Open Access

Does innovation promote economic growth? Evidence from European countries

  • Rana P. Maradana1,
  • Rudra P. Pradhan1Email author,
  • Saurav Dash1,
  • Kunal Gaurav1,
  • Manju Jayakumar1 and
  • Debaleena Chatterjee1
Journal of Innovation and EntrepreneurshipA Systems View Across Time and Space20176:1

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-016-0061-9

Received: 18 August 2016

Accepted: 16 December 2016

Published: 10 January 2017

Abstract

The paper examines the long-run relationship between innovation and per capita economic growth in the 19 European countries over the period 1989–2014. This study uses six different indicators of innovation: patents-residents, patents-non-residents, research and development expenditure, researchers in research and development activities, high-technology exports, and scientific and technical journal articles to examine this long-run relationship with per capita economic growth. Using cointegration technique, the study finds evidence of long-run relationship between innovation and per capita economic growth in most of the cases, typically with reference to the use of a particular innovation indicator. Using Granger causality test, the study finds the presence of both unidirectional and bidirectional causality between innovation and per capita economic growth. These results vary from country to country, depending upon the types of innovation indicators that we use in the empirical investigation process. Most importantly, the study finds that all these innovation indicators are considerably linked with per capita economic growth. This particular linkage is either supply-leading or demand-following in some occasions, while it is the occurrence of both in some other occasions. The policy implication of this study is that countries should recognize the differences in innovation and per capita economic growth in order to maintain sustainable development in these countries.

Keywords

Innovation Per capita economic growth Cointegration Granger causality European countries

JEL Classification

O43 O16 E44

Background

Why do some regions grow continuously for many years whereas others stagnate? Why do some regions grow faster than others? The theoretical breakthrough in answering these questions started by Solow (1956) and Romer (1990) has lost its momentum, leaving some important questions unanswered. Following the neoclassical growth and endogenous growth theories, technological advance is believed to be the major driver of economic growth, yet how exactly new knowledge translates into superior economic performance by regions was neither described by the growth theories nor found unequivocal empirical explanation. Empirical studies, lacking theoretical underpinnings, looked into networks (Wal and Boschma 2009), labour mobility (Almeida and Kogut 1999), and other potential facilitators of spillovers (Tsvetkova 2015).

In the recent years, both researchers and policymakers have increasingly paid attention to investigate the link between innovation, entrepreneurship, and regional outcomes (Galindo and Mendez-Picazo 2014; Grossman 2009; Howells 2005; Malerba and Brusoni 2007; Tsvetkova 2015; Wang et al. 2005). However, in this paper, we specifically1 look into the linkage between innovation2 and economic growth in the selected European countries. Innovation is considered as one of the key drivers of the economy (Andergassen et al. 2009; Bae and Yoo 2015; Mansfield 1972; Nadiri 1993; Romer 1986; Santacreu 2015; Solow 1956), particularly since the seminal work of Schumpeter3 (1911). It affects the economy in multiple channels, such as economic growth, global competitiveness, financial systems, quality of life, infrastructure development, employment, trade openness, and hence, spawns high economic growth.4 All these above studies mostly focus on the impact of innovation towards economic growth, indicating the supply-driven approach of innovation-growth nexus. But in reality, it is the economic growth that can also increase the level of innovation in the development process. That means there is a feasibility of bidirectional causality between innovation and economic growth (Pradhan et al. 2016). Hence, the main objective of this paper is to examine the bidirectional linkage between innovation and economic growth. In sum, we would like to assess the importance of innovation-economic growth linkage, by investigating whether the level of innovation has contributed to economic growth, or whether the extension of the innovation is simply a consequence of rapid economic growth.

In this paper, we utilize the Granger causality approach to examine the dynamics between innovation and economic growth for a sample of 19 European countries. The main contribution of the study is twofold. First, we specifically assess the importance of innovation activities on economic growth, by investigating whether the innovation activities have contributed to economic growth, or whether the expansion of innovation activities are simply a consequence of rapid economic growth. The Granger causality approach has been deployed to carry out this investigation.5 Second, our data set is more recent and comprehensive (i.e. 1989–2014) in contrast to existing studies.

The rest of the paper is sketched as follows. The “Theoretical basis and literature review” section presents the theoretical basis and literature review. The “An outline of innovation in the European countries” section summarizes the status of innovation in the European countries. The “Proposed hypotheses, variables, data structure, and model” section describes the proposed hypothesis, variables, data, and model. The “Results and discussion” section presents the results and discussion. Finally, we summarize and conclude in the “Conclusion” section.

Theoretical basis and literature review

For linking the relationship between innovation activities and economic growth, we draw upon the basic theory of endogenous technical change developed by Romer (1990), Grossman and Helpman (1991), and Aghion and Howitt (1992). Our typical version of this theory contains innovation activities which allow a specific entrepreneur to produce one of many intermediate products at a cost temporarily lower than that of his rivals. The extent of innovative activities undertaken by society commands the rate of economic growth (see, for instance, Schumpeter (1912), King and Levine (1993), Ulku (2004), Aghion et al. (2005)).

Literature specifies that innovation activities contribute to economic growth, both directly and indirectly via other macroeconomic factors, see, for instance, Furman et al. (2002), Hassan and Tucci (2010). But it is possible that innovation activities are also equally affected by economic growth and other macroeconomic factors. That means, in practice, both innovation activities and economic growth can cause each other and therefore, there is the possibility of feedback relationship between the two. Previous studies on this issue, in general, can be categorized in four different forms (Cetin 2013; Pradhan et al. 2016), namely supply-leading hypothesis (SLH), demand-following hypothesis (DFH), feedback hypothesis (FBH), and neutrality hypothesis (NLH). The SLH shows unidirectional causality from innovation activities to economic growth (see, for instance, Pradhan et al. (2016), Cetin (2013) Guloglu and Tekin (2012), Fan (2011), Yang (2006)). The DFH reflects unidirectional causality from economic growth to innovation activities (see, for instance, Pradhan et al. (2016), Sadraoui et al. (2014), Cetin (2013), Sinha (2008), Howells (2005)). The FBH reveals the bidirectional causality between economic growth and innovation activities (see, for instance, Pradhan et al. (2016), Guloglu and Tekin (2012), Cetin (2013), Howells (2005)). Finally, the NLH displays the independent relationship between economic growth and innovation activities (see, for instance, Pradhan et al. (2016), Cetin (2013)). The aim of our study is to validate these four hypotheses in the selected European countries—a group of countries that has little attention in the literature.

An outline of innovation in the European countries

As cited above, innovation and economic growth cause each other in the development process (Agenor and Neanidis 2015; Aghion et al. 2010; Fan 2011). There are two ways we can address the innovation-growth issue: first, the regional disparities of innovation activities and economic growth in the European countries, and second, the causal link between innovation and economic growth in these countries. This paper deals with both issues. However, in this section, we address the disparity issue. Overall, innovation can be represented in multiple ways (see, for instance, Pradhan et al. (2016)). Nonetheless, we use six different types of innovation6 in this paper. These include number of patents-residents (PAR), measured per thousand of population; number of patents-non-residents (PAN), measured per thousand of population; research and development expenditure (RDE), measured as a percentage of real gross domestic product; researchers in research and development activities (RRD), measured per thousand population; high-technology exports (HTE), measured as a percentage of real domestic product; and scientific and technical journal articles (STJ), measured per thousand population. The detailed descriptions of these six innovation indicators are available in Table 1.
Table 1

Definition of variables

Variable code

Variable definition

GDP

Per capita economic growth: expansion of a country’s economy, expressed in per capita gross domestic product.

PAR

Patents filed by residents: expressed in numbers per thousand population.

PAN

Patents filed by non-residents: expressed in numbers per thousand population.

RDE

Research and development expenditure: expressed as a percentage of real gross domestic product.

RRD

Researchers in research and development activities: expressed in numbers per thousand population.

HTE

High-technology exports: expressed as a percentage of real gross domestic product.

STJ

Scientific and technical journal articles: expressed in numbers per thousand population.

Variables above are defined in the World Development Indicators of World Bank

Tables 2 and 3 provide the general status of innovation indicators in the European countries, both individually and as a group. The status of innovation (PAR, PAN, RDE, RRD, HTE, and STJ) in the European countries is noticed here during four different time periods from 1989 to 20147 (see, Tables 2 and 3). These four periods are P1: 1989–2000, P2: 2001–2007, P3: 2008–2014, and P4: 1989–2014. The salient points of this innovation status are as follows.
Table 2

Trend of Innovation (per thousand population) in European countries

Countries

PAR

PAN

RDE

P1

P2

P3

P4

P1

P2

P3

P4

P1

P2

P3

P4

Austria

0.25

0.26

0.27

0.26

0.06

0.03

0.03

0.05

1.77

2.29

2.76

2.28

Belgium

0.07

0.05

0.06

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.01

0.03

1.87

1.90

2.12

1.95

Czech Republic

0.06

0.06

0.08

0.07

0.33

0.19

0.01

0.19

1.07

1.23

1.51

1.26

Denmark

0.25

0.32

0.27

0.28

0.14

0.03

0.03

0.08

1.99

2.49

2.99

2.53

Finland

0.44

0.38

0.32

0.39

0.38

0.04

0.02

0.20

2.93

3.43

3.77

3.38

France

0.22

0.22

0.22

0.22

0.06

0.05

0.03

0.05

2.18

2.15

2.23

2.18

Germany

0.48

0.59

0.58

0.54

0.11

0.14

0.16

0.13

2.32

2.51

2.83

2.55

Greece

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.53

0.58

0.68

0.59

Hungary

0.13

0.08

0.07

0.10

0.18

0.23

0.01

0.15

0.70

0.95

1.17

0.94

Ireland

0.23

0.21

0.14

0.20

0.35

0.02

0.01

0.18

1.22

1.19

1.64

1.33

Italy

0.13

0.16

0.14

0.15

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.15

1.02

1.11

1.25

1.13

Netherlands

0.14

0.13

0.15

0.14

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.03

1.96

1.89

1.92

1.91

Norway

0.26

0.25

0.23

0.25

1.04

1.08

0.32

0.88

1.63

1.59

1.67

1.62

Poland

0.08

0.06

0.09

0.08

0.06

0.09

0.01

0.05

0.66

0.57

0.74

0.64

Portugal

0.01

0.01

0.05

0.02

0.10

0.01

0.01

0.05

0.63

0.84

1.55

0.99

Romania

0.09

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.51

0.42

0.50

0.47

Spain

0.06

0.07

0.07

0.06

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.85

1.09

1.36

1.09

Sweden

0.43

0.33

0.24

0.35

0.10

0.06

0.03

0.07

3.52

3.70

3.50

3.59

United Kingdom

0.33

0.32

0.25

0.31

0.16

0.17

0.19

0.15

1.77

1.73

1.77

1.75

European panel#

3.68

3.59

3.35

3.59

3.22

2.23

0.93

2.47

1.49

1.66

1.93

1.80

PAR is number of patents by residents, PAN is number of patents by non-residents, and RDE is research and development expenditure. P1 is 1989–2000, P2 is 2001–2007, P3 is 2008–2014, and P4 is 1989–2014

