بازی پویا میان نهادهای علم و فناوری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار اقتصاد دانشگاه قم

2 دانشجوی دکتری اقتصاد اسلامی دانشگاه قم

10.22034/jstp.2020.12.2.1209

چکیده

نهادهای علم ‌و فناوری به عنوان پیشران علم، دانش، صنعت و بازار همواره نقشی اساسی در نظام نوآوری بازی می‌کنند. به طور کلی می‌توان سه نوع از چنین‌ نهادهایی را به رسمیت شناخت: نهاد علم شامل دانشگاه‌ها و سایر مؤسسات آموزش عالی؛ نهاد فناوری همچون پارک‌های علم و فناوری، واحدهای تحقیق‌وتوسعه، مراکز تحقیقاتی و شرکت‌های دانش‌بنیان و نهایتاً نهاد بازار به معنای گسترده خود که دربردارنده بخش‌های صنایع، خدمات و کشاورزی است. از این رو، چگونگی ارتباط مؤثر، کارآمد و متعادل بین این سه نهاد می‌تواند در حکمرانی و سیاست‌گذاری علم و فناوری اثربخش باشد. در این مقاله سعی شده هر یک از سه نهاد فوق را مستقل از یکدیگر در نظر گرفته، راهبرد‌های پیش روی هر یک را مبتنی بر ترجیحات مشارکت یا عدم مشارکت احصاء و از طریق بازی‌های پویا با اطلاعات کامل کنش‌های تعاملی، تجزیه و تحلیل کنیم. برای حل این بازی از روش تعادل کامل بازی‌های فرعی (SPE) استفاده شده و در آن حالت‌های انجام کنش، راهبرد‌های پیش رو، پیامد هر راهبرد، تعادل‌های نش و تعادل بازی‌های فرعی و کل بازی، از طریق فرم گسترده و فرم ماتریسی نیز ارائه شده است. تعادل حاصل از این بازی نشان می‌دهد که علی‌رغم وجود چندین تعادل نش در این بازی، تنها یک تعادل نش شامل مشارکت سه‌گانه هر سه نهاد به عنوان تعادل نهایی و بهینه قابل مشاهده است.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Dynamic Game between Science and Technology Institutions

نویسندگان [English]

  • Omid Ali Adeli 1
  • Hamidreza Maghsoudi 1
  • Ali Saeedi 1
  • Hossein Bahrami 2
1 Faculty Member, Department Economics & Management, Qom University, Iran
2 Ph.D. in Islamic Economics, Qom University, Iran
چکیده [English]

Institutions of science and technology system, as drivers of science, knowledge, industry and the market, always play a key role in Innovation Systems. Generally, three kinds of such institutions can be recognized: (i) Institution of science including universities and other higher-education institutions; (ii) Institution of technology such as science and technology parks, R&D units, research centers and knowledge-based enterprises; (iii) Institution of market in its wide meaning including industries, services and agriculture sectors. Considering each of these three institutions independently, we have analyzed their strategies based on the preferences of cooperating or non-cooperating through dynamic games with complete information. In order to solve this game, we have used the method of Subgame Perfect Equilibrium (SPE). As a result, we have shown modes of action, leading strategies, outcome of each strategy, Nash equilibria as well as sub-game equilibrium. Whole game is also shown in its extended and matrix form. Among several Nash equilibria, only one equilibrium was credible according SPE which is triple partnership between all institutions.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Innovation System
  • Triple Helix
  • Science and Technology Institutions
  • Dynamic Games with Complete Information
  • SPE Sub-Game Equilibrium

