expenditures on innovation activity and economic growth in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. We take inspiration from the “Quadruple Helix of Innovation” theory (QH). The context of new emerging Bio-Nano-ICT technologies and 4.0 revolution, a context of uncertainty and of emerging new institutions and forms of government, requires a more intensive interaction between companies, the industry, knowledge production centres, the State, and civil society. This interaction can be facilitated by governments and by public policies. These interactions, cooperations, joint competitions, and joint creations are at the core of the QH theory. We have, therefore, chosen the QH theory that highlights the issues of complementarity, cooperation, and sharing of knowledge between the different innovators within the innovation economy, for which we will build an economic growth model in the following chapters in order to frame analytically an innovation economy, and we then assess the role played by governments and by productive public expenditures in a growing innovation economy. In this chapter we address some literature review about QHI theory, National Systems of Innovation, economic growth, and public policies. We wish to stress the importance of investment in innovation as a means to increase the development of productivity in OECD countries in coordination with country-specific science and technology programmes and policies, now with the entire civil society involved.

Keywords

QHI Theory Investment Public Policies NSI 

References

  1. Amable, B., & Guellec, D. (1992). Les théories de la croissance endogène. Revue d’Economie Politique, 102(3), 314–327 Mai – Juin.Google Scholar
  2. Arnkil, R., Jarvensivu, A., Koski, P., & Piirainen, T. (2010). Exploring the Quadruple Helix, Work Research Center, University of Tampere. Disponible sur le site de mimeo. www.cliqproject.eu/en/activities/research/quadruple_helix_research/?id=127
  3. Aschauer, D. (1989). Is public expenditure productive? Journal of Monetary Economics, 23(2), 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balzat, M., & Hanusch, H. (2004). A new era in the dynamics of European integration? Discussion Paper Series 261. Institute for Economics, Universitaet Augsburg, Augsburg.Google Scholar
  5. Barro, R. J. (1988). The ricardian approach to budget deficits (Working Papers 728). Department of Economics, Queen’s University.Google Scholar
  6. Barro, R. J. (1990a). Government spending in a simple model of endogenous growth. Journal of Political Economy, 98(S5), 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barro, R. J. (1990b). The stock market and investment. Review of Financial Studies, 3(1), 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barroso, J.M. (2010). Europe 2020: a European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, Communication COM (3.3.2010) from the European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
  9. Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1997). Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  10. Bush, V. (1945). Science: The endless frontier. Washington: United States Government Printing Office (http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm#transmittal).Google Scholar
  11. Campbell, D. F. J., & Carayannis, E. G. (2012). Lineare und nicht-lineare knowledge production: innovative Herausforderungen für das Hochschulsystem. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung, 7(2), 64–72 (http://www.zfhe.at/index.php/zfhe/article/view/448).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell, D. F. J., & E. G. Carayannis. (2013). Epistemic Governance in Higher Education. Quality Enhancement of Universities for Development. SpringerBriefs in Business. New York, NY: Springer (http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/organization/book/978-1-4614-4417-6).
  13. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2006). Introduction and chapters summaries. In E. C. Carayannis & Campbell D. F. J. (Eds.), Knowledge creation, diffusion and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative system approach accross the United States, Europe and Asia (pp. ix–xxvi). Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  14. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009a). “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3/4), 201–234 (http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=27&year=2009&vol=46&issue=3/4 and http://www.inderscience.com/search/index.php?action=record&rec_id=23374&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009b). Knowledge creation, diffusion and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters : A comparative system approach accross the united States, Europe and Asia. Praeger.Google Scholar
  16. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009c). Mode 3 and Quadruple Helix toward a 21 st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3), 201–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). The Quintuple Helix Innovation Model: Global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 1–12 (http://www.innovation-entrepreneurship.com/content/pdf/2192-5372-1-2.pdf).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2010). Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 1(1), 41–69 (http://www.igi-global.com/free-content/41959 and http://www.igi-global.com/article/triple-helix-quadruple-helix-quintuple/41959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). Mode 3 Knowledge Production in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems. 21st-Century Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Development. SpringerBriefs in Business. New York, NY: Springer (http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/book/978-1-4614-2061-3).
  20. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell D. F. J. (2014). Developed democracies versus emerging autocracies: Arts, democracy, and innovation in Quadruple Helix innovation systems. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 3, 12. (http://www.innovation-entrepreneurship.com/content/pdf/s13731-014-0012-2.pdf and http://www.innovation-entrepreneurship.com/content/3/1/12).
