مبانی نظری سیاست‌گذاری علم، فناوری و نوآوری از نگاه مکاتب علم اقتصاد

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیأت‌علمی پژوهشکده مطالعات فناوری، تهران

2 دکترای اقتصاد و پژوهشگر پژوهشکده مطالعات فناوری، تهران

چکیده

هدف اصلی این مقاله، بررسی تاریخی دوگان مرسوم اقتصاد نئوکلاسیک و اقتصاد تکاملی به عنوان دو مکتب اصلی علم اقتصاد در حوزه سیاست‌گذاری علم، فناوری و نوآوری و نقش این دوگان در اتخاذ سیاست‌های متفاوت توسعه فناوری است. مکاتب مذکور، رویکردها و چارچوب‌های تحلیلی متفاوتی را به کار می‌گیرند. در یک سو چارچوب‌های نظری اقتصاد نئوکلاسیک، با مفروضات بنیادی‌ای نظیر عقلانیت ابزاری و انتخاب عقلایی، امکان دستیابی به تعادل‌های بلندمدت، وجود بازار علم و فناوری و موارد مشابه دیگر پیکر‌بندی می‌شود. در مقابل، اقتصاد تکاملی که به صورت عام ناظر بر گستره‌ای از رویکردهای اقتصادی ناهمگن ولی منتقد مفروضات بنیادین اقتصاد نئوکلاسیک است در حوزه علم، فناوری و نوآوری دلالت‌های سیاستی خود را بر مفروضاتی نظیر عدم وجود یک تعادل بلندمدت در عرصه علم، فناوری و نوآوری و تمرکز بر موضوعاتی نظیر ظرفیت جذب و یادگیری به جای بازار علم و فناوری استوار ساخته‌ است. مقاله پیش رو ضمن بررسی دقیق و تاریخی مفروضات نظری و چارجوب‌های مفهومی این دو دسته از مکاتب اقتصادی، سعی کرده دلالت‌های این تمایزات مبنایی را در عرصه سیاست‌گذاری بررسی نماید. نتایج حاکی از آن است که علی‌رغم وجود تفاوت‌های گسترده در خصوص مبانی نظری اقتصاد نئوکلاسیک و اقتصاد تکاملی، دلالت‌های سیاستی مکاتب اقتصادی مزبور در حوزه سیاست‌گذاری فناوری و نوآوری طی سال‌های اخیر به سمت همگرایی و مکملی بوده که این موضوع در ایران نیز به رغم وجود اختلافات نظری در عرصه سیاست‌گذاری تا حدود زیادی قابل مشاهده است.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Theoretical Foundations of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy from the View of Economic Schools

نویسندگان [English]

  • Meysam Narimani 1
  • Jafar Hosseini 2
1 Assistant Professorm Technology Institute Studies (TSI), Tehran, Iran
2 Researcher, Technology Institute Studies (TSI), Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

The historical study of duality between neoclassical economics and evolutionary economics as the two main schools of economics in the field of science, technology and innovation policy (STIP) and its role in adopting different technology development strategies are the main objective of this research. Each of these schools have different analytical approaches and frameworks. On the one hand, the theoretical frameworks of neoclassical economics are articulated with fundamental assumptions such as instrumental rationality and rational choice, the possibility of achieving long-term equilibrium, existence of the science and technology market, and so on. In contrast, the evolutionary economics, which is generally viewed as a heterogeneous group of economic doctrine that have fundamental critique on neoclassical economics, in its field of science, technology and innovation, focuses on policy implications like the absence of a long-term equilibrium in science, technology And innovation and focus on topics such as absorption and learning capacity instead of the science and technology market. In this framework, the present paper, by examining the exact and historical theoretical assumptions and conceptual frameworks of these two schools of economics, has tried to examine the implications of these distinctions in the field of policy. The results of this research show that, despite the wide variations in the theoretical foundations of neoclassical economics and evolutionary economics, the policy implications of these schools in the field of technology and innovation policy have become convergent and complementary in recent years. The issue in Iran, despite the differences of opinion, can be seen to a large extent in policy making.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Neoclassical Economics
  • Evolutionary Economics
  • Science
  • Technology and Innovation Policy
[1] Stoneman, P. (1987). The Economic Analysis of Technology Policy. Oxford University Press.

[2] Vandenberg, J., & Kallis, G. (2009). Evolutionary Policy, (pp. 1-42). Papers on Economic and Evolution. Max Planck Institute of Economics, Evolutionary Economics Group, Germany.

[3] Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

[4] Wieczorek, A. J., Hekkert, M. P., & Smits, R. (2009). Contemporary Innovation Policy and Instruments: Challenges and Implications, Working Paper Series 09-12. Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU), PP. 1-45.

[5] Nili, M. (2003). Industrial Development Strategy of Iran, Summary of the Research Project, (pp. 106-137), First Edition. Sharif University Press. {In Persian}.

[6] Stiglitz, J. E. (1987). On the Microeconomics of Technical Progress, (pp. 56–77), In Katz, J. M. (Ed.), Technology Generation in Latin American Manufacturing Industries. Macmillan Press Ltd, London.