مراجع

[1] Natário, M. M., Couto, J. P. A., & de Almeida, C. F. R. (2012). The triple helix model and dynamics of innovation: a case study. Journal of Knowledge-based innovation in China, 4(1), 36-54.
[2] Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix-University-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EASST review, 14(1), 14-19.
[3] Zarghami, H. (2018). An overview of the patterns of development of university, industry and government relations to promote innovation. Science and Technology Policy Letters, 08(2), 103-112. {In Persian}.
[4] Lawton Smith, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2014). The Triple Helix in the context of global change: dynamics and challenges. Prometheus, 32(4), 321-336.
[5] Zarghami, H. (2016). A comparison study of synergic effect of the triple helix relationship between Iran and Switzerland. Journal of Technology Development Management, 4(3), 97-126. {In Persian}.
[6] Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research policy, 29(2), 109-123.
[7] Dzisah, J., & Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The renewal of the African university: towards a triple helix development model for Ethiopia. Paper presented at the Transforming University-Industry-Government Relations in Ethiopia, Proceedings of Ethiopia Triple Helix Conference, IKED, Addis Ababa.
[8] Riahi, P., & Ghazinoory, S. (2013). An Introduction to the Innovation System (Broad Approach). Tehran: University Publishing Center, First Edition. {In Persian}.
[9] Montazer, Gh., & Kalantari, I. (2016). Concepts, Approaches and Institutional Mapping Methods (with Emphasis on Innovation System Studies). Rahyafat, 62, 55-72. {In Persian}.
[10] Nightingale, P. (1998). A Cognitive Model of Innovation. Research Policy, 27, 689–709.
[11] Audretsch, D. B., Bozeman, B., Combs, K. L., Feldman, M., Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., ... & Wessner, C. (2002). The economics of science and technology. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(2), 155-203.
[12] Bozeman, B., and Link, A. N. (1983). Investments in Technology: Corporate Strategies and Public Policy Alternatives. New York: Praeger Publishers.
[13] Maghsoudi, H., Saeedi, A., & Valdan, E., & Goldoozha, M. (2019). Qazvin Science and Technology Organization Document. Qazvin: Qazvin University Jihad Publications. {In Persian}.
[14] Ke, Y., Yujun, L., Kaiguo, Z., & Jingui, L. (2011). The financing of science & technology SME: A dynamic game analysis. In 2011 International Conference on Business Management and Electronic Information (Vol. 2, 179–181).
[15] Shu-bo, Z. (2012). An Analysis on the International Cooperation Game in Science and Technology. Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology.
[16] Nan, G., Wei, J., & Hu, H. (2019). Analysis of the multi-agent’s relationship in collaborative innovation network for science and technology SEMs based on evolutionary game theory. International Journal of Information Technology and Management, 18(1), 1–15.
[17] Sutopo, W., Erliza, A., Widiyanto, A., Apriandy, R. R., & Ali, A. (2018). The model of investment promotion policy scheme in science and technology park: a case study of techno polis in Indonesia. Production & Manufacturing Research, 6(1), 308–327.
[18] Gibbons, R. (1992). Game Theory for Applied Economists. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
[19] Osborne, M. J., and Rubinstein, A. (1994). A Course in Game Theory. MIT Press.
[20] Bonnano, G. (2018). Game Theory (2nd Edition). University of California, Davis.
[21] Souri, A. (2007). Game theory and economic applications. Faculty of Economics Publications, Tehran. {In Persian}.
[22] Tadelis, S. (2013). Game Theory (An Introduction). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
[23] Abdoli, Gh. (2007). Game theory and its applications (static and dynamic games with complete information). Jihad Daneshgahi Publications, Tehran. {In Persian}.
[24] Maschler, M., Solan, E., & Zamir, S. (2013). Game theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[25] Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1953 & 2007). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Third Edition & 60th Anniversary Commemorative Edition. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
[26] Davis, D., M. (1997). Game Theory (A Nontechnical Introduction). New York: Basic Books, Inc.
[27] Abdoli, Gh. (2016). Game theory and its applications (static and dynamic games with complete information). Jihad Daneshgahi Publications, fifth edition, Tehran. {In Persian}.
[28] Adeli, O. (2013). Analyzing the relationship between mobile communication company and subscribers through dynamic games. Journal of Economic Modeling, 7(22), 45-62. {In Persian}.
[29] Selten, R. (1975). Re-examination of the perfectness concept for equilibrium points in extensive games. International Journal of Game Theory, 4, 25-55.
 
 

فایل ها

همرسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار