Neo-Schumpeterian Economics Research Articles

Теоретические основы модернизации инновационной политики России для обеспечения технологической независимости

Modernizing Russia’s innovation policy is crucial for achieving technological independence and transitioning to an innovative development paradigm. However, this transformation faces challenges stemming from Russia’s distinct innovation landscape and socio-economic conditions. This article identifies key directions for transforming Russia’s innovation policy and mechanisms to support its technological independence. The article reviews the evolution of theoretical perspectives on innovation policy within the broader system of socio-economic management, highlighting its key stages and challenges. Special attention is given to the methodological problems of aligning innovation support with the country’s need for technological independence. It also examines the intersection of neo-Schumpeterian economics and the concept of sustainable growth, which now dominate theoretical thought on innovation policy. The author defines modern innovation policy and outlines current approaches to its formation and implementation. A transformative policy, integrating efforts to stimulate innovation, enhance quality, and restructure socio-technical systems, is proposed as the best path for Russia. This type of policy is particularly important given the existing challenges in the innovation and production sectors. The article also identifies priority areas for implementing this transformative innovation policy, which will help lay the foundation for Russia’s technological independence. The results of this research can guide improvements in the public management of innovation processes. Future research will focus on further refining methodological approaches and improving the organizational systems involved in innovation management.

Are Schumpeter’s Innovations Responsible? A Reflection on the Concept of Responsible (Research and) Innovation from a Neo-Schumpeterian Perspective

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) has gained significant traction in recent decades. However, the previous discussions on RRI have overlooked the economic dimension of innovation, which is encompassed by the perspective of Neo-Schumpeterian economics (N-SE). This paper aims to bridge the gap between the theories of responsible innovation (RI) and RRI and the underlying assumptions of N-SE. We seek to clarify the concept of responsible (research and) innovation — R(R)I. N-SE inherently recognizes the involvement of diverse stakeholders, including society and the public sector, as entrepreneurs driving and implementing innovation while assuming responsibility for its effects and consequences. In this respect, N-SE aligns with the responsible innovation concept discussed within the R(R)I framework. The paper addresses the fundamental question: What are the shared areas of interest between R(R)I and N-SE? This exploration enhances our understanding and facilitates the practical implementation of R(R)I in the context of N-SE, thereby promoting ethical, socially beneficial, and sustainable technological advancements.

Technology and Institutions in neo-Schumpeterian and Original Institutional Thinking

The aim of this inquiry is to deepen our understanding of the interactions between knowledge, technologies and institutions in socio-economic process by considering the affinities and divergences of Original Institutional Economics (OIE) and neo-Schumpeterian economics (NSE). Both strands of evolutionary economic thought recognize the importance of knowledge for human progress and the role of institutions in molding this process. OIE and NSE share a common perspective in what concerns (i) the role of knowledge for socio-economic change, (ii) the behavioral dimension of technology molded by institutions, and (iii) the role of purposeful evaluation in processes of institutional and technological change. Considering these commonalities, both strands of thinking could benefit from “joining forces”. Firstly, the conceptualization of how knowledge and technologies drive human progress from a neo-Schumpeterian perspective could very much benefit from the consideration of the value system and the power structure sustaining it as put forward by OIE. Values and power appear as key determinants channeling (or retaining) knowledge towards human progress. Moreover, the role of the value system as suggested by OIE could be operationalized and further developed to explain paths of socio-economic development drawing on the conceptualization of “selection mechanisms” as put forward by neo-Schumpeterian models.

Global Crisis, Innovation and Change Management: Towards a New Systemic Perception of the Current Globalization Restructuring

The “crisis of capitalism” is not, of course, an unprecedented discourse in the evolution of economics and the investigation of economic realities. In Neo-Schumpeterian economics crises constitute necessary evolutionary steps, intrinsically linked with breaking ‘moments’ and change. However, what makes the current crisis clearly different, and to a large extent subversive, is its ever increasing complexity and evolutionary-dialectic substance. The mixing of cooperation and competition, on an organizational and macro-economic level, reproduces on a global scale the need for a reconsideration of basic economic mechanisms. It tends to undermine and rapidly destroy the mechanistic relations and structures of all kinds and dimensions that have managed to provide profitability and effectiveness over the recent years. In this context, the search for strategic innovation, constant organizational renewal and the diffusion of production oriented at high technological expertise, seem to progressively become the critical synthetic components for building a new development model at all levels and for all agents of action.This paper focuses on the introduction of a three tier question which could be put forward as follows. First we ask what is the current global restructuring crisis and what would be a new growth model that would lead us to the exit of it on a global scale. Second we address the issue of what kind of innovation mechanisms does such a new model of interspatial restructuring and development require. Finally we analyse why is this new innovative direction—both in global terms and in individual socioeconomic systems—a prerequisite for building new types of effective change management mechanisms.The starting point of our approach is the position that any fragmented approach in the individual aspects of the triangle of global crisis, innovation, and change management, is now analytically misguided and practically powerless. Only an effort to systemically understand the phenomenon, in its constant and dialectic structure, is now an adequate condition for outlining the future developmental path of globalization at all levels of action.