#The figures are average of all 19 European countries

Table 3

Trend of innovation (per thousand population) in European countries

Countries

RRD

HTE

STJ

P1

P2

P3

P4

P1

P2

P3

P4

P1

P2

P3

P4

Austria

0.29

0.41

0.51

0.45

24.7

49.1

48.7

36.9

0.43

0.57

0.59

0.50

Belgium

0.27

0.30

0.34

0.30

58.0

67.4

87.6

73.2

0.55

0.62

0.68

0.61

Czech Republic

0.12

0.19

0.27

0.19

0.88

2.56

4.79

2.84

0.23

0.30

0.39

0.30

Denmark

0.63

0.89

1.21

0.95

4.24

6.09

5.28

5.01

0.82

0.93

1.01

0.89

Finland

1.17

1.45

1.42

1.37

67.8

70.8

34.3

48.3

0.90

0.95

0.93

0.85

France

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.05

38.1

38.2

49.2

37.9

0.51

0.49

0.49

0.48

Germany

0.04

0.04

0.05

0.04

35.5

54.9

63.9

45.7

0.51

0.53

0.55

0.50

Greece

0.12

0.15

0.20

0.15

4.77

4.78

5.15

4.01

0.26

0.37

0.43

0.29

Hungary

0.11

0.15

0.21

0.16

0.57

0.24

0.64

0.44

0.19

0.24

0.24

0.22

Ireland

0.54

0.64

0.73

0.64

294.8

201.6

134.6

201.2

0.38

0.48

0.64

0.43

Italy

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.02

15.6

16.1

17.4

16.4

0.35

0.42

0.45

0.41

Netherlands

0.16

0.18

0.19

0.18

73.3

102.2

96.2

86.9

0.75

0.81

0.91

0.81

Norway

0.92

1.01

1.12

1.07

1.37

1.51

1.57

1.53

0.69

0.76

0.92

0.85

Poland

0.03

0.04

0.04

0.04

1.04

2.09

5.65

2.98

0.13

0.17

0.19

0.16

Portugal

0.14

0.20

0.41

0.24

8.51

15.5

10.4

11.9

0.14

0.27

0.40

0.26

Romania

0.05

0.04

0.04

0.05

4.70

3.22

6.10

4.59

0.04

0.04

0.07

0.05

Spain

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.05

11.3

10.5

11.8

11.1

0.34

0.41

0.47

0.41

Sweden

0.51

0.61

0.56

0.59

6.51

5.26

4.52

4.98

1.12

1.10

1.02

1.06

United Kingdom

0.04

0.06

0.06

0.06

68.9

60.1

34.7

54.1

0.80

0.76

0.74

0.77

European panel#

0.27

0.33

0.40

0.33

52.2

38.2

34.5

44.1

1.01

0.57

0.62

0.53

RRD is researchers in research and development activities, HTE is high-technology exports, and STJ is scientific and technical journal articles. P1 is 1989–2000, P2 is 2001–2007, P3 is 2008–2014, and P4 is 1989–2014

#The figures are average of all 19 European countries

First, the status of patents-residents is relatively high in comparison to patents-non-residents. This is true for most of the European countries and for all the four time periods (P1–P4).

Second, the volume of patents-residents is relatively high in Germany, France, the UK, and Italy, while it is considerably low in Belgium, Czech Republic, Greece, and Portugal.

Third, the volume of patents-non-residents is considerably high in Germany, the UK, France, and Norway, while it is relatively low in Belgium, Greece, Portugal, and Romania.

Fourth, the level of research and development expenditure is legitimately high in Sweden, Finland, Germany, France, Denmark, and the Netherlands, while it is relatively low in Romania, Greece, Portugal, and Hungary.

Fifth, the level of researchers in research and development activities is fairly high in Finland, Norway, Denmark, Ireland, and Sweden, while it is fairly low in Italy, Poland, France, Germany, Spain, and Romania.

Sixth, the volume of high-technology exports is moderately high in Ireland, the Netherlands, the UK, Finland, and Belgium, while it is noticeably low in Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, and Norway.

Seventh, the volume of scientific and technical journal articles is relatively high in Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the UK, and the Netherlands, while it is considerably low in Romania, Poland, Portugal, and Hungary.

The above observations are absolutely true for all the four time periods, i.e. P1 (1989–2000) to P4 (1989–2014). However, the overall trend has been increasing for all the innovation indicators.

Methods of Study

In this section, we empirically test the causality between innovation and per capita economic growth. Specifically, the causality between innovation and per capita economic growth can be addressed in four different ways: supply-leading hypothesis of innovation-growth nexus, demand-following hypothesis of innovation-growth nexus, feedback hypothesis of innovation-growth nexus, and neutrality hypothesis of innovation-growth nexus. These are all clearly elaborated in the literature review section.

Figure 1 depicts the possible patterns of causal relations between innovation activities and economic growth. We intend to test the following two hypotheses8:
Fig. 1

Conceptual framework of the causality between innovation and per capita economic growth. Note 1: GDP is per capita economic growth and INN is innovation and used as a proxy for PAR, PAN, RDE, RRD, HTE, and STJ. Note 2: PAR is number of patents by residents, PAN is number of patents by non-residents, RDE is research and development expenditure, RRD is the researchers in research and development activities, HTE is the high-technology exports, and STJ is the scientific and technical journal articles

H 1A 0 : Innovation activities do not Granger-cause per capita economic growth.

H 1A 1 : Innovation activities Granger-cause per capita economic growth.

H 1B 0 : Per capita economic growth does not Granger-cause innovation activities.

H 1B 1 : Per capita economic growth Granger-causes innovation activities.

The importance of this study is twofold: (a) we use a large sample of countries, from the European Union, over a recent span of time, and (b) we use the sophisticated econometric tools—and certain empirical approaches that have not been taken in these literature—to answer questions concerning the nature of Granger causal relationship between innovation and per capita economic growth, both in the short-run and long-run.

The inclusion of innovation as a determinant of economic growth (and vice versa) in empirical research is its straightforward measurement. Researchers can use either the input measures such as research and development expenditure (Goel and Ram 1994; Griliches 1992; Griliches and Mairesse 1986; Mansfield 1972) or innovation outputs such as patents (Audretsch and Feldman 1996; Bayoumi et al. 1999; Coe and Helpman 1995; Griliches 1990; Kim and Lee 2015; Maurseth and Verspagen 2002; Pradhan et al. 2016; Stokey 1995; Wang et al. 2005). But in this study, we deploy both types of innovation indicators (input and output) to investigate the linkage between innovation and economic growth.

On the empirical front, we use two variables: per capita economic growth (variable: GDP9) and innovation (variable: INN10). Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics of these innovation variables, particularly with reference to PAR, PAN, RDE, RRD, HTE, and STJ.
Table 4

Descriptive statistics of the variables

Countries

Variables

PAR

PAN

RDE

RRD

THE

STJ

Austria

−0.57/0.03

−1.44/0.07

0.38/0.06

−0.36/0.08

0.68/0.08

−0.24/0.02

Belgium

−1.27/0.05

−1.81/0.13

0.29/0.02

−0.51/0.03

0.85/0.07

−0.20/0.03

Czech Republic

−1.20/0.06

−0.10/0.73

0.08/0.06

−0.75/0.15

−0.69/0.30

−0.53/0.10

Denmark

−0.53/0.04

−1.50/0.08

0.40/0.07

−0.04/0.11

−0.25/0.06

−0.03/0.03

Finland

−0.41/0.07

−1.42/0.16

0.53/0.04

0.13/0.05

0.77/0.15

−0.03/0.01

France

−0.65/0.01

−1.35/0.14

0.34/0.01

−1.29/0.05

0.60/0.05

−0.31/0.01

Germany

−0.24/0.02

−0.86/0.05

0.40/0.03

−1.40/0.05

069/0.12

−0.28/0.02

Greece

−1.40/0.13

−2.57/0.18

−0.24/0.05

−0.85/0.11

−0.35/0.10

−0.47/0.12

Hungary

−1.14/0.04

−1.26/0.80

−0.04/0.09

−0.82/0.11

−1.32/0.25

−0.64/0.04

Ireland

−0.69/0.10

−1.67/0.19

0.11/0.06

−0.20/0.05

1.31/0.14

−0.32/0.10

Italy

−0.86/0.05

−1.74/0.12

0.06/0.05

−1.60/0.07

0.22/0.03

−0.38/0.05

Netherlands

−0.84/0.03

−1.54/0.15

0.28/0.02

−0.75/0.04

0.98/0.06

−0.08/0.03

Norway

−0.60/0.04

−0.15/0.35

0.21/0.02

0.01/0.03

−0.82/0.02

−0.10/0.10

Poland

−1.19/0.07

−1.40/0.57

−0.20/0.05

−1.40/0.03

−0.69/0.30

−0.79/0.08

Portugal

−1.79/0.31

−2.29/0.18

−0.05/0.16

−0.68/0.19

0.05/0.17

−0.62/0.19

Romania

−1.28/0.11

−2.14/0.49

−0.34/0.08

−1.35/0.06

−0.37/0.17

−1.31/0.11

Spain

−1.17/0.05

−2.10/0.18

0.03/0.09

−1.30/0.10

0.03/0.04

−0.40/0.06

Sweden

−0.51/0.12

−1.27/0.17

0.56/0.02

−0.24/0.04

−0.29/0.07

0.03/0.02

United Kingdom

−0.51/0.06

−0.82/0.10

0.24/0.01

−1.24/0.07

0.74/0.12

−0.12/0.01

European panel#

−0.89/0.42

−1.47/0.62

0.16/0.26

−0.79/0.53

0.13/0.74

−0.37/0.34

PAR is number of patents by residents, PAN is number of patents by non-residents, RDE is research and development expenditure, RRD is researchers in research and development activities, HTE is high-technology exports, STJ is scientific and technical journal articles, and GDP is per capita economic growth. Values reported here are natural logs of the variables

#The reported statistics are calculated at the panel level

We take the sample of 19 European countries11 to investigate the validity of two hypotheses, namely H1A,B and H2A,B. The empirical investigation follows annual data over the period 1989 to 2014 and was obtained from the World Development Indicators of the World Bank. The study deploys cointegration and Granger causality (Granger 1988; 1986) to validate the above two null hypotheses (H 1A 0 and H 1B 0 ). We have six different cases to validate these two hypotheses, particularly with reference to six different indicators of innovation. Case 1 deals with GDP and PAR, case 2 deals with GDP and PAN, case 3 deals with GDP and RDE, case 4 deals with GDP and RRD, case 5 deals with GDP and HTE, and case 6 deals with GDP and STJ.

Following Holtz-Eakin et al. (1988), we use the succeeding regression models to notice the long-run and short-run causal relationship between innovation and per capita economic growth.

Model 1: For individual country analysis
$$ \varDelta {\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{G}}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{D}}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{P}}}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{t}}={\alpha}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{1}}+{\displaystyle \sum_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}=\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{1}}^{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{p}}{\beta}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{1}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}}\varDelta {\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{G}}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{D}}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{P}}}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{t}-\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}}}+{\displaystyle \sum_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}=\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{1}}^{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{q}}{\lambda}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{1}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}}\varDelta {\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{INN}}}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{t}-\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}}}+{\delta}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{1}}{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{E}}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{C}}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{T}}}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{t}-\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{1}}+{\varepsilon}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{1}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{t}} $$
(1)
The testable hypotheses are:
$$ \begin{array}{cc}\hfill {H}_0:\ {\lambda}_{1k = 0};\ \mathrm{and}\ {\delta}_1 = 0\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{f}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\ k = 1,\ 2, \dots,\ q\hfill \\ {}\hfill {H}_A:\ {\lambda}_{1k\ \#\ 0};\ \mathrm{and}\ {\delta}_1\#\ 0\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{f}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\ k = 1,\ 2, \dots,\ q\hfill \end{array} $$
$$ \varDelta {\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{INN}}}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{t}}={\alpha}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{2}}+{\displaystyle \sum_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}=\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{1}}^{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{p}}{\beta}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{2}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}}\varDelta {\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{INN}}}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{t}-\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}}}+{\displaystyle \sum_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}=\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{1}}^{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{q}}{\lambda}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{2}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}}\varDelta {\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{G}}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{D}}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{P}}}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{t}-\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}}}+{\delta}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{2}}{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{E}}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{C}}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{T}}}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{t}-\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{1}}+{\varepsilon}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{2}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{t}} $$
(2)
The testable hypotheses are:
$$ \begin{array}{cc}\hfill {H}_0:\ {\lambda}_{2k = 0};\ \mathrm{and}\ {\delta}_2 = 0\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{f}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\ k = 1,\ 2, \dots,\ q\hfill \\ {}\hfill {H}_A:\ {\lambda}_{2k\ \#\ 0};\ \mathrm{and}\ {\delta}_2\#\ 0\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{f}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\ k = 1,\ 2, \dots,\ q\hfill \end{array}, $$

where ECT12 is error correction term, which is derived from the long-run cointegration equation; p and q are the lag lengths for the estimation; is the first difference operator; and ε 1t and ε 2t are the independent and normally distributed random error with a zero mean and a finite heterogeneous variance.

Model 2: For panel data analysis
$$ \varDelta {\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{G}}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{D}}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{P}}}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{it}}={\alpha}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{3}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{j}}+{\displaystyle \sum_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}=\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{1}}^{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{p}}{\beta}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{3}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{i}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}}\varDelta {\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{G}}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{D}}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{P}}}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{it}-\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}}}+{\displaystyle \sum_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}=\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{1}}^{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{q}}{\lambda}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{3}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{i}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}}\varDelta {\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{INN}}}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{it}-\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}}}+{\delta}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{3}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{i}}{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{E}}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{C}}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{T}}}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{it}-\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{1}}+{\varepsilon}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{3}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{it}} $$
(3)
The testable hypotheses are:
$$ \begin{array}{cc}\hfill {H}_0:\ {\lambda}_{3ik = 0};\ \mathrm{and}\ {\delta}_{3i} = 0\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{f}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\ k = 1,\ 2, \dots,\ q\hfill \\ {}\hfill {H}_A:\ {\lambda}_{3ik\ \#\ 0};\ \mathrm{and}\ {\delta}_{3i}\#\ 0\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{f}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\ k = 1,\ 2, \dots,\ q\hfill \end{array} $$
$$ \varDelta {\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{INN}}}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{it}}={\alpha}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{4}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{j}}+{\displaystyle \sum_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}=\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{1}}^{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{p}}{\beta}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{4}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{i}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}}\varDelta {\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{G}}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{D}}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{P}}}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{it}-\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}}}+{\displaystyle \sum_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}=\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{1}}^{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{q}}{\lambda}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{4}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{i}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}}\varDelta {\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{INN}}}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{it}-\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{k}}}+{\delta}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{4}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{i}}{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{E}}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{C}}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{\mathrm{T}}}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{it}-\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{1}}+{\varepsilon}_{\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{4}\fontfamily{Yu Mincho Light}{it}} $$
(4)
The testable hypotheses are:
$$ \begin{array}{cc}\hfill {H}_0:\ {\lambda}_{4ik = 0};\ \mathrm{and}\ {\delta}_{4i} = 0\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{f}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\ k = 1,\ 2, \dots,\ q\hfill \\ {}\hfill {H}_A:\ {\lambda}_{4ik\ \#\ 0};\ \mathrm{and}\ {\delta}_{4i}\#\ 0\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{f}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\ k = 1,\ 2, \dots,\ q\hfill \end{array}, $$

where i = 1, 2, …., N represents a country in the panel, t = 1, 2, …., and T represents the year in the panel.

This study uses HQIC13 statistics to select the optimum lag length.

Moreover, the choice of a particular model (with/without ECT) depends upon the order of integration and the cointegrating relationship between innovation and per capita economic growth. Therefore, we first deploy unit root test and cointegration test, both at individual country and the panel setting, for knowing the order of integration and the presence of cointegrating relationship between innovation and per capita economic growth.

The Augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) unit root test (Dickey and Fuller 1981) is used for individual country analysis, while the ADF—Fisher Chi-square panel unit root test (Maddala and Wu 1999) is used for the panel setting. On the other hand, Johansen cointegration test (Johansen 1988) is deployed for individual country analysis, while Fisher/Maddala cointegration test (Maddala and Wu 1999; Fisher 1932) is deployed at the panel setting. The details of these two unit root tests (unit root and cointegration) are not available here and can be incorporated, if required.

Results and discussion

The discussion begins with order of integration and cointegration between innovation14 and per capita economic growth. Using unit root (simple ADF test at each of the individual country and panel ADF15 at the panel setting), we reject the null hypothesis of unit root at the first difference but not at the level data. Table 5 presents these unit root test results, both for individual country and for the European panel. The results indicate that innovation (INN: PAR, PAN, RDE, RRD, HTE, and STJ) and per capita economic growth (GDP) are non-stationary at the level data but are stationary at the first difference. This is true for all the 19 European countries, both at the individual country and at the group level (panel setting). The findings suggest that both innovation and per capita economic growth are integrated of order one [i.e. I (1)], which unbolts the possibility of cointegration between the two (innovation and per capita economic growth).
Table 5

Results of unit root test

Countries

Variables

PAR

PAN

RDE

RRD

HTE

STJ

GDP

 