  21. Danilda, I., M. Lindberg., & B-M. Torstensson. (2009). Women Resource Centres. A Quattro Helix Innovation System on the European Agenda. Paper (http://www.hss09.se/own_documents/Papers/3-11%20-%20Danilda%20Lindberg%20&%20Torstensson%20-%20paper.pdf)
  22. D’Eichhorst, W., Profit, S., & Thode, E. (2001). Benchmarking deutschland: arbeitsmarkt und beschäftigung. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. De Liso, N. (2006). Charles Babbage, technological change and the national system of innovation. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 162, 470–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Easterly, W., & Rebelo, S. (1993). Fiscal policy and growth. Journal of monetary economics, 32, 417–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Edquist, C., & Johnson, B. (1997). Institutions and Organizations in Systems of Innovation. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations (pp. 41–63). London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Edquist, C., & Hommen, L. (2009). Small country innovation systems: globalization, change and policy in Asia and Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Edquist, C., & McKelvey, M. (2000). Systems of innovation: Growth, competitiveness and employment. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publisher.Google Scholar
  28. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: the Triple Helix of university- industry-government relations. Social science information, 42(3), 293–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Etzkowitz, H., (1988). The second academic revolution: MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science. London: Gordon & Breach.Google Scholar
  30. Etzkowitz, H., & Klofsten, M. (2005). The innovating region: toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development. R&D Management, 35(3), 243–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (Eds.). (1997). Universities in the global economy: A triple helix of university-industry-government relations. London: Cassell Academic.Google Scholar
  32. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Research Policy, 29(22), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. European Commission. (2009). The World in 2025. Rising Asia and socio-ecological transition. Brussels: European Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/the-world-in-2025-report_en.pdf).Google Scholar
  34. Evans, G., Honkapohja, S., & Romer, P. (1998). Growth cycles. American Economic Review, 88(3), 495–515.Google Scholar
  35. Faulkner, W., & Senker, J. (1995). Knowledge frontiers: Public sector research and industrial innovation in biotechnology, engineering, ceramics and parallel computing. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fischer-Kowalski, M., & Haberl, H. (Eds.). (2007). Socioecological transitions and Global Change. Trajectories of Social Metabolism and Land Use. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  37. Freeman, C. (1995). History, co-evolution and economic growth (Working Paper, pp. 95–76). Austria: IIASA.Google Scholar
  38. Freeman, C. (1999). Technical change and economic growth: The case of catch-up. In M. M. G. Fase, W. Kanning, & D. A. Walker (Eds.), Economics, welfare Policy and the history of economic thought: Essays in honour of Arnold Heertje. Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  39. Freeman, C. (2000). The national system of innovation in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1995, 19, 5–24. (Reprinted in C. Edquist and M. McKelvey (Eds.), Systems of innovation: growth competitiveness and employment, 1, pp. 41–60).Google Scholar
  40. Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 31(6), 899–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Futagami, K., Morita, Y., & Shibata, A. (1993, December). Dynamic analysis of an endogenous growth model with public capital, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, 95 (4), pp. 607–625.Google Scholar
  42. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. GII. (2013). Global Innovation Index, The Local Dynamics of Innovation, MERIT, Cornell University, INSEAD and WIPO, site de mimeo (http://www.globalinnovationindex.org/content.aspx?page=GII-Home)
  44. Groenewegen, J., & Van Der Steen, M. (2006). The evolution of national innovation systems. Journal of Economic Issues, 40(2), 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hemlin, S., Allwood, C. M., & Martin, B. R. (2004). Creative knowledge environments. The influences on creativity in research and innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  46. Irmen, A., & Kuehnel, J. (2009). Productive Government Expenditure and Economic Growth. Journal of Economic Surveys, 23(4), 692–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Khan, M. R., & Al-Ansari, M. (2005). Sustainable innovation as a corporate strategy. Intellectual assets. Dharan: Management, Saudi Aramco.Google Scholar
  48. Kline, S. J., & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of Innovation. In R. Landau & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), The positive Sum Strategy (pp. 275–305). Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  49. Lagendijk, A., & Charles, D. (1999). Clustering as a new growth strategy for regional economies? A discussion of new forms of regional industrial policy in the United Kingdom, in Boosting Innovation.Google Scholar
  50. Liu, X., & White, S. (2001). Comparing innovation systems: A framework and application to China’s transitional context. Research Policy, 30, 1091–1114.Google Scholar
  51. The cluster approach. (2006–2010). In OECD, (Eds.), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (pp. 127–153). Paris. Le Japon dans son troisième “Science and Technology Basic Plan”.Google Scholar
  52. Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2006, December). Triple Helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems: Introduction to the special issue. Research Policy. Elsevier, 35(10), p. 1441–1449.Google Scholar
  53. Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, and an N-Tuple of Helices: Explanatory models for analysing the knowledge-based economy? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(1), 25–35 (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13132-011-0049-4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Liljemark, T. (2004). Innovation policy in Canada: Strategy and Realities. Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  55. Lundvall, B. A. (2006). One knowledge base or many knowledge pools? (DRUID Working Papers 06–08). Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.Google Scholar
