Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 32727
Assessing Innovation Activity in Mexico and South Korea: An Econometric Approach

Authors: Mario Gómez, Won Ho Kim, Ángel Licona, José Carlos Rodríguez


This article analyzes innovation activity in Mexico and South Korea. It develops an econometric model to test for structural breaks in the number of patent applications filed by residents and nonresidents in these countries during the period of 1965 to 2012. These changes may suggest that firms’ innovative capabilities have changed because of implementing different science, technology and innovation (STI) policies in Mexico and South Korea. Two important features characterize this research from others already developed by these authors. First, the theoretical research framework in this research is the debate between the assimilation view of growth and the accumulation view of growth. This characteristic suggests that trade liberalization should be accompanied by an adequate STI policy to boost competitiveness among indigenous firms. Second, the analysis in this research stresses the importance of key actors (e.g. governments) to successfully develop innovation capabilities among indigenous firms. Therefore, the question conducting this research is how STI policies in Mexico and South Korea contributed to develop firms’ innovation capabilities in these countries during last decades? The results from this research suggests that STI policy in South Korea was more suitable to boost innovation firms to compete in markets. Data to develop this research was released by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

Keywords: Econometric methods, innovation, Mexico, South Korea, STI Policy.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 879


[1] Y. K. Kim, and K Lee, “Different impacts of scientific and technological knowledge on economic growth: contrasting science and technology policy in East Asia and Latin America”, Asian Economic Policy Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 43-66, 2015.
[2] L. Mytelka, “Local systems of innovation in a globalized world economy”, Industry and Innovations, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 15-32, 2000.
[3] S. Lall, “Technological capabilities and industrialization”, World Development, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 165-186, 1992.
[4] S. Lall, “Desempeño de las Exportaciones, modernización tecnológica y estrategias en materia de inversiones extranjeras directas en las economías de reciente industrialización de Asia: con especial referencia a Singapur”, Desarrollo Productivo, No. 88, 2000.
[5] H. J. Chang, “The political economy of industrial policy in Korea”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 17, pp. 131-157, 1993.
[6] K. Lee, and C. Lim, “Technological regimes, catching-up and leapfrogging: findings from the Korean industries, Vol. 30, No. 3, Research Policy, pp. 459-483, 2001.
[7] M. Hobday, H. Rush, and J. Bessant, “Approaching the innovation frontier in Korea: the transition phase to leadership”, Research Policy, Vol. 33, No. 10, pp. 1433-1457, 2004.
[8] T. Ito, K. Iwata, C. Mckenzie, and S. Urata, “Innovation in East Asia”, Asian Economic Policy Review, Vol. 10, pp. 1-18, 2015.
[9] G. Hu, “Innovation and Economic growth in East Asia: an overview, Asian Economic Policy Review, Vol. 10, pp. 19-37, 2015.
[10] M. Hobday, “East Asian latecomer firms: learning the technology of electronics”, World Development, Vol. 23, No. 7, pp. 1171-1193, 1995.
[11] A. Licona, and J. E. Rangel, “Inversión en investigación y desarrollo: los casos de la República de Corea y México”, Portes, Vol. 6, No. 12, pp. 99-125, 2012.
[12] World Bank,, 2017.
[13] OECD, Environment and Science, 2017.
[14] T. N. Srinivasan, Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Growth, World Bank, Washington D. C., 2003.
[15] A. Szirmai, W. Naudé, and M. Goedhuys, Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Development, Oxford University Press, 2011.
[16] P. K. Wong, Y. P. Ho, and E. Autio, “Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: evidence from GEM data”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 335-350, 2005.
[17] W. Naudé, “Entrepreneurship and Economic Development: Theory, Evidence and Policy”, IZA Discussion Paper 7507, 2013.
[18] A. Amsden, Asian´s Next Giant South Korea and Late Industrialization, Oxford University Press, 1989.
[19] E. Armas, and J. C. Rodríguez, “Foreign direct investment and technology spillovers in Mexico: 20 years of NAFTA”, Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.34-47, 2017.
[20] M. Gómez, and J. C. Rodríguez, “Innovation trends in South Korea”, International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 9, pp. 3053-3057, 2014.
[21] A. Licona, and J. E. Rangel, “Pilares de la competitividad, educación superior, nuevas tecnologías y empleo en Corea del Sur y México”, Análisis Económico, Vol. XXVIII, No. 69, pp. 79-108, 2014.
[22] I. Boncheva, A. Licona, M. Loaiza, E. Mendoza, J. E. Rangel, and C. Uscanga, “Las políticas gubernamentales de ciencia y tecnología en el Asia Pacífico en la Posguerra: los casos de Japón y Corea del Sur”, Portes, Vol. 10, No. 20, pp. 105-136, 2016.
[23] J. C. Rodríguez, and M. Gómez, “Innovation trends in NAFTA countries: an econometric analysis of patent applications”, Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 116-125, 2011.
[24] G. S. Maddala and I. Kim, Unit Root, Cointegration and Structural Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
[25] B. Hansen, “The new econometrics of structural change: Dating breaks in U.S. labor Productivity”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 117-128, 2001.
[26] D. Gujarati, Econometría, McGraw-Hill, Mexico, 2004
[27] J. Bai and P. Perron, “Estimating and testing linear models with multiple structural change”, Econometrica, Vol. 66, No. 11, pp. 47-78, 1998.
[28] J. Bai and P. Perron, “Computation and analysis of multiple structural change models”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1-22, 2003.