LD/FD

LD/FD

LD/FD

LD/FD

LD/FD

LD/FD

LD/FD

Austria

0.14/−5.40*

1.82/−7.46*

3.81/−2.39**

−0.67/−3.22*

1.57/−5.10*

−1.30/−2.64**

−0.74/−5.64*

Belgium

0.05/−4.65*

1.06/−5.89*

1.81/−2.56**

−0.62/−2.46**

2.28/−2.96*

−1.32/−10.0*

−0.54/−5.84*

Czech Republic

−0.23/−2.33**

0.52/−2.36**

2.85/−1.89***

−1.31/−2.73**

−0.43/−2.06***

−0.69/−4.03*

−0.82/−6.61*

Denmark

−0.40/−5.90*

0.62/−6.66*

1.87/−1.98***

−0.99/−5.07*

−1.64/−6.91*

−0.34/−4.42*

−0.68/−7.68*

Finland

1.02/−4.07*

0.92/−3.91*

−0.22/−1.65***

0.43/−3.33*

−0.49/−3.32*

−1.25/−12.5*

−0.55/−3.49*

France

−0.31/−5.96*

0.63/−2.90*

−0.09/−3.52*

1.02/−5.83*

1.75/−5.14*

−0.76/−3.74*

−0.74/−5.73*

Germany

−1.11/−2.44**

−1.21/−3.09*

3.12/−2.44**

−1.63/−2.28**

1.99/−3.55*

−0.38/−3.81*

−1.16/−4.60*

Greece

−1.06/−5.36*

1.23/−5.27*

–/–

–/–

−1.56/−6.67*

−0.88/−2.39***

0.80/−3.63*

Hungary

1.63/−2.96*

0.73/−3.54*

−1.12/−2.84**

−1.79/−5.70*

1.41/−4.81*

−1.16/−4.44*

−1.40/−4.71*

Ireland

1.90/−2.83*

0.69/−3.75*

1.43/−1.88***

−3.93/−1.88***

−0.62/−2.96*

−0.77/−2.42**

−0.80/−3.12*

Italy

0.15/−3.03*

−0.94/−4.40*

1.46/−2.65**

−1.13/−3.88*

0.90/−7.60*

−0.29/−2.32**

−0.92/−6.04*

Netherlands

0.04/−4.52*

0.89/−3.21*

0.43/−2.47**

−1.54/−4.54*

1.08/−3.96*

−1.91/−2.23**

−0.65/−5.87*

Norway

0.17/−6.18*

−0.70/−2.83**

0.04/−2.47**

0.10/−2.72**

−0.24/−5.46*

−0.43/−3.54*

−0.23/−5.89*

Poland

0.22/−3.34*

0.47/−3.75*

−0.90/−2.02**

−2.49/−4.00*

−0.95/−2.37**

−0.46/−1.87***

−0.33/−5.20*

Portugal

−1.81/−4.83*

0.71/−3.88*

−1.59/−1.59***

−3.54/−1.84***

−2.10/−4.74*

−0.90/−2.88*

−1.10/−5.81*

Romania

0.80/−4.88*

0.47/−4.10*

0.23/−2.70**

0.82/−4.02*

−4.62/−2.51**

−1.92/−5.11*

1.58/−4.88*

Spain

−0.78/−5.21*

2.30/−4.59*

−1.67/−2.14**

−2.66/−2.66**

−0.93/−3.69*

−0.54/−2.53**

−0.67/−6.30*

Sweden

1.08/−3.28*

1.53/−5.36*

−1.27/−4.47*

0.14/−3.80*

−0.74/−4.93*

−1.46/−1.94***

−2.32/−7.96*

United Kingdom

0.90/−2.25**

−0.08/−2.32**

−0.54/−4.16*

−1.11/−2.50**

−0.97/−2.18***

−1.08/−4.06*

−0.69/−6.84*

European panel#

50.5/136.7*

14.8/129.1*

23.4/122.7*

18.0/95.4*

50.7/144.1*

113.3/104.1*

34.2/197.5*

PAR is number of patents by residents, PAN is number of patents by non-residents, RDE is research and development expenditure, RRD is researchers in research and development activities, HTE is high-technology exports, STJ is scientific and technical journal articles, and GDP is per capita economic growth. The investigation is done at three levels—no trend and intercept, with intercept, and with both intercept and trend. The results are more or less uniform; however, the reported statistics in the table present the ADF statistics at no trend and no intercept

*Statistical significance at 1% level; **statistical significance at 5% level; ***statistical significance at 10% level

#The reported statistics are calculated at the panel level

In the succeeding step, we deploy the Johansen Maximum Likelihood cointegration test (by λ Tra and λ Max test) at the individual country and Fisher cointegration test at the panel setting for checking the cointegration between innovation and per capita economic growth. The results of both the test statistics are reported in Tables 6, 7, and 8. Tables 6 and 7 report λ Tra and λ Max test statistics, respectively, while Table 8 reports the summary of cointegration test. These results indicate that innovation and per capita economic growth are cointegrated in some European countries,16 while it is not cointegrated in rest of the countries.17 The cointegration between innovation and per capita economic growth varies from case to case (for PAR, PAN, RDE, RRD, HTE, and STJ) and country to country (see Table 8).
Table 6

Results of Johansen-Juselius Cointegration Test (Max Test)

Countries

Cointegration with GDP

PAR

PAN

RDE

RRD

HTE

STJ

Austria

14.5*/4.55*

15.9/* 7.73*

24.1*/10.2*

13.7/3.35

14.8/0.85

18.3*/5.67*

Belgium

28.8*/1.95

8.97/2.87

9.75/0.81

13.8/1.26

10.2/0.16

14.7*/5.74*

Czech Republic

9.93/0.07

12.3/0.48

14.1/2.52

13.3/0.57

13.9/4.34

10.4/0.67

Denmark

9.43/1.55

36.6*/7.46*

23.9*/3.18

1.9/1.61

20.7*/3.51

16.1*/0.83

Finland

13.5/0.11

17.1*/5.76*

18.4*/4.52*

7.43/0.15

17.*/0.15

38.2*/14.6*

France

18.8*/3.53

22.0*/0.97

12.3/2.74

15.5*/0.20

13.9/1.51

22.2*/7.72*

Germany

16.4*/7.96*

15.4*/0.81

12.2/0.48

11.4/0.78

17.4*/0.37

20.2*/5.09*

Greece

9.43/0.01

10.9/1.17

–/–

–/–

3.99/0.01

9.63/2.46

Hungary

11.4/3.60

18.96*/2.89

9.52/0.01

15.0*/0.43

13.7/5.46*

13.7/2.29

Ireland

5.78/0.14

10.2/0.18

12.0/0.31

12.5/0.11

10.2/0.78

7.45/2.56

Italy

–/–

–/–

13.1/0.19

12.3/0.01

16.2*/0.74

30.9*/8.71*

Netherlands

8.80/3.55

20.5*/5.00*

20.3*/2.88

11.3/0.01

18.4*/5.07*

15.0*/1.07

Norway

14.7*/3.25

13.4/0.04

18.3*/3.96*

20.2*/5.26*

18.5*/3.40

11.7/0.41

Poland

12.2/0.04

8.28/0.58

12.8/0.01

14.2*/0.18

10.2/0.30

13.9/2.54

Portugal

14.8*/0.46

8.83/3.38

13.4/1.78

10.3/0.03

11.5/2.66

17.4*/4.45*

Romania

10.10/4.31

8.50/0.45

24.4*/0.01

39.9*/9.95*

17.2*/4.97*

8.05/0.06

Spain

13.3/1.53

10.05/1.61

17.0*/3.79

20.2*/6.72*

15.0*/4.55*

20.3*/4.82*

Sweden

15.7*/0.44

12.3/0.03

8.61/2.36

10.9/1.19

16.6*/4.56*

21.8*/5.57*

United Kingdom

11.57/0.26

17.6*/3.83

20.5*/4.77*

19.9*/7.82*

14.2*/0.01

20.2*/4.87*

European panel

107.9*/77.8*

104.5*/58.6*

99.56*/79.17*

108.9*/76.37*

128.5*/68.73*

96.1*/64.6*

PAR is number of patents by residents, PAN is number of patents by non-residents, RDE is research and development expenditure, RRD is researchers in research and development activities, HTE is high-technology exports, STJ is scientific and technical journal articles, and GDP is per capita economic growth. We observe statistical significance at 5% level

*Indicates the statistical significance of the cointegrating vector and confines the presence of cointegration between innovation and per capita economic growth

Table 7

Results of Johansen-Juselius Cointegration Test (Trace Test)

Countries

Cointegration with GDP

PAR

PAN

RDE

RRD

HTE

STJ

Austria

19.6*/4.55*

21.2*/7.30*

13.9*/10.2*

10.3/3.35

13.9/0.90

16.6*/5.66*

Belgium

30.7/1.95

11.8/2.87

8.93/0.82

12.5/1.26

10.0/0.16

8.91/5.74

Czech Republic

9.99/0.07

12.8/0.48

11.6/2.52

12.7/0.57

9.61/4.34

9.75/0.67

Denmark

10.9/1.55

44.1*/7.46*

20.7*/3.18

10.3/1.61

17.1*/3.50

18.2*/0.83

Finland

13.6/0.11

22.9*/5.76*

18.8*/4.52*

7.29/0.15

17.1*/0.15

23.5*/14.6*

France

18.3*/3.43

23.1*/0.97

9.55/2.74

15.3*/0.20

12.4/1.51

13.5*/7.72*

Germany

24.3*/7.96*

16.2*/0.81

11.7/0.48

10.6/0.78

17.0*/0.37

15.1*/5.09*

Greece

9.43/0.01

12.0/1.17

–/–

–/–

3.99/0.01

7.17/2.46

Hungary

14.9*/3.60

21.9*/2.89

9.56/0.01

15.0*/0.43

8.24/5.46*

11.4/2.29

Ireland

5.92/0.14

10.4/0.18

11.7/0.31

12.4/0.11

9.39/0.78

4.89/2.56

Italy

–/–

–/–

12.97/0.16

12.3/0.01

15.5*/0.75

22.2*/8.71*

Netherlands

14.4*/3.55

20.5*/5.00*

17.4*/2.88

11.3/0.01

18.3*/5.07*

14.8*/1.07

Norway

17.9*/3.26

13.45/0.04

14.5*/3.96*

17.9*/5.26*

15.1*/3.40

11.7/0.41

Poland

12.2/0.04

8.28/0.58

12.8/0.01

14.0*/0.18

9.85/0.30

11.3/2.54

Portugal

15.3*/0.46

14.2/3.38

11.6/1.78

10.3/0.03

8.79/2.66

12.97*/4.45*

Romania

14.4/3.31

8.95/0.45

24.4*/0.01

29.9*/9.95*

12.2*/4.97*

4.99/0.06

Spain

14.9*/1.53

11.6/1.61

17.3*/3.79

13.5*/6.72*

20.5*/4.55*

15.2*/4.82*

Sweden

16.2*/0.44

12.4/0.03

6.25/2.37

9.67/1.19

12.0*/4.56*

16.3*/5.57*

United Kingdom

11.8/0.26

21.4*/3.83

15.76/4.77*

22.0*/7.82*

14.6/0.01

15.3*/4.87*

European panel

128.3*/77.83*

112.2*/58.63*

80.21*/79.17*

88.87*/76.37*

112.5*/68.73*

96.1*/64.6*

PAR is number of patents by residents; PAN is number of patents by non-residents; RDE is research and development expenditure; RRD is researchers in research and development activities; HTE is high-technology exports; STJ is scientific and technical journal articles; and GDP is per capita economic growth. We observe statistical significance at 5% level