  56. Lundvall, B. A. (2007). National innovation systems, analytical concept and development tool. Industry and innovation, 14(1), 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lundvall, B. A., & Borrás, S. (2005). Science, technology, and innovation policy. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 599–631). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. MacGregor S. P., Marquès, P., Simon, A., Bikfalvi, A. and Llach, J. (2010a, July). CLIQboost, baseline research for CLIQ Interreg IVC. Documenta Universitaria, ISBN: 978–84–92707-34-8.Google Scholar
  59. MacGregor, S. P., Marques-Gou, P., & Simon-Villar, A. (2010b). Gauging readiness for the Quadruple Helix: A study of 16 European Organizations. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1(3), 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mansfield, E. (1980). Basic research and productivity increase in manufacturing. American Economic Review, 70, 863–873.Google Scholar
  61. Mansfield, E., Rapoport, J., Romeo, R., Wagner, W., & Beardsley, G. (1997). Social and private rates of return from industrial innovations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91(2), 221–240.Google Scholar
  62. Matsuyama, K. (1995). Complementarities and cumulative processes in models of monopolistic competition. Journal of Economic Literature XXXIII, 33(2), 701–729.Google Scholar
  63. Morgan, K. (1997). The learning region: Institutions, innovation and regional renewal. Regional Studies, 31(5), 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). Universities in national innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford’ handbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Nowotny, H., Peter, S., & Michael, G. (2001). Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  66. Nowotny, H., Peter, S., & Michael, G. (2003). Mode 2 revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41, 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nowotny, H., Peter, S., & Michael, G. (2006). Re-thinking science: Mode 2 in societal context, 39–51. In E. G. Carayannis & D. F. J. Campbell (Eds.), Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.Google Scholar
  68. OECD. (1998). Human capital investment: An international comparison. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  69. OECD. (2011). Tackling current account imbalances: Is there a role for structural policies? In Economic policy reforms 2011, “Going for growth”. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. OECD. (2012, January). The changing geography of innovation and economic growth and the impact of the Crisis. OECD Conference Centre, Paris, France. 19–20.Google Scholar
  71. Polt, W., Rammer, C., Gassler, H., Schibany, A., & Schartinger, D. (2001). Benchmarking industry-science relations – the role of framework conditions. (Research Project commissioned by the EU (DG Enterprise) and BMWA). Vienna.Google Scholar
  72. Porter, M., & Stern, S. (2002). National innovative capacity (The global competitiveness report 2001–2002). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Rivera-Batiz, L., & Romer, P. (1991). Economic integration and endogenous growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(2), 531–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Romer, P. M. (1990a). Gouvernement spending in a simple model of endogenous growth, Romer, P. M. (1990a), Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), S71–S102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Romer, P. M. (1990b). Human capital and growth: Theory and evidence. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 32, 251–286.Google Scholar
  76. Romer, P., & Nelson, R. R. (1996). Science, economic growth, and public policy. In B. L. R. Smith & C. E. Barfield (Eds.), Technology, R&D, and the economy. Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
  77. Romp, W., & Haan, J. (2007). Public capital and economic growth: A critical survey. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, 8(Special Issue), 6–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Shariff, N. (2006). Emergence and development of the national innovation systems concept. Research policy, 35, 745–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sornn-Friese, H. (2000). Frontiers of research in industrial dynamics and national systems of innovation. Industry and Innovation, 7(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Teixeira, A. A. C. (2013). Evolution, roots and influence of the literature on National Systems of Innovation: A bibliometric account. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 37(6), 181–214.Google Scholar
  81. Thompson, M. (2008). Complementarities and costly investment in a growth model. Journal of Economics, 94(3), 231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Yawson, R. M. (2009, June). The ecological system of innovation: A new architectural framework for a functional evidence-based platform for science and innovation policy, the future of innovation proceedings of the XXIV ISPIM 2009 Conference Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elias G. Carayannis
    • 1
  • David F. J. Campbell
    • 2
    • 3
  • Evangelos Grigoroudis
    • 4
  • Sara Paulina De Oliveira Monteiro
    • 5
    • 6
    • 7
    • 8
  1. 1.Department of Information Systems and Technology ManagementSchool of Business, George Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Alpen-Adria-University of Klagenfurt, Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies (iff), Institute of Science Communication and Higher Education Research (WIHO)ViennaAustria
  3. 3.University of Applied Arts Vienna, Unit for Quality Enhancement (UQE)ViennaAustria
  4. 4.Technical University of Crete, School of Production Engineering & Management, University Campus, KounoupidianaChaniaGreece
  5. 5.P-BIO Portugal’s Biotechnology Industry Organization, Biocant ParkCantanhedePortugal
  6. 6.European Banking AuthorityLondonUK
  7. 7.Elixir-Europe.OrgCambridgeshireUK
  8. 8.Católica Porto Business SchoolPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations