Continental, national and sub-national innovation systems--complementarity and economic growth

By C. Freeman. 2002

711 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the relevance of innovation systems to economic growth rates over the last two centuries. The focus is on complementarity (or lack of it) between sub-systems of society and on models of active learning in catching up economies. The paper discusses variations in rates of growth of economic regions and the extent to which variations may be attributed to “innovation systems”. The analysis is applied to Britain in the 18th century, the United States in the second half of the 19th century and the innovation systems of catching up countries in the 20th century.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/76923dc40b197e483c4d7487720f53d5d17c4b3b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

Citations in the corpus

THE INNOVATIONâ€ EMPLOYMENT NEXUS: A CRITICAL SURVEY OF THEORY AND EMPIRICS (2016, neutral): “national innovation systems (Freeman, 2002) were not discussed in detail, despite playing a key role among the country-specific determinants of the impact of innovation on employment.”
Four models of the creative industries (2008, neutral): “See Loasby (1999) and Freeman (2002).”
Inside the high-tech black box: A critique of technology entrepreneurship policy (2014, background): “…relationally ‘embedded’ and geographical bounded phenomena (Granovetter, 1985; Morgan, 1997; Gertler, 2010) where institutional actors (Gertler, 2010) and government policies often intermingle to play a central role in shaping innovation patterns (Freeman, 1995, 2002; Dodgson et al., 2011).”
An evolutionary approach to understanding international business activity: The co-evolution of MNEs and the institutional environment (2010, neutral): “The literatures on national innovation systems (Dosi, 1999; Freeman, 1995; Murmann, 2003), regional innovation systems (Cooke, 2001; Freeman, 2002) and sectoral innovation systems (Malerba, 2004) likewise reason in terms of the interrelationships between firms and their wider environments, but again”
Physical attraction and the geography of knowledge sourcing in multinational enterprises (2011, background): “…upon which firms build when constructing innovative new combinations of knowledge tends to be quite widely distributed across various actors in a local innovation system, and this is the main reason why the concept of a local innovation system has gained currency (Cooke, 2001; Freeman, 2002).”
Differences in managerial discretion across countries: how nation‐level institutions affect the degree to which ceos matter (2011, background): “Recent research in economics (Freeman, 2002) and political science (Paldam, 2002) has also investigated the sources and implications of such country clusters.”
Technology transfer, climate change mitigation, and environmental patent impact on sustainability and economic growth: A comparison of European countries (2020, neutral): “Various types of research have provided empirical support for this assertion (Bayarçelik and Taşel, 2012; Bektas et al., 2015; Freeman, 2002; Grossman and Helpman, 1994; Hasan and Tucci, 2010; Segerstrom, 1991; Wong et al., 2005).”
Green growth versus economic growth: Do sustainable technology transfer and innovations lead to an imperfect choice? (2021, neutral): “Since then, several authors have supported this view with empirical evidence (e.g., Bayarçelik & Taşel, 2012; Ferreira, Fernandes, & Ratten, 2019; Ferreira, Fernandes, & Ferreira, 2020; Freeman, 2002; Grossman & Helpman, 1993; Hasan & Tucci, 2010; Segerstrom, 1991; Wong, Ho, & Autio, 2005).”