*Indicates the statistical significance of the cointegrating vector and confines the presence of cointegration between innovation and per capita economic growth

Table 8

Summary of cointegration test results

Cointegrated status

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

Case 5

Case 6

Austria (2)

Austria (2)

Austria (2)

Austria (0)

Austria (0)

Austria (2)

Belgium (1)

Belgium (0)

Belgium (0)

Belgium (0)

Belgium (0)

Belgium (2)

CR (0)

CR (0)

CR (0)

CR (0)

CR (0)

CR (0)

Denmark (0)

Denmark (2)

Denmark (1)

Denmark (0)

Denmark (1)

Denmark (0)

Finland (0)

Finland (2)

Finland (2)

Finland (0)

Finland (1)

Finland (2)

France (1)

France (1)

France (0)

France (1)

France (0)

France (2)

Germany (2)

Germany (1)

Germany (0)

Germany (0)

Germany (1)

Germany (2)

Greece (0)

Greece (0)

Greece (0)

Greece (0)

Greece (0)

Greece (0)

Hungary (0)

Hungary (1)

Hungary (0)

Hungary (1)

Hungary (1)

Hungary (0)

Ireland (0)

Ireland (0)

Ireland (0)

Ireland (0)

Ireland (0)

Ireland (0)

Italy (0)

Italy (0)

Italy (0)

Italy (0)

Italy (1)

Italy (2)

Netherlands (0)

Netherlands (2)

Netherlands (1)

Netherlands (0)

Netherlands (2)

Netherlands (1)

Norway (1)

Norway (0)

Norway (2)

Norway (2)

Norway (1)

Norway (0)

Poland (0)

Poland (0)

Poland (0)

Poland (1)

Poland (0)

Poland (0)

Portugal (1)

Portugal (0)

Portugal (0)

Portugal (0)

Portugal (0)

Portugal (2)

Romania (0)

Romania (0)

Romania (1)

Romania (2)

Romania (2)

Romania (0)

Spain (0)

Spain (0)

Spain (2)

Spain (2)

Spain (2)

Spain (2)

Sweden (1)

Sweden (0)

Sweden (0)

Sweden (0)

Sweden (2)

Sweden (2)

UK (0)

UK (2)

UK (2)

UK (2)

UK (1)

UK (2)

EP (2)

EP (2)

EP (2)

EP (2)

EP (2)

EP (2)

Case 1: cointegration between PAR and GDP; case 2: cointegration between PAN and GDP; case 3: cointegration between RDE and GDP; case 4: cointegration between RRD and GDP; case 5: cointegration between HTE and GDP; case 6: cointegration between STJ and GDP. PAR is number of patents by residents, PAN is number of patents by non-residents, RDE is research and development expenditure, RRD is researchers in research and development activities, HTE is high-technology exports, STJ is scientific and technical journal articles, and GDP is per capita economic growth. 0 stands for absence of cointegration between innovation (PAR/PAN/RDE/RRD/HTE/STJ) and per capita economic growth, 1 stands for presence of one cointegrating vector between innovation (PAR/PAN/RDE/RRD/HTE/STJ) and per capita economic growth, and 2 stands for presence of two cointegrating vectors between innovation (PAR/PAN/RDE/RRD/HTE/STJ) and per capita economic growth. Parentheses indicate number of cointegrating vector (s). Results are derived on the basis of Tables 6 and 7 results

CR Czech Republic, UK United Kingdom, EP European panel

The incidence of cointegration suggests that there is a long-run equilibrium relationship between innovation and per capita economic growth (Engle and Granger 1987). On the contrary, the absence of cointegration indicates that there is no long-run relationship between these two variables. The summary of these cointegration test results are reported in Table 8.

In the next section, we detect the Granger causality by deploying vector error correction model (VECM) for the presence of cointegration between innovation and per capita economic growth, and simple vector autoregressive (VAR) model for the absence of cointegration between the two. Having known the cointegration between the two, the next step is to determine the direction of causality between innovation and per capita economic growth. Using Granger causality test, the estimated results are reported in Tables 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. Tables 9 and 10 report the presence of both short-run and long-run equilibrium relationship between innovation and per capita economic growth, while Tables 11, 12, and 13 report the summary of short-run Granger causal nexus between these two sets of variables (GDP vs. PAR; GDP vs. PAN; GDP vs. RDE; GDP vs. RRD; GDP vs. THE; and GDP vs. STJ). The analysis is based on the individual indicators of innovation and per capita economic growth. Coming to long-run equilibrium relationship,18 we find the presence in a few cases,19 while absence in remaining cases.20 On the contrary, we have diverging experience in the context of short-run Granger causality between innovation and per capita economic growth. These results are presented below.
Table 9

Results of test from error correction model

Countries

Granger causality test between

PAR and GDP

PAN and GDP

RDE and GDP

Short-run

Long-run

Short-run

Long-run

Short-run

Long-run

Austria

4.90*/4.16*

−3.39*/−1.33

8.97*/−1.90

−1.79/−1.03

0.634/6.37*

−0.25/−4.17*

Belgium

18.9*/1.21

−2.46/−0.53

3.62**/1.48

−2.12/1.13

3.55*/0.28

NA/NA

Czech Republic

1.62/4.35*

NA/NA

3.27**/0.74

NA/NA

1.17/4.91*

NA/NA

Denmark

0.42/4.32**

NA/NA

3.16**/9.69*

−1.83/−3.21**

20.6*/0.11

−6.03*/−2.67

Finland

4.32*/0.31

NA/NA

0.57/5.29*

−1.20/2.03

4.39*/1.08

−1.56/1.75

France

3.19**/0.60

−2.83/−1.12

13.8*/2.57

2.91/−1.41

3.93*/2.00

NA/NA

Germany

3.34**/1.01

−3.27*/−0.82

0.72/12.2*

−4.03*/−2.92**

9.32*/1.24

NA/NA

Greece

6.73*/0.12

NA/NA

1.09/8.64*

NA/NA

–/–

–/–

Hungary

1.51/5.58*

NA/NA

4.50*/5.28*

−2.03/−1.57

4.77*/1.94

NA/NA

Ireland

0.63/3.95*

NA/NA

3.25**/5.63*

NA/NA

0.33/4.33

NA/NA

Italy

6.74*/0.71

NA/NA

0.49/1.87

NA/NA

5.09*/1.50

NA/NA

Netherlands

3.26**/0.90

NA/NA

3.64**/2.23

−2.38/−1.57

0.34/4.44*

−2.52/−0.33

Norway

2.83/14.5*

−0.85/−5.06*

1.62/23.8*

NA/NA

4.72*/0.79

0.30/−1.60

Poland

14.3*/5.46*

NA/NA

0.67/1.42

NA/NA

3.97*/1.78

NA/NA

Portugal

5.19*/1.20

−3.69***/1.28

4.09**/16.8*

NA/NA

10.3*/0.21

NA/NA

Romania

5.10*/0.86

NA/NA

3.69*/2.07

NA/NA

0.80/5.37*

−4.41/−3.07**

Spain

4.21*/4.56*

NA/NA

5.42*/0.96

NA/NA

0.23/7.71*

−1.73/−3.03**

Sweden

8.93*/13.5*

−4.10*/−2.33

7.15*/0.13

NA/NA

3.36*/2.28

NA/NA

United Kingdom

2.99**/0.33

NA/NA

10.1*/3.81**

−4.69*/−2.97**

3.69*/1.94

−1.16/−2.19

European panel

5.91*/10.1*

−6.09*/−2.60

0.45/6.61*

−6.23*/−2.38

2.84*/6.08*

−5.34*/−1.14

GDP is per capita economic growth; PAR is the number of patents by residents; PAN is the number of patents by non-residents; and RDE is research and development expenditure. The short-run causality is detected through the Wald statistics, while long-run causality is detected through the statistical significance of error correction term. For both short-run and long-run, the first value represents GDP as the dependent variable and the second value represents innovation (PAR/PAN/RDE) as the dependent variable

*Indicates the statistical significance at 5% level; **indicates the statistical significance at 10% level

Table 10

Results of test from error correction model

Countries

Granger causality test between

RRD and GDP

HTE and GDP

STJ and GDP

Short-run

Long-run

Short-run

Long-run

Short-run

Long-run

Austria

3.20**/0.40

NA/NA

0.89/0.63

−3.18**/−0.99

1.64/6.54*

−1.53/−2.13

Belgium

13.6*/1.19

NA/NA

3.40*/0.48

NA/NA

0.32/5.03*

−1.29/−2.85

Czech Republic

5.14*/0.41

NA/NA

1.76/0.01

NA/NA

1.27/0.43

NA/NA

Denmark

0.46/5.28*

NA/NA

0.51/0.19

−1.92/−2.26

0.06/21.1*

−1.96/−4.13*

Finland

0.07/25.3*

NA/NA

18.3*/3.73**

−3.46**/−0.32

36.8*/0.92

−6.10/−2.12

France

3.12**/2.12

−2.35/−1.13

3.41*/0.09

NA/NA

8.21*/0.44

−0.66/−5.31*

Germany

5.31*/0.18

NA/NA

12.2*/3.07**

−5.94*/−1.82

0.40/4.06*

−2.65/−1.93

Greece

–/–

–/–

1.33/1.85

–/–

8.49*/5.33*

–/–

Hungary

7.12*/0.46

−4.14*/−1.26

1.20/19.6*

−2.25/−4.37*

5.29*/0.97

NA/NA

Ireland

0.99/3.62**

NA/NA

18.1*/0.26

NA/NA

2.02/4.19*

NA/NA

Italy

4.43*/0.47

NA/NA

2.10/9.59*

−3.64*/−2.07

0.02/11.4

−0.65/−4.68*

Netherlands

1.34/6.33*

NA/NA

7.60*/1.18

0.22/−2.65

3.51*/5.59*

NA/NA

Norway

0.01/5.86*

NA/NA

0.90/4.97*

−0.16/−3.90*

2.89**/6.04*

NA/NA

Poland

0.75/5.68*

−0.86/−1.90

0.67/3.03**

NA/NA

3.48**/3.05**

NA/NA

Portugal

9.83*/1.46

NA/NA

1.33/3.53*

NA/NA

17.9*/3.57**

−4.52*/−1.35

Romania

3.84*/3.74*

−7.97*/1.96

0.50/3.66*

−1.26/−3.61**

3.87*/1.85

NA/NA

Spain

0.15/6.46*

−0.62/−3.14

1.04/11.3*

NA/NA

5.58*/2.05

−1.15/−4.73*

Sweden

1.45/0.15

NA/NA

3.26*/0.87

−3.52**/−0.66

8.15*/4.55*

NA/NA

United Kingdom

9.47*/2.25

NA/NA

25.9*/0.82

NA/NA

1.14/9.10*

NA/NA

European panel

3.03*/2.95*

−6.15*/−1.23

7.95*/4.41*

−6.31*/−1.69

2.13/6.88*

−7.09*/−2.56

RRD is the researchers in research and development activities; HTE is the high-technology exports; STJ is the scientific and technical journal articles; and GDP is per capita economic growth. The short-run causality is detected through the Wald statistics, while long-run causality is detected through the statistical significance of error correction term. For both short-run and long-run, the first value represents GDP as the dependent variable and the second value represents innovation (RRD/HTE/STJ) as the dependent variable

