Maria Adelaide Silva Duarte

Quadruple Helix R&D Growth Models: A Panel Cointegration Analysis Applied to a Sample of OECD Countries

The Quadruple Helix theory (QH), [Carayannis and Campbell (Knowledge creation, diffusion and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative system approach across the USA, Europe and Asia (pp. ix–xxvi). 2006, knowledge creation, diffusion and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters: A comparative System Approach across the USA, Europe and Asia 2009a, International Journal of Technology Management 46(3):201–234, 2009b), Arnkil et al. (Work Research Center, 2010), MacGregor et al. (Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1(3):173–190, 2010)] seeks to explain the new reality of the so-called innovation economies and the interplay between innovation and economic growth. Following this approach, the economic structure of a country relies on four helices: on one hand the university and technology infrastructures, on the other hand on firms, government and the civil society where differentiated productive units that are complementary and interact with each other are responsible for growth by generating a permanent stream of innovation. This theory was only subject to theoretic modelling quite recently with Afonso et al. (Journal of Business Economics and Management 13(5):849–865, 2012), Monteiro (Economie de l’innovation, depenses publiques productives et croissance economique: une etude empirique pour l’evaluation du role des infrastructures technologiques dans les pays de l’OECD. Economies et finances, 2013) and Afonso et al. (Metroeconomica 65(4):671–689, 2014) who contributed to fill the gap by modelling the QH concept on the basis of (two) research and development (R&D) growth models. Additionally, Monteiro (Economie de l’innovation, depenses publiques productives et croissance economique: une etude empirique pour l’evaluation du role des infrastructures technologiques dans les pays de l’OECD. Economies et finances, 2013) presents the first attempt to empirically test the main predictions of the first QH-R&D growth model by Afonso et al. (Journal of Business Economics and Management 13(5):849–865, 2012) with the help of non-stationary panel techniques, applied to a sample of 24 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, over the period 1980–2008.

Structural Change, Inequality and Economic Growth: Evidence from a Panel of Central and Eastern European Countries

Abstract European Union (EU) central and eastern economies have gone through a process of structural change since 1989, when the post-communist transition started. This process was afterwards reinforced by the three EU enlargement waves that took place in 2004, 2007 and 2013. Though exhibiting low levels of aggregate productivity, this group of countries joined the EU with higher levels of human capital than the southern member states, an advantage that should have accelerated real convergence towards the EU15. However, evidence to date suggests that the convergence process came to a halt in 2007–2008 when massive capital inflows stopped, highlighting the fragilities of the growth strategies implemented so far. In these peripheral countries, structural change has been characterised by an expanding services sector alongside growing income inequality. The two strands of literature on these issues highlight that: (a) an expanding services sector may not be detrimental for growth, quite the opposite, depending on services composition and on the capacity of services sub-sectors to incorporate information and communication technologies (ICTs); and (b) inequality is negatively related to growth through the fiscal policy, socio-political instability, borrowing constraints to investment in education and endogenous fertility channels and positively through the savings channel and incentives. We analyse the nexus between structural change, inequality and growth in this group of countries highlighting income inequality as a potential mechanism that connects the other two variables. We provide a descriptive quantitative analysis of the profiles of structural change and income inequality in our sample and apply dynamic panel methods to investigate the existence of causality among services sector expansion, inequality and aggregate productivity considering a maximum period between 1980 and 2010.

Tertiarization and Human Capital: Do They Matter for Growth? Insights From Portugal

We investigate the existence of causality among sectoral productivity, services sector expansion, human capital, and aggregate productivity over the period 1970-2006 in the Portuguese economy taking into account the contribution of services sub-sectors with different potential for productivity improvements, market and non-market services. The main aim is to examine whether the increasing tertiarization of the Portuguese economy constituted an obstacle or an opportunity for its aggregate productivity performance and if the expansion of the services sector is related to human capital availability, based on the former disaggregation of the services sector. The evidence suggests bidirectional causality between sectoral and aggregate productivity, with sectoral employment shares and human capital not revealing themselves as relevant for the explanation of the other variables nor being influenced by them. Across services categories, non-market services seem to be the most influential one, making a positive and lasting contribution to aggregate productivity, while market services seem to have had no influence on aggregate productivity dynamics.