The Financial Innovation Hypothesis: Schumpeter, Minsky and the sub-prime mortgage crisis

Neo-Schumpeterian economics inspired by the work of Schumpeter and the financial Keynesianism of Minsky are often regarded as unrelated theoretical strands. In this paper, we try to combine these two literatures building on a parallelism between non-financial and financial firms. We focus on recent financial innovations, highlighting how the evolution experienced by US financial institutions led them to transcend their traditional role of credit providers, shaping as 'producers' of financial products, through securitization. This allows on the one hand to broaden the application of Neo-Schumpeterian insights to the financial sector and, on the other, to provide an original explanation of the so-called sub-prime crisis by applying the Financial Instability Hypothesis of Minsky to the alternative context of financial production. We maintain that the 2007-8 crisis was not the result of an innovation in the real sector, but came from an innovation (or a series of innovations) intrinsic to the financial system itself, which fostered credit creation. We argue that this 'cluster of innovations' can be placed under the label 'securitization', defined as the business of packaging and reselling loans, with repo agreements as the main source of funds.

O niebezpieczeństwach fetyszyzacji – czyli komu zawdzięczamy rewolucje technologiczne?

The aim of the article is to present the arguments of the work of Marianna Mazzucato, The Entrepreneurial State, in the context of the neoschumpeterian economics. The author demonstrates the key role of state institutions in creating breakthrough technologies and undermines the conviction of innovativeness as an exclusive attribute of private enterprises.

Fiscal Policy, Economic Growth and Innovation: An Empirical Analysis of G20 Countries

This paper analyzes the effectiveness of public expenditures on economic growth within the analytical framework of comprehensive Neo-Schumpeterian economics. Using a fixed-effects model for G20 countries, the paper investigates the links between the specific categories of public expenditures and economic growth, captured in human capital formation, defense, infrastructure development, and technological innovation. The results reveal that the impact of innovation-related spending on economic growth is much higher than that of the other macro variables. Data for the study was drawn from the International Monetary Fund’s Government Finance Statistics database, infrastructure reports for the G20 countries, and the World Development Indicators issued by the World Bank.

Complexity paths in neo-Schumpeterian evolutionary economics, structural change and development policies

Recently, several authors of evolutionary and neo-Schumpeterian economics have identified in complex systems a common framework for accounting for a range of attributes they have been claiming are present in economic systems: path-dependence, positive feedbacks, micro-heterogeneity, emergent properties, and self-organization. Complexity seems to be broad enough to accommodate very different positions and it has been seen as a unifying approach for evolutionary and neo-Schumpeterian streams. This pluralism is reflected in the fact that many authors that draw upon complexity ideas from neo-Schumpeterian evolutionary theory, make contrasting policy recommendations in terms of if it should be vertical or horizontal or if it should promote bottom-up process or direct interventions. This is possible because the complexity approach has not yet been fully developed and its limits are still somewhat blurred. In this paper, we propose to explore this idea by identifying the theoretical backgrounds and the policy recommendations of different groups of neo-Schumpeterian evolutionary authors. We propose that backgrounds focused on different attributes of complexity lead to different development policies recommendations.

NeoLek impacts on innovative realities: Lessons from Neo-Schumpeterian economics

This study focuses on the designing of implementable innovative realities, considering the development of innovative economy policy since Polish–EU integration through a Neo-Schumpeterian economics and a critical perspective lens. The special case of NeoLek—Integrated Laboratory of Experimental Oncology and Innovative Technologies—presents what is possible. This project takes place at the Ludwik Hirszfeld Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy, Polish Academy of Sciences in Wroclaw, Poland. The case shows an opportunity to reveal in what perspectives NeoLek influences the designing of implementable innovative realities. On the one hand, the study points out if and in what extent NeoLek influences innovative realities in the following perspectives: political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental. On the other hand, these perspectives intertwine and also affect NeoLek activity.

Agent-based computational models– a formal heuristic for institutionalist pattern modelling?

AbstractI investigate the consistency of agent-based computational models with the institutionalist research program as outlined by Myrdal, Wilber and Harrison, Hodgson and others. In particular, I discuss whether such models can be a useful heuristic for ‘pattern modelling’: Can they provide a holistic, systemic and evolutionary perspective on the economy? How can agency be conceptualised within ABMs? Building on these issues, I discuss potentials and challenges of the application of ABM in institutionalist research. This discussion also relates to recent methodological advances in neo-Schumpeterian economics. I explain how institutionalists can benefit from these and suggest areas for joint research under the methodological umbrella of ABM.

SIX DECADES OF THE THEORY OF GROWTH POLES: REVISITING PERROUX

A presente investigação faz um balanço acerca da Teoria dos Polos de Crescimento nos últimos sessenta anos. Entende-se que esta Teoria exerceu forte influência no pensamento econômico europeu nas décadas de 1950 e 1960, e, também, no Brasil. O objetivo g

Keynesian, post‐Keynesian versus Schumpeterian, neo‐Schumpeterian

PurposeIn order to explain change and growth at the aggregate levels, three levels: macro, meso and micro must be taken into account. Applying the theories from Keynesian and post‐Keynesian economics (PKE) best explains the macro level and applying those from Schumpeterian and neo‐Schumpeterian economics (NSE) best explains the micro level. Besides this, the meso level can be further explained by merging both post‐Keynesian and neo‐Schumpeterian theories. Such a unifying approach has been missing from the literature so far. Bringing these schools of thought together is important for mutual learning and further development of innovation theory. This paper aims to effect this.Design/methodology/approachThe paper presents a survey of the relevant secondary literature of the aforementioned schools of thought, identifying their methodological practice and key contributions to innovation theory.FindingsA combination of these schools of thought offers a richer approach to studying innovation. It is found to exist in particular in the evolutionary, institutional and long‐run perspectives, in combination with emphasis on the role of finance in production.Research limitations/implicationsOne is invited to develop one's own theoretical and empirical approach that combines the advantages of all the schools of thought presented.Originality/valueThe paper is exploratory, as it reconsiders how a comprehensive approach to studying innovations can be built. It examines the existing literature. It will be of value to researchers in innovation.

Schumpeter’s ‘conduct model of the dynamic entrepreneur’: scope and distinctiveness

Schumpeter formulated a ‘conduct model’ of entrepreneurial behaviour. Received wisdom has emphasised the economic functions of Schumpeter’s entrepreneur, neglecting behavioural aspects. Schumpeter’s model is examined; it posits a continuum of behaviours which are ‘entrepreneurial’, that rely on socially situated, tacit knowledge and are expressions of conscious, subjective rationality. Schumpeter’s model excluded unconscious optimisation and decision rules derived from bounded rationality. Comparisons are drawn with modern neoclassical, Austrian, and the older behavioural characterisations of entrepreneurial behaviour. The newer ‘effectuation’ model of entrepreneurial behaviour is also contrasted with Schumpeter’s approach. We find, among other things, that modern Schumpeterian economics associated with Nelson and Winter is not a natural continuation of Schumpeter’s model. However, some developments in neo-Schumpeterian economics, including the effectuation model deriving from the older behavioural tradition, are congruent with both the original ‘conduct model’ and Schumpeter’s directions for further research.

Knowledge and Its Inventors/Carriers in Evolutionary Economics: Towards A Relational Theory of Authorship and Copyright

The growth of knowledge and the development of culture is a cumulative process based on a vast variety of distributed creative and intellectual activities of many individuals. In contrast to classical and neoclassical economics, evolutionary economics claims to deal 'essentially with slowly changing variables'; and the evolutionary economists are 'concerned mainly with change, not with the principles of resource allocation in a hypothetical static world'. Therefore, the evolutionary economics is a much more realistic approach to understand why people are creative, how the human mind originates novel ideas and what the nature of knowledge growth really is. Based on neo-Schumpeterian or evolutionary economics, this article aims to scrutinize the process and the nature of knowledge growth (including the origination, dissemination, adoption and retention of knowledge); and thereafter articulates a regulatory framework (copyright in particular) that is favorable to such process. To this end, this article proposes a relational theory of authorship which sees intellectual creations as a cumulative and collaborative process with involvement of massive amounts of individuals, and furthermore, intellectual and artistic creations are merely by-products of people's daily engagement in communication and creativity. The authors should not be regarded merely as Homo Oeconomicus whose production activities are perceived as a response to external incentives; instead, their commitment to the production of expressive works is driven primarily by their needs of communication and furthermore analysis on their behavior should focus on their propensity to originate, adopt and retain rules and knowledge.