*Indicates the statistical significance at 5% level; **indicates the statistical significance at 10% level

Table 11

Summary of Granger causality test

Countries

Nature of Granger causality between

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

Case 5

Case 6

PAR and GDP

PAN and GDP

RDE and GDP

RRD and GDP

HTE and GDP

STJ and GDP

Austria

FBH

SLH

DFH

SLH

NEH

DFH

Belgium

SLH

SLH

SLH

SLH

SLH

DFH

Czech Republic

DFH

SLH

DFH

SLH

NEH

NEH

Denmark

DFH

FBH

SLH

DFH

NEH

DFH

Finland

SLH

DFH

SLH

DFH

FBH

SLH

France

SLH

SLH

SLH

SLH

SLH

SLH

Germany

SLH

DFH

SLH

SLH

FBH

DFH

Greece

SLH

DFH

NEH

FBH

Hungary

DFH

FBH

SLH

SLH

DFH

SLH

Ireland

DFH

FBH

DFH

DFH

SLH

DFH

Italy

SLH

NEH

SLH

SLH

DFH

DFH

Netherlands

SLH

SLH

DFH

DFH

SLH

FBH

Norway

DFH

DFH

SLH

DFH

DFH

FBH

Poland

FBH

NEH

SLH

DFH

DFH

FBH

Portugal

SLH

FBH

SLH

SLH

DFH

FBH

Romania

SLH

SLH

DFH

FBH

DFH

SLH

Spain

FBH

SLH

DFH

DFH

DFH

SLH

Sweden

FBH

SLH

SLH

NEH

SLH

FBH

United Kingdom

SLH

FBH

SLH

SLH

SLH

DFH

European panel

FBH

DFH

FBH

FBH

FBH

DFH

Case 1: cointegration between PAR and GDP; case 2: cointegration between PAN and GDP; case 3: cointegration between RDE and GDP; case 4: cointegration between RRD and GDP; case 5: cointegration between HTE and GDP; case 6: cointegration between STJ and GDP. PAR is number of patents by residents, PAN is number of patents by non-residents, RDE is research and development expenditure, RRD is researchers in research and development activities, HTE is high-technology exports, STJ is scientific and technical journal articles, and GDP is per capita economic growth. SLH indicates the unidirectional causality from innovation to economic growth, DFH indicates the unidirectional causality from economic growth to innovation, FBH indicates the bidirectional causality between innovation and economic growth, and NEH indicates no causal flow between innovation and economic growth. Results are derived on the basis of Tables 9 and 10 results

Table 12

Summary of Granger causality test results

Supply-leading hypothesis of innovation-growth nexus

Demand-following hypothesis of innovation-growth nexus

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

 

Austria

   

Austria

Belgium

Belgium

Belgium

  

Czech Republic

 

Czech Republic

 

Czech Republic

 

Ireland

  

Denmark

   

Finland

 

Finland

Denmark

 

Netherlands

France

France

France

 

Finland

Romania

Germany

 

Germany

 

Germany

Spain

Greece

 

Hungary

 

Greece

 

Italy

Italy

Italy

Hungary

  

Netherlands

Netherlands

Norway

Ireland

  
  

Poland

Norway

Norway

 
  

Portugal

 

European panel

 

Portugal

 

Sweden

   

Romania

Romania

United Kingdom

   
 

Spain

    
 

Sweden

    

United Kingdom

     

Feedback hypothesis of innovation-growth nexus

Neutrality hypothesis of innovation-growth nexus

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Austria

     
 

Denmark

Finland

   
  

Greece

   
 

Hungary

  

Italy

 
 

Ireland

Ireland

   
  

Netherlands

   

Poland

     
 

Portugal

  

Poland

 

Spain

     

Sweden

     
 

United Kingdom

    

European panel

 

European panel

   

Case 1: cointegration between PAR and GDP; case 2: cointegration between PAN and GDP; case 3: cointegration between RDE and GDP. PAR is the number of patents by residents, PAN is the number of patents by non-residents, RDE is research and development expenditure, and GDP is per capita economic growth. Results are derived on the basis of Table 11 results

Table 13

Summary of Granger causality test results

Supply-leading hypothesis of innovation-growth nexus

Demand-following hypothesis of innovation-growth nexus

Case 4

Case 5

Case 6

Case 4

Case 5

Case 6

Austria

    

Austria

Belgium

Belgium

   

Belgium

Czech Republic

 

Finland

Czech Republic

  

France

France

France

Denmark

 

Denmark

Germany

 

Hungary

Finland

  

Greece

   

Finland

 

Hungary

    

Germany

Italy

Italy

  

Hungary

Ireland

Portugal

Netherlands

 

Hungary

Norway

Italy

United Kingdom

  

Ireland

Poland

 
   

Netherlands

Portugal

 
 

Romania

Romania

Norway

Romania

 
 

Spain

Spain

Poland

Spain

United Kingdom

 

Sweden

 

Portugal

 

European panel

Feedback hypothesis of innovation-growth nexus

Neutrality hypothesis of innovation-growth nexus

Case 4

Case 5

Case 6

Case 4

Case 5

Case 6

Austria

  

United Kingdom

Austria

 
 

Finland

Netherlands

 

Czech Republic

Czech Republic

 

Germany

Norway

 

Denmark

 
  

Poland

 

Greece

 
 

Ireland

Portugal

   
  

Sweden

   

Poland

     
 

Portugal

    

Spain

     

Sweden

     
 

United Kingdom

    

European panel

European panel

    

Case 4: cointegration between RRD and GDP; Case 5: cointegration between HTE and GDP; Case 6: cointegration between STJ and GDP. RRD is researchers in research and development activities, HTE is high-technology exports, STJ is scientific and technical journal articles, and GDP is per capita economic growth. Results are derived on the basis of Table 11 results

Case 1: between patents-residents (PAR) and per capita economic growth (GDP)

For countries like Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, and the UK, we find the unidirectional causality from innovation to per capita economic growth (PAR => GDP), whereas for countries like Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, and Norway, we find unidirectional causality from per capita economic growth to innovation (PAR <= GDP). Additionally, for countries like Austria, Poland, Spain, and Sweden, and the European panel, we find the bidirectional causality between innovation and per capita economic growth (PAR <=> GDP).

Case 2: between patents-non-residents (PAN) and per capita economic growth

For countries like Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain, and Sweden, there is a unidirectional causality from innovation to per capita economic growth (PAN => GDP), whereas for Finland, Germany, Greece, and Norway, we find unidirectional causality from per capita economic growth to innovation (GDP => PAN). Additionally, for countries like Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, and the UK, and the European panel, we find bidirectional causality between innovation and per capita economic growth (PAN <=> GDP), while in the context of Italy, and Poland, we find per capita economic growth does not Granger-cause innovation (GDP <#> PAN).

Case 3: between R&D expenditure (RDE) and per capita economic growth

For countries like Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, and the UK, we detect the unidirectional causality from innovation to per capita economic growth (RDE => GDP), whereas for countries like Austria, Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, Romania, and Spain, we find the unidirectional causality from per capita economic growth to innovation (GDP => RDE). Additionally, for European panel, we find the existence of bidirectional causality between innovation and per capita economic growth (RDE <=> GDP), while in the context of Greece, per capita economic growth does not Granger-cause innovation (RDE <#> GDP).

Case 4: between researchers in R&D activities (RRD) and per capita economic growth (GDP)

For Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungry, Italy, Portugal, and the UK, there is a unidirectional causality from innovation to per capita economic growth (RRD => GDP), whereas for Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and Spain, we find per capita economic growth Granger-causes innovation (RRD <= GDP). Additionally, for Romania, and the European panel, there is bidirectional causality between innovation and per capita economic growth (RRD <=> GDP), while in the context of Greece and Sweden, per capita economic growth does not Granger-cause innovation (RRD <#> GDP).

Case 5: between high-technology exports (HTE) and per capita economic growth

For countries like Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Sweden, we find the presence of unidirectional causality from innovation to per capita economic growth (HTE = > GDP), whereas for countries like Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Spain, we find the presence of unidirectional causality from per capita economic growth to innovation (GDP => HTE). Moreover, for countries like Finland, Germany, and the UK, and the European panel, there is bidirectional causality between innovation and per capita economic growth (HTE <=> GDP), while in the context of Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, and Poland, per capita economic growth does not Granger-cause innovation (HTE <#> GDP).

Case 6: between scientific and technical journal articles (STJ) and per capita economic growth

For countries like Finland, France, Hungary, Romania, and Spain, we detect the presence of unidirectional causality from innovation to per capita economic growth (STJ => GDP), whereas for countries like Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the UK, and the European panel, we find the presence of unidirectional causality from per capita economic growth to innovation (GDP => STJ). Additionally, for countries like Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, and Sweden, we observe bidirectional causality between innovation and per capita economic growth (STJ <=> GDP), while in the context of Czech Republic, we find that per capita economic growth does not Granger cause innovation (STJ <#> GDP).

