Do Innovation and Institutional Quality Elevate Economic Growth? Empirical Evidence from Developing Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Highlights • An assessment of institutional quality, innovation, and economic growth in developing countries. • Long-run causality from innovation and institutional quality to economic growth is present. • Short-run directions of causality are varied among variables of interest. • Innovation and institutional quality generally positively impact economic growth. Continuous innovation is the lifeblood of a competitive economy. Furthermore, and arguably, the existence of institutions of governance of quality can be a catalyst for emerging economies to transition up the universal innovation value chain. In this context, we investigate temporal causal interactions among institutional quality, innovation, and economic growth for developing countries (DCs) spanning the period of 2005–2020. Employing a vector error-correction model (VECM), we find that for each case and specification (49 instances), there is evidence of the long-run causality from institutional quality and innovation to economic growth. Stated another way, in the long run, institutional quality and innovation Granger-cause economic growth. However, the short-run causality results differ depending on the specific measures of innovation and institutional quality. The strongest short-run conclusion is support for the feedback hypothesis for economic growth and innovation where there is a strong endogenous relationship between innovation, institutional governance, and economic growth. The empirical analysis shows over 70% of our observations support that economic growth and innovation jointly determine each other in the short run. The results suggest that DCs should develop and pursue long-term growth strategies that simultaneously develop innovation and improve institutional governance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".