English   español  
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/1989
logo share SHARE   Add this article to your Mendeley library MendeleyBASE
Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL
Exportar a otros formatos:
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMuñoz, Emilio-
dc.descriptionPaper prepared for the Workshop on "Innovation and Diffusion in the Economy: The Strategy and Evaluation Perspectives", Lisbon. 24-25 January, 2000, organised by CISEP, (ISEG, Technical University of Lisbon)en_US
dc.description.abstractScience and technology policy-making and the study of its effects on innovation are requiring a “more sophisticated understanding of the ways on which science and technology interact” (to quote, as an example, N. Rosenberg, Science and Public Policy, vol 18, number 6, pages 335-346, 1991). The exploration of these relations has been and continues to be at the core of the models that, along the period initiated after the Second World War, have been used to promote and analyse the science and technology activities and their outcomes. The “science model” left pace to the “science push-market pull – R&D model”, inspired on linearity, a model that represented the technological change leading to innovation as closely dependent and based essentially on scientific results. More recently, after acknowledgement of the insufficiencies of the linear model, models have evolved considering that science and technology and innovation are part of a system, a “social” system, whose essential activity is learning and which is also “dynamic”. This orientation has corresponded with the idea that biology, and not physics, ought to inspire the economics of technology and innovation (application of the theory of Darwinian evolution, see for a review, J. Mokyr, Bulletin of Economic Research, vol 43, number 2, pages 127-149, 1991). The microeconomics view has been at the onset of recognising the limitations of the dominant neoliberal theory based on the concept of a stable and unique equilibrium. An important lesson that has been learned from the use of evolutionary, biology based, models is that history – and culture – matters. As Mokyr has stated (see reference cited above) “... It is simply impossible to understand longterm economic growth without some kind of Schumpeterian theory of technological creativity and innovation. The neoclassical equilibrium paradigm seems singularly unsuited to that task”.en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesDocumentos de Trabajo - Unidad de Políticas Comparadas (CSIC)en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesDT 00-04en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesGrupo de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad (CSIC)en_US
dc.subjectInnovación tecnológicaen_US
dc.titleTargeted research and technological innovation, and their relationships in a new socio-political context: Approaches to their evaluationen_US
dc.typeDocumento de trabajoen_US
Appears in Collections:(IAE) Informes y documentos de trabajo
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
dt-0004.pdf67,71 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
Show simple item record

WARNING: Items in Digital.CSIC are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.