[7] Nelson, R. (1959). The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research. Journal of Political Economy, 67(3), 297-306.

[8] Metcalfe, J. S. (1994). Evolutionary Economics and Technology Policy. The Economic Journal, 104(425), 931-944.

[9] Smith, A. (1981). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, (pp. 8-16), Edited by Campbell, R. H., & Skinner, A. S. Vol. 1. Indianapolis IN: Liberty Press.

[10] Freeman, C., & Louca, F. (2001). As Times Goes by: From Industrial Revolution to the Information Revolution, (pp. v-vii). Oxford University Press.

[11] Friedrich L. (1999). The National System of Political Economy, Tanslated by Motamedi, N. (pp. 33-35 & 269-275). Sahami Enteshar Publication. {In Persian}.

[12] Freeman, C. (1995). The National System of Innovation in Historical Perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19, 5-24.

[13] Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Evolutionary Theorizing in Economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(2), 23-46.

[14] Verspagen, B. (2004). Innovation and Economic Growth, (pp. 487-513), Edited by Fagerberg, J., and Mowery, D. C. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York.

[15] Potts, J. (2003). Evolutionary Economics: An Introduction to the Foundation of Liberal Economic Philosophy, Discussion Paper, No, 324. University of Queensland, School of Economics.

[16] Varian, H. R. (1992). Microeconomic Analysis, (pp. 216-232), Third Edition. W. W. Norton Company.

[17] Burtt, E. A. (1990). The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, Translated by Abdulkarim Soroush, (pp. 8-27). Elmi-Farhangi Publication. {In Persian}.

[18] Gide, Ch., & Rist, Ch. (2000). A History of Economic Doctrines, Translated by Karim Sanjabi, Vol 2 (pp. 10-50). Tehran University Press. {In Persian}.

[19] Radzicki, M. J. (2003). Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Forrester, and a Foundation for Evolutionary Economic. Journal of Economic Issues, 3(1), 133-173.

[20] Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper.

[21] Iwai, K. (2000). A Contribution to the Evolutionary Theory of Innovation, Imitation and Growth. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 43(2), 167-198.

[22] Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns and Lock-in by Historical Events. Economic Journal, 99(394), 116-131.

[23] Lundvall, B. (1992). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Anthem Press, USA.

[24] Solow, R. M. (1957). Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1957, 39(3), 312-320.

[25] Romer, P. M, (1994). The Origins of Endogenous Growth. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 3-22.

[26] Arrow, K. (1962). The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing. The Review of Economic Studies, 29(3), 155-173.

[27] Dasgupta, P., & David, P. (1994). Towards a New Economics of Science. Research Policy, 23(5), 487-521.

[28] Foray, D. (2006). The Economics of Knowledge. MIT Press Book.

[29] Foray, D., & Hargreaves, D. (2002). The Development of Knowledge of Different Sectors: a Model and Some Hypotheses. (pp. 4-12). Knowledge Management in Education and Learning Forum, DRUID Summer Conference, Oxford.

[30] Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. (2005). Institutions as the Fundamental Cause of Long-Run Growth, (pp. 385-472), Edited By Aghion, P., & Durlauf, S. Handbook of Economic Growth. Elsevier.

[31] Bach, L., & Matt, M. (2005). From economic foundations to S&T policy tools: a comparative analysis of the dominant paradigms. In Innovation policy in a knowledge-based economy (pp. 17-45). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

[32] Helpman, E. (1998). General Purpose Technologies & Economic Growth. MIT Press.

[33] Aghion, P., David, P. A., and Foray, D. (2009). Science, Technology and Innovation for Economic Growth: Linking Policy Research and Practice in STIG Systems. Research Policy, 38(4), 681-693.

[34] Coase, R. H. (1992). The Institutional Structure of Production. American Economic Review, 82(4), 713-719.

[35] Rizvandi, M. A., Sahabi, B., Yavari, K., & Momeni, F. (2017). A Critical Assessment of Neoclassical Economics in the Problem of Transition to the Knowledge-based Economy: an Institutional Approach. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 9(1), 17-29. {In Persian}.

[36] Narimani, M., Ghazinoory, S., & Miremadi, T. (2013). Policy Implication Extracting of Evolutionary Approach in Science and Technology Sector: A Thematic Analysis. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 5(2), 1-16. {In Persian}.

[37] Cooke, P., & Morgan, K. (1998). The Associational Economy: Firms, Regions, and Innovation. Oxford.

[38] Hodgson, G. (2002). Darwinism in Economics: from Analogy to Ontology. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(3), 259-281.

[39] Ghazinoory, S., & Narimani, M. (2016). Technology and Innovation Policies: the Competetive Economic Schools Approach, (pp. 207-230). Saffar Publication. {In Persian}.

[40] Asadi fard, R., Khoshnevis, Y., & Khaledi, A. (2018). Big like Mars, small like Venus: Challenges of Technology Cooperation between New Business Enterprises and Large Companies in Iran (pp. 9-11). Rasa Publication, Tehran. {In Persian}.