Creation of High Technologies: Comparative Analysis of Countries

Open access


Research purpose. High technology creation, as a rule, requires national support systems although the flow of the created value in an international level is unexplored. The national innovation systems are becoming globalized; thus the distinct process of creation, dissemination and implementation of high technologies is becoming globally fragmented and therefore the added value distribution within the global value chain (GVC) should be investigated.

Design/Methodology/Approach. The brief and extensive academic literature review dedicated to high technology creation is introduced, although the empirical investigation is narrowed to the scientific research and development sector, depicted as M72 by NACE statistical classification. Thus empirical research design is based on the sectoral level data, considering M72 sector as the main economic activity for high technology creation. The data for the comparative analysis of countries is retrieved from the 2014 world input–output data (WIOD) which enables to exclude double counting of added value inherent for the convenient import and export data and holds information of intermediate and final consumption of added value within a country and between different countries. The descriptive statistic based on WIOD data is provided and further prescriptive statistics for the data interpretation is conducted. While developing the predictive models, the number of investigated countries varies while the data for M72 sector is not available for all countries provided in WIOD and including to the model basic science and technology indicators as independent variables, retrieved from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development database, the number of countries reduced additionally, also due to the data shortage.

Findings. The key result is the provided methodology for the positioning of the countries evaluating the involvement in the upstream and downstream GVC processes, hereby introducing new indicators that may have an impact on the sector’s performance.

Originality/Value/Practical implications. The evaluation of high technologies creation performance would provide insights into the international management and innovation policies, and the matrix concept for the positioning countries by the pattern of involvement to the GVCs could be applied to other sectors.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Amador J. & Cabral S. (2016). Global value chains: A survey of drivers and measures. Journal of Economic Surveys30(2) 278–301.

  • Åstebro T. Braguinsky S. Braunerhjelm P. & Broström A. (2018 December 10). Academic Entrepreneurship: The Bayh-Dole Act versus the Professor’s Privilege. ILR Review p. 001979391881980.

  • Becheikh N. Landry R. & Amara N. (n.d.). Lessons from innovation empirical studies in the manufacturing sector: A systematic review of the literature from 1993-2003.

  • Cohen W. M. Nelson R. R. & Walsh J. P. (2003). Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D. Management Science48(1) 1–23.

  • Comissão Europeia. (2008). NACE 2 REV - Regulamento Comissão Europeia No 1893/2006 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho. Retrieved from

  • Cooke P. (2002). Regional Innovation Systems Clusters and the Knowledge Economy. Industrial and Corporate Change10(4) 945–974.

  • Corsaro D. Cantù C. & Tunisini A. (2012). Actors’ Heterogeneity in Innovation Networks. Industrial Marketing Management41(5) 780–789.

  • Dakhli M. & De Clercq D. (2004). Human capital social capital and innovation: a multi-country study. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development16(2) 107–128.

  • Domar E. D. (2006). On the Measurement of Technological Change. The Economic Journal71(284) 709.

  • Dziallas M. & Blind K. (2019). Innovation indicators throughout the innovation process: An extensive literature analysis. Technovation8081 3–29.

  • 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 Policy29(2) 109–123.

  • Freeman C. Soete L. L. Freeman C. & Soete L. (2009). Research policy. Research Policy (Vol. 38). Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland). Retrieved from

  • Harrod R. F. (2006). Themes in Dynamic Theory. The Economic Journal73(291) 401.

  • Klomp L. & Van Leeuwen G. (2001). Linking Innovation and Firm Performance: A New Approach. International Journal of the Economics of Business8(3) 343–364.

  • Leydesdorff L. Etzkowitz H. & Kushnir D. (2016). Globalization and growth of US university patenting (2009–2014). Industry and Higher Education30(4) 257–266.

  • Lucas R. E. (1988). ON THE MECHANICS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT*. Journal of Monetary Economics (Vol. 22). Retrieved from

  • Lundvall B.-Å. (2007). Why study national systems and national styles of innovation? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management10(4) 403–422.

  • Lundvall B. A. (1988). Innovation as an Interactive Process: From User-Producer-Interaction to the National Systems of Innovation and Internationalization. Technology and the Wealth of Nations. London: OECD 277–300. Retrieved from

  • Nielsen P. B. (2018). The puzzle of measuring global value chains – The business statistics perspective. International Economics153 69–79.

  • Norrbin S. C. & Schlagenhauf D. E. (1988). An inquiry into the sources of macroeconomic fluctuations. Journal of Monetary Economics22(1) 43–70.

  • Pavitt K. (1987). The Objectives of Technology Policy. Science and Public Policy14(4) 182–188.

  • Preschitschek N. Niemann H. Leker J. & Moehrle M. G. (2013). Anticipating industry convergence: Semantic analyses vs IPC co-classification analyses of patents. Foresight15(6) 446–464.

  • Quinn J. B. (2000). Outsourcing Innovation : The New Engine of Growth. Management41(4) 13. Retrieved from

  • Romer P. M. (1990). Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of Political Economy. The University of Chicago Press.

  • Sick N. Preschitschek N. Leker J. & Bröring S. (2018 August). A new framework to assess industry convergence in high technology environments. Technovation.

  • Solow R. M. (1956). A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics70(1) 65.

  • Timmer M. P. Dietzenbacher E. Los B. Stehrer R. & de Vries G. J. (2015). An Illustrated User Guide to the World Input-Output Database: The Case of Global Automotive Production. Review of International Economics23(3) 575–605.

  • Van de Ven A. H.. (2016). Central Problems in the Management of Innovation. Management32(5) 590–607.

  • Ki-moon B. Strauss-Kahn D. Zoellick R. B. Gurria A. & Barroso J. M. (2009). System of National Accounts 2008 European Commission International Monetary Fund. Retrieved from

  • Fuentes R. & Mies V. (2011). Productivity Differences in Developing and Developed Countries : Where are the Bottlenecks ? 1–23. Retrieved from

  • Maddison A. (2003). The World Economy. OECD.

  • OECD. (2010). Measuring Innovation: A New Perspective. OECD Innovation Strategy. Retrieved from”experimental”+indicators.&source=bl&ots=LulJDS3WDv&sig=ACfU3U3626CXhn_0n8Ik

  • OECD. (2016). Global value chains: Investment and trade for development (pp. 121–202). OECD.

  • OECD Statistics. (2011). Retrieved July 17 2019 from

  • UNCAD. (2013). Global Value Chains and Development: Investment and Value Added Trade in the Global Economy. Retrieved from

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 35 35 17
PDF Downloads 30 30 9