As is evident by these individual country results,21 the nature of causal relationship between innovation and per capita economic growth is more or less country specific and innovation indicator specific.22

Conclusion

The level and structure of innovation should not be ignored because it plays an imperative role in stimulating economic growth (Pradhan et al. 2016; Hassan and Tucci 2010). This study explored the Granger causal nexus between innovation and per capita economic growth for the 19 European countries using time series data from 1989 to 2014. The pivotal message from our study for the policymakers and academicians alike is that implications drawn from research on per capita economic growth that disregard the dynamic interrelation of the two variables will be imperfect. It is the conjoined back-and-forth relationship between innovation and per capita economic growth that builds our study and guides the future research on this topic.

Our study acknowledges mixed evidence on the relationship between the innovation and per capita economic growth in the 19 European countries, both at the individual country and at the panel setting. In some instances, per capita economic growth leads to innovation, lending support to demand-following hypothesis of innovation-growth nexus. In some other instances, it is innovation that regulates the level of per capita economic growth, lending support to supply-leading hypothesis of innovation-growth nexus. There are also circumstances, where innovation and per capita economic growth are mutually interdependent. That is the situation where both are self-reinforcing and offer support to feedback hypothesis of innovation-growth nexus. Additionally, there are also cases where innovation and per capita economic growth are independent of each other. That is the situation where both are neutral and offer support to neutrality hypothesis of innovation-growth nexus.

The study accordingly suggests that in order to promote per capita economic growth, attention must be paid to policy strategies that promote innovation. Given the possibility of reverse causality or bidirectional causality for some cases, policies that increase per capita economic growth (such as actions to increase investment) would be desirable to bring more innovation in the economy. Consequently, it is suggested that government should play a more positive role in order to foster innovation and then integrate it with per capita economic growth. No doubt, in recent times, many countries including European countries have recognized the importance of innovation for high economic growth and consequently, they have increased their effort to have more innovation in their countries. Nonetheless, what is needed is that government of the respective countries should pay higher attention to bring the steady environment in order to promote the link between innovation and per capita economic growth. This requires the followings. First, government everywhere can acknowledge the importance of innovation for long-term growth. This is most evident in those countries where the easy options have been exhausted and future growth depends on more efficient ways of combining inputs or producing new or improved outputs. Second, government can nurture innovation indirectly by providing an appropriate environment for firms that are willing to invest more and innovate. They can also support innovation directly, by either funding public research or encouraging private investment in research and innovation. The cited examples are through innovation-related tax incentives and grants. Third, there is requirement of policy options for sector-wise level importance, depending upon the particular requirement of country’s development. This requires governments to make difficult choices, striking a balance between improvements in the general environment for innovation and direct support for innovation, targeted or not to specific (groups of) actors. The combination of policy objectives and instruments should be tailored to a country’s level of development and the strengths and weaknesses of its innovation system, so it should vary both across countries and over time (see, for instance, Veugelers and Schweiger 2016).

Over and above, our study is strictly constrained to examine the causal nexus between innovation activities and economic growth. So, we have not included other relevant factors, such as capital, labour, infrastructure, entrepreneurship, and venture capital (see, for instance, Galindo and Mendez-Picazo (2014), Navas (2015), Samila and Sorenson (2011), Santacreu (2015)), in our empirical investigation process. The inclusion of these factors may affect our main findings and this could be a subject of future research. Additionally, the other limitations do exist in this study. First, no indirect or complementary effects on the nexus between innovation activities and economic growth; second, exclusion of sector-wise impact of innovation activities on economic growth; third, small time-dimension of data, i.e. from 1989 to 2014; and fourth, the findings are regulated to European countries only. Consequently, further study in these mutable areas can produce more inspiring and spontaneous findings to the nexus between innovation and economic growth.

Footnotes
1

The specification is mostly due to the fact that innovation can be considered important for potential economic growth. So what evidence do we have that innovation is linked to economic growth, and at what levels of analysis? (Bottazzi and Peri 2003; Cameron 1998; Coad et al. 2016; Hassan and Tucci 2010; Hsu et al. 2014).

 
2

Innovation is a notion that has been defined and generalized in many ways by both researchers and policymakers, both as a process and as an outcome (Garcia and Calantone 2002; Grossman and Helpman 1991, 1994; OECD 2005a; Raymond and St-Pierre 2010).

 
3

When Schumpeter wrote about innovation, he clearly intended to emphasize not only the “destructive” aspect of creative destruction, but the “creative” part as well (Aghion and Howitt, 1992; Freeman and Soete 1997; Hassan and Tucci 2010).

 
4

See Agenor and Neanidis (2015), Aghion and Howitt (2009), Corrado et al. (2012; 2013); Dachs and Peters (2014), de Serres et al. (2006), Dosi (1988), Fagerberg (1994), Fan (2011), Galindo and Mendez-Picazo (2013), Grossman (2009), Grossman and Helpman (1994), Hanley et al. (2011), Hsu et al. (2015), Hudson and Minea (2013), Huang (2011), Kirchhoff (1994), Laeven et al. (2015), Mandel (2009), Navas (2015), OECD (2005b, 2007), Petrakis et al. (2015), Rogers (1995), Roig-Tierno et al. (2015), Sohag et al. (2015), Tellis et al. (2008), and Wennekers (1999).

 
5

It can be noted that most of the previous works on “innovation-growth nexus” are flooded with production function approach and lacks in Granger causality approach.

 
6

The choice of these six innovation indicators are with respect to data availability in the European countries.

 
7

The choice of these time periods is as per the data availability.

 
8

The rejection of H 1A 0 ensures the case of SLH; the rejection of H 1B 0 ensures the case of DFH, the rejection of both (H 1A 0 and H 1B 0 ) ensure the case of FBH, and the acceptance of both (H 1A 0 and H 1B 0 ) ensures the case of NEH.

 
9

GDP represents the level of economic growth.

 
10

INN is used here as a proxy for six different innovation indicators, such as PAR, PAN, RDE, RRD, HTE, and STJ. Table 1 provides a detailed discussion of these variables.

 
11

These include Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the UK.

 
12

The involvement of ECT in the model depends upon the presence of cointegration between innovation (any of the indicators from PAR, PAN, RDE, RRD, HTE, and STJ) and per capita economic growth. The ECT will be removed in the estimation process, if innovation and per capita economic growth are not cointegrated.

 
13

HQIC stands for Hannan-Quinn Information Criterion and it is the most appropriate for choosing optimum lag length (see, for instance, Brooks (2014)).

 
14

It is with respect to PAR, PAN, RDE, RRD, HTE, and STJ.

 
15

Panel ADF stands for ADF—Fisher Chi-square panel unit root test (Maddala and Wu 1999)

 
16

These include Austria, Belgium, Germany, Finland, Italy, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

 
17

These include Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the UK.

 
18

Detected through the significance of error correction term (ECT) (see Eqs. 14).

 
19

These include Austria, Belgium, Germany, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and the European panel in case 1; Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK and the European panel in case 2; Austria, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Spain, the UK and the European panel in case 3; Hungary, Norway, Poland, Romania, Spain, the UK, and the European panel in case 4; Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the European panel in case 5; and Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the European panel in case 6.

 
20

These include Czech Republic, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Romania and Spain in all the three cases.

 
21

The small sample size of this study may hinder the generalizability of our findings. However, the sample size is well representative of a few countries and at the panel level. Moreover, we have conducted some robustness checks for this analysis. These include (1) deployment of normalized data for both innovation indicators and per capita economic growth, (2) incorporation of additional unit root tests (KPSS (Kwiatkowski et al. 1992) unit root test at the individual country and LLC (Levine et al. 2002) unit root test at the panel level) to know the order of integration, (3) deployment of additional cointegration tests (Engle and Granger (1987) at individual country level and Pedroni (1999) test at the panel level), and (4) testing the VECM/VAR model by changing lag structure. Our results are more or less consistent with these robustness checks.

 
22

It is mostly due to the involvement of different innovation indicators, namely PAR, PAN, RDE, RRD, HTE, and STJ.

 

Declarations

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2nd North America Conference on Cities and Regions: Managing Growth and Change, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA, June 15–17, 2016. We thank the conference participants for helpful comments and suggestions.

Authors’ contributions

We declare that all authors have equal contribution in this paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Vinod Gupta School of Management, Indian Institute of Technology

