Conclusion
We have argued against the conventional treatment of science from two directions: firstly, we show that its assumptions about the mechanics of technology transfer are at odds with what occurs in practice. Secondly, the predictions of models based on conventional assumptions receive little support empirically, and are on some occasions contradicted by the data. We believe that the weaknesses we have discussed prompt a re-analysis of science as the workings of invisible colleges. Moreover, we note that there appears, at present, to be no empirical or sound theoretical reason to suppose that, for reasons of economic growth, governments need fund science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Bibliography
ACOST. (1990). Developments in Biotechnology. London: HMSO.
Aghion, P., and Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60, 323–351.
Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for inventions. In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity edited by R. Nelson. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Braun, T., Glanzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1987). One more version of the facts and figures on publication output and relative citation output of 107 countries 1978–1980. Scientometrics, 11, 9–15.
Cohen, W. & Levinthal, D. (1989). Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, 99(3), 569–596.
David, P. (1991). Computer and dynamo: the modern productivity paradox in a not-too-distant mirror. In Technology and Productivity. Paris: OECD.
Goeddel, D. & Levinson, A. (2000) Robert A. Swanson. Nature, 403, 264.
Griliches, Z. (1986). Productivity, R&D and basic research at the firm level in the 1970s. American Economic Review, 76, 141–151.
Grossman, G. & Helpman, E. (1991). Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hicks, D. & Katz, S. (1997). The Changing Shape of British Industrial Research. Brighton: Sussex University.
Information, Institute of Scientific. (1994). Current Contents, 37(4).
Kealey, T. (1994). The economic laws of research. Science and Technology Policy, 7, 21–27.
Kealey, T. (1996). The Economic Laws of Scientific Research. London: Macmillans.
Mansfield, E. (1980). Basic research and productivity increases in manufacturing. American Economic Review, 70, 863–873.
Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 20, 1–12.
Narin, F. & Olivastro, D. (1992). Status report: linkage between technology and science. Research Policy, 21, 237–249.
Odagiri, H. & Murakimi, N. (1992). Private and quasi-social rates of return on pharmaceutical R&D in Japan. Research Policy, 21, 335–45.
OECD. (1981). The Measurement of Scientific and Technical Activities. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Price, D. da S. (1963). Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press.
Price, W. & Bass, L. (1969). Scientific research and the innovative process. Science, 164, 802–806.
Romer, P. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, S71-S102.
Rosenberg, N. (1990). Why do firms do research with their own money? Research Policy, 21, 237–249.
Sirilli, G. (1982). The Researcher in Italian Industry, mimeo.
Tilton, J. (1971). International Diffusion of Technology: The Case of Semiconductors. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institute.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
the author of The Economic Laws of Scientific Research, Macmillan/St Martin’s Press, 1996.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kealey, T., Al-Ubaydli, O. A critique of science and R&D-based models of endogenous growth. Know Techn Pol 13, 37–48 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02693988
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02693988