The study implements the Schumpeterian notion of creative reaction to articulate and test the hypothesis that the shift to the knowledge economy in advanced economies is the result of the creative reaction of firms, caught in out-of-equilibrium conditions by the fast globalization of product and factor markets since the last decade of the 20th century. Advanced countries specialized in the generation and exploitation of knowledge because of its relative abundance stemming from their sophisticated knowledge governance mechanisms and the large stock of knowledge. In turn, this had strong positive effects on total factor productivity. The empirical analysis confirms that in advanced economies the specialization in knowledge-based activities substituted for the previous specialization in mass manufacturing activities supporting the increase of total factor productivity. The new specialization in knowledge-intensive activities has been stronger in cases where patent activities have been more intense and the exposure to international trade and the revenue per capita have been larger.
AbramovitzM.DavidP. A. (1996). Technological change and the rise of intangible investments: The U.S. economy growth path in the twentieth century. In Employment and growth in the knowledge-based economy (pp. 35-60). Paris, France: OECD.
2.
AntonelliC. (2008). Localized technological change: Towards the economics of complexity. London, England: Routledge.
3.
AntonelliC. (Ed.). (2011). Handbook on the economic complexity of technological change. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
4.
AntonelliC.FassioC. (2011). Globalization and innovation in advanced economies. In LibecapG. (Ed.), Advances in the study of entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth (Vol. 22, pp. 21-46). Cambridge, England: Emerald.
5.
AntonelliC.FassioC. (2014). The economics of the light economy: Globalization, skill-biased technological change, and slow growth. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 87, 89-107.
6.
BernardA. B.JonesC. I. (1996). Comparing apples to oranges: Productivity convergence and measurement across industries. American Economic Review, 86, 1216-1238.
7.
BodenM.MilesI. (Eds.). (1999). Innovation and the service-based economy. London, England: Cassell Academic.
8.
BogliacinoF.PiantaM. (2013). Profits, R&D, and innovation—A model and a test. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22, 649-678.
9.
BonattiL.FeliceG. (2008). Endogenous growth and changing sectoral composition in advanced economies. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 19, 109-131.
10.
BueraF. J.KaboskiJ. P. (2012). The rise of the service economy. American Economic Review, 102, 2540-2569.
11.
CavesR. E. (2007). Multinational enterprise and economic analysis (3rd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
12.
ChesbroughH. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
13.
CohenW. M.NelsonR. R.WalshJ. P. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not) (NBER Working Paper No. 7552). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
14.
DavidP. A. (1993). Knowledge property and the system dynamics of technological change. In SummersL.ShahS. (Eds.), Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics (pp. 215-248). Washington, DC: World Bank.
15.
Di MariaE.BettiolM.De MarchiV.GrandinettiR. (2012). Developing and managing distant markets: The case of KIBS. Economia Politica, 29, 361-379.
16.
DoloreuxD.ShearmurR. (2012). How much does KIBS contribute to R&D activities of manufacturing firms? A sectoral comparison.Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, 39, 319-342.
17.
DunningJ. H.LundanS. M. (2008). Multinational enterprise and the global economy (2nd ed.). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
18.
FreelM. (2006). Patterns of technological innovation in knowledge-intensive business services. Industry and Innovation, 13, 335-358.
19.
FurmanJ.PorterM. E.SternS. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 31, 899-933.
20.
GeunaA. (1999). The economics of knowledge production. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
21.
HallB. H.JaffeA.TrajtenbergM. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36, 16-38.
22.
KangS. J.LeeH. (2011). Foreign direct investments and de-industrialization. World Economy, 34, 313-329.
23.
KuznetsS. (1965). Economic growth and structure. London, England: Heineman.
24.
MacDonaldJ. M. (1996). Does import competition force efficient production?Review of Economics and Statistics, 76, 721-727.
25.
MullerE.DoloreuxD. (2009). What we should know about knowledge-intensive business services. Technology in Society, 31, 64-72.
26.
NickellS.ReddingS.SwaffieldJ. (2008). The uneven pace of deindustrialization in the OECD. World Economy, 31, 1154-1184.
27.
O’MahonyM.TimmerM. P. (2009). Output, input, and productivity measures at the industry level: The EU KLEMS database. Economic Journal, 119, 374-403.
28.
OstromE.HessC. (Eds.). (2006). Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.
29.
PatelP.PavittK. (1994). The nature and economic importance of national innovation systems. STI Review, 14, 9-32.
30.
SchettkatR.YocariniL. (2006). The shift to service employment: A review of the literature. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 17, 127-147.
31.
SchumpeterJ. A. (1947). The creative response in economic history. Journal of Economic History, 7, 149-159.
32.
Von HippelE. (1988). The sources of innovation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
33.
WhiteH. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48, 817-838.
34.
WooldridgeJ. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.