References

  1. Agenor, P., & Neanidis, K. C. (2015). Innovation, public capital, and growth. Journal of Macroeconomics, 44(3), 252–275.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Aghion, P. and Howitt, P. (1992). A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction. Econometrica, 60(2), 323–351.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (2009). The economics of growth. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Howitt, P. (2005). Competition and innovation: an inverted U relationship. Oxford Journals, Quaterly Journal of Economics, 120(2), 701–728.Google Scholar
  5. Aghion, P., Harmgart, H., and Weisshaar, N. (2010). Fostering growth and CEE countries: a country-tailored approach to growth policy. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). Working Paper No., 118/2010, pp. 1–29. EBRD, London.Google Scholar
  6. Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. (1999). Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Management Science, 45(7), 905–917.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Andergassen, R., Nardini, F., & Ricottilli, M. (2009). Innovation and growth through local and global interaction. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 33(10), 1779–1795.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 86(3), 630–640.Google Scholar
  9. Bae, S. H., & Yoo, K. (2015). Economic modelling of innovation in the creative industries and its implications. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 96, 101–110.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Bayoumi, T., Coe, D. T., & Helpman, E. (1999). R&D spillovers and global growth. Journal of International Economics, 47(2), 399–428.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Bottazzi, L., & Peri, G. (2003). Innovation and spillovers in regions: evidence from European patent data. European Economic Review, 47(4), 687–710.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Brooks, C. (2014). Introductory econometrics for finance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cameron, G. (1998). Innovation and growth: a survey of the empirical evidence. Working Paper, Nuffield College, Oxford University, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Cetin, M. (2013). The hypothesis of innovation-based economic growth: a causal relationship. International Journal of Economic and Administrative Studies, 6(11), 1–16.Google Scholar
  15. Coad, A., Segarra, A., & Teruel, M. (2016). Innovation and firm growth: does firm age play a role? Research Policy, 45(2), 387–400.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Coe, D. T., & Helpman, E. (1995). International R&D spillovers. European Economic Review, 39(5), 859–887.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Corrado, C., Haskel, J., Jona-Lasinio, C., and Iommi, M. (2012). Intangible capital and growth in advanced economies: measurement methods and comparative results. Discussion Paper, No. 6733. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn.Google Scholar
  18. Corrado, C., Haskel, J., Jona-Lasinio, C., & Iommi, M. (2013). Innovation and intangible investment in Europe, Japan, and the United States. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 29(2), 261–286.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Dachs, B., & Peters, B. (2014). Innovation, employment growth, and foreign ownership of firms: a European perspective. Research Policy, 43(1), 214–232.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. de Serres, A., Kobayakawa, S., Sløk, T., and Vartia, L. (2006). Regulation of financial systems and economic growth, OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 506. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  21. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49(4), 1057–1072.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures, and macroeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26(3), 1120–1171.Google Scholar
  23. Engle, R. F., & Granger, C. W. J. (1987). Cointegration and error correction: representation, estimation and testing. Econometrica, 55(2), 251–276.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Fagerberg, J. (1994). Technology and international differences in growth rates. Journal of Economic Literature, 32(3), 1147–1175.Google Scholar
  25. Fan, P. (2011). Innovation capacity and economic development: China and India. Economic Change and Restructuring, 44(1–2), 49–73.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Fisher, R. A. (1932). Statistical methods for research workers (4th ed.). Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
  27. Freeman, C., & Soete, L. (1997). The economics of industrial innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Furman, J., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 31, 899–933.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Galindo, M., & Mendez-Picazo, M. (2013). Innovation, entrepreneurship and economic growth. Management Decision, 51(3), 501–514.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Galindo, M., & Mendez-Picazo, M. (2014). Entrepreneurship, economic growth, and innovation: are feedback effects at work. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 825–829.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2), 110–132.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Goel, R. K., & Ram, R. (1994). Research and development expenditures and economic growth: a cross-country study. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 42(2), 403–411.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Granger, C. W. (1986). Developments in the study of cointegrated economic variables. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 48(3), 213–228.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Granger, C. W. J. (1988). Some recent developments in a concept of causality. Journal of Econometrics, 39(1–2), 199–211.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28(4), 1661–1707.Google Scholar
  36. Griliches, Z. (1992). The search for R&D spillovers. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94(1), 29–47.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Griliches, Z., & Mairesse, J. (1986). R&D and productivity growth: comparing Japanese and US manufacturing firms. European Economic Review, 21(1–2), 89–119.Google Scholar
  38. Grossman, V. (2009). Entrepreneurial innovation and economic growth. Journal of Macroeconomics, 31(4), 602–613.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Grossman, G., & Helpman, E. (1991). Innovation and growth in the global economy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1994). Endogenous innovation in the theory of growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 23–44.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Guloglu, B., & Tekin, R. B. (2012). A panel causality analysis of the relationship among research and development, innovation, and economic growth in high-income OECD countries. Eurasian Economic Review, 2(1), 32–47.Google Scholar
  42. Hanley, A., Liu, W. and Vaona, A. (2011). Financial development and innovation in China: evidence from the provincial data. Kiel Working Paper, No. 1673. Kiel Institute of World Economy, Hindenburgufer.Google Scholar
  43. Hassan, I., & Tucci, C. L. (2010). The innovation-economic growth nexus: global evidence. Research Policy, 39(10), 1264–1276.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Holtz-Eakin, D., Newey, W., & Rosen, H. S. (1988). Estimating vector auto regressions with panel data. Econometrica, 56(6), 1371–1395.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Howells, J. (2005). Innovation and regional economic development: a matter of perspective? Research Policy, 34(8), 1220–1234.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Hsu, P. H., Tian, X., & Xu, Y. (2014). Financial development and innovation: cross-country evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 112(1), 116–135.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Hsu, C., Lien, Y., & Chen, H. (2015). R&D internationalization and innovation performance. International Business Review, 24, 187–195.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Huang, K. F. (2011). Technology competencies in competitive environment. Journal of Business Research, 64(2), 172–179.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Hudson, J., & Minea, A. (2013). Innovation, intellectual property rights, and economic development: a unified empirical investigation. World Development, 46(1), 66–78.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Johansen, S. (1988). Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12(2–3), 231–254.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Kim, J., & Lee, S. (2015). Patent databases for innovation studies: a comparative analysis of USPTO, EPO, JPO and KIPO. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 92, 332–345.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. King, R., & Levine, R. (1993). Finance, entrepreneurship and economic growth: theory and evidence. Journal of Monetary Economics, 32(3), 513–542.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Kirchhoff, B. A. (1994). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capitalism: the economics of business firm formation and growth. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  54. Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C. B., Schmidt, P., & Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root. Journal of Econometrics, 54(1–3), 159–178.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Laeven, L., Levine, R., & Michalopoulos, S. (2015). Financial innovation and endogenous growth. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 24(1), 1–24.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Levine, A., Lin, C. F., & Chu, C. S. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1–24.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Maddala, G. S., & Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit roots with panel data a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(4), 631–651.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Malerba, F., & Brusoni, S. (2007). Perspectives on innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Mandel, M. (2009). The failed promise of innovation in the US. Businessweek, June 3, 26–34.Google Scholar
  60. Mansfield, E. (1972). Contribution of research and development to economic growth of the United States. Papers and Proceedings of a Colloquium on Research and Development and Economic Growth Productivity, National Science Foundation, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  61. Maurseth, P. B., & Verspagen, B. (2002). Knowledge spillovers in Europe: a patent citation analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 104(4), 531–545.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Nadiri, I. (1993). Innovations and technological spillovers. Working Paper, No. 423, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  63. Navas, A. (2015). Trade liberalisation and innovation under sector heterogeneity. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 50, 42–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. OECD. (2005a). Oslo manual: guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data (3rd ed.). Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).Google Scholar
  65. OECD. (2005b). Economics Policy Reforms 2005: going for growth. Paris: OECD.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. OECD. (2007). Innovation and growth: rationale for an innovation strategy. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  67. Pedroni, P. (1999). Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(4), 653–670.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. Petrakis, P. E., Kostis, P. C., & Valsamis, D. G. (2015). Innovation and competitiveness: culture as a long-term strategic instrument during the european great recession. Journal of Business Research, 68, 1436–1438.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  69. Pradhan, R. P., Arvin, M. B., Hall, J. H., and Nair, M. (2016). Innovation, financial development and economic growth in eurozone countries. Applied Economics Letters, 23(16), 1141–1144.Google Scholar
  70. Raymond, L., & St-Pierre, J. (2010). R&D as a determinant of innovation in manufacturing SMEs: an attempt at empirical clarification. Technovation, 30(1), 48–56.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  71. Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: New York Free Press.Google Scholar
  72. Roig-Tierno, N., Alcazar, J., & Ribeiro-Navarrete, S. (2015). Use of infrastructures to support innovative entrepreneurship and business growth. Journal of Business Research, 68, 2290–2294.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  73. Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94, 1002–1037.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  74. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), S71–S102.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  75. Sadraoui, T., Ali, T. B., & Deguachi, B. (2014). Economic growth and international R&D cooperation: a panel granger causality analysis. International Journal of Econometrics and Financial Management, 2(1), 7–21.Google Scholar
  76. Samila, S. and Sorenson, O. (2011). Venture Capital, Entrepreneurship, and Economic Growth. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(1), 338–349.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  77. Santacreu, A. M. (2015). Innovation, diffusion, and trade: theory and measurement. Journal of Monetary Economics, 75, 1–20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  78. Schumpeter, J. A. (1911). The theory of economic development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Schumpeter, J. A. (1912). The theory of the economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and business cycle. Cambridge: Harvard Press.Google Scholar
  80. Sinha, D. (2008). Patents, innovations and economic growth in Japan and South Korea: evidence from individual country and panel data. Applied Econometrics and International Development, 8(1), 181–188.Google Scholar
  81. Sohag, K., Begum, R. A., Abdullah, S. M. S. and Jaafar, M. (2015). Dynamics of energy use, technological innovation, economic growth and trade openness in Malaysia. Energy, 1–11 (in press). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.06.101
  82. Solow, R. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65–94.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  83. Stokey, N. L. (1995). R&D and economic growth. Review of Economic Studies, 28(4), 1661–1707.Google Scholar
  84. Tellis, G. J., Eisingerich, A. B., Chandy, R. K., & Prabhu, J. C. (2008). Competing for the future: patterns in the global location of R&D centers by the world’s largest firms. ISBM Report 06–2008. University Park: Institute for the Study of Business Markets.Google Scholar
  85. Tsvetkova, A. (2015). Innovation, entrepreneurship, and metropolitan economic performance: empirical test of recent theoretical propositions. Economic Development Quarterly, 29(4), 299–316.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  86. Ulku, H. (2004). R&D, innovation, and economic growth: an empirical analysis. International Monetary Fund Working Papers, 4(185), 2-35.Google Scholar
  87. Veugelers, R., & Schweiger, H. (2016). Innovation policies in transition countries: one size fits all? Economic Change and Restructuring, 49, 241–267.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  88. Wal, A. T., & Boschma, R. (2009). Applying social network analysis in economic geography: framing some key analytic issues. Annals of Regional Science, 43(3), 739–756.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  89. Wang, P. K., Ho, Y. P., & Autio, E. (2005). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: evidence from GEM data. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 335–350.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  90. Wennekers, S. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 13(1), 27–55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  91. Yang, C. (2006). Is innovation the story of Taiwan’s economic growth? Journal of Asian Economics, 17(5), 867–878.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017