Logistic innovation in global supply chains: an empirical test of dynamic transaction-cost theory

Upgrading logistic services in the context of international supply chains is not a smooth process. Upgrading may require the development of co-operative relationships, or alliances, involving large logistic service firms and their customers: multinational enterprises. Both sides may be unwilling and/or unable to engage in upgrading strategies in an alliance context. Fourth-party logistics is an example of a logistic product innovation entailing research-based advice as well as the design and implementation of new supply-chain solutions. It has the potential of stimulating spatial shift in global production networks and regional distribution systems (Visser and Lambooy, Geographisches Zeitschrift 92(heft 1+2):5–20, 2005). Using dynamic transaction-cost theory (Nooteboom, Learning and innovation in organisations and economies, 2000), this paper theoretically specifies and empirically measures three risks associated with the development of fourth-party logistics: dependence, unwanted spillovers, and conservatism. Case-study evidence reveals that dynamic transaction-cost theory partially explains the slow development of new logistic services in an alliance setting. Some aspects of conservatism are found to be relevant, along with risks of dependence due to specific investments in human resources and information systems. Other, not predicted but important factors, however, are the lack of credibility of service innovation by asset-based logistic firms, and strategic considerations of customers regarding logistic organization and control. The first factor implies that firms specializing in fourth-party services are likely to remain (very) limited in number. The second factor implies that this type of service provision is more likely to develop in dynamic port clusters, as customers prefer to tap into a variety of ideas from many different suppliers. In local clusters, interactions between firms can be relatively frequent, casual, short-lived and open, so that the structure of local networks is relatively decentralized, dense and flexible. This stimulates (logistic) innovation (Nooteboom, in Hanusch and Pyka (eds.) Elgar companion to neo Schumpeterian economics, 2006). In global supply chains, interactions between logistic service firms and their customers tend to have the opposite characteristics, which do not stimulate innovation.

Principles of Neo-Schumpeterian Economics

Within the last 25 years great progress has been made in Neo-Schumpeterian Economics, this branch of economic literature which deals with dynamic processes causing qualitative transformation of economies basically driven by the introduction of novelties in their various and multifaceted forms. By its very nature, innovation and, in particular, technological innovation is the most exponent and most visible form of novelty. However, Neo-Schumpeterian Economics should be concerned with all facets of open and uncertain developments in socio-economic systems. A comprehensive Neo-Schumpeterian approach therefore has to consider not only transformation processes going on, e.g., on the industry level of an economy, but also on the public and monetary side of an economic system. Our contribution introduces those extensions and complements to a comprehensive Neo-Schumpeterian economic theory, and develops some signposts in the sense of a roadmap for necessary strands of analysis in the future. Copyright 2007, Oxford University Press.

Creating Markets for Biotechnology

Much recent literature on biotechnology has focused on supply side issues such as technological opportunities and applications, or organisational changes in the innovating firms. This paper examines the demand side of biotechnology, focusing on GM foods in particular, and analysing the creation of a selection environment in which the innovation might diffuse. In neo-Schumpeterian economics, the concept of 'selection environment' is used to mean the features of the environment of the firm that determine whether innovations succeed or fail. Creating a market is not only an economic but also a social-shaping activity, and the selection environment is a wider and more complex and subtle concept than a market. This paper has drawn on several disciplinary perspectives to analyse the phenomenon, in particular on sociology, anthropology and evolutionary economics. The many elements of the selection environment for agrobiotechnology included the market of consumers; potential consumers (some of whom resisted the new technology); the regulatory system; retailers; policy makers; environmentalists; consumer organisations; the intellectual property regime; intermediaries which promoted the new products, which informed consumers, and which raised areas of concern; the politicisation of the whole process; and the market creation activities of the innovating firms (especially Monsanto). Monsanto's promotional activities, which would normally fall within the realm of traditional market creating behaviour, in the context of other elements of the selection environment had a counter effect. It generated a learning process in which the companies concerned discovered the merits of trying to open up a dialogue with other elements of the selection environment.