Three decades of research on innovation and inequality: Causal scenarios, explanatory factors and suggestions

Q4 Arts and Humanities
Thanos Fragkandreas
{"title":"Three decades of research on innovation and inequality: Causal scenarios, explanatory factors and suggestions","authors":"Thanos Fragkandreas","doi":"10.13169/prometheus.38.2.0147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Prompted by rising income inequality (in short, inequality) in advanced economies, a rapidly growing number of studies across various fields and disciplines of social science have, since the 1990s, sought to find out how innovation (as the main engine of economic progress) affects the distribution of income in modern-day capitalist societies. Using the systematic literature review method, this paper provides the first critical review of 166 studies on innovation and inequality published in 114 journals in the last three decades (1990–2019). It is shown that, while the great majority of studies under review concur that innovation induces inequality, this finding is subject to the disciplinary origins of research (e.g., development studies, economics, geography, innovation studies, etc.) and the country under investigation. Furthermore, guided by an original causally holistic analytical framework, the analysis demonstrates that the relationship between innovation and inequality is significantly more causally complex than the most popular theoretical perspective (i.e., skill-biased technological change account) has let us believe; in particular, it is subject to five causal scenarios and a range of explanatory factors (i.e., skill premiums, technological unemployment, international trade, declining union membership, spatial aspects, changing employment conditions, policy, horizontal inequalities, sectoral composition and types of innovation). The paper ends by discussing findings, policy implications and knowledge gaps, one of which concerns the following under-researched question: how, and under what conditions do publicly funded innovation policies reduce (or increase) inequality?","PeriodicalId":38494,"journal":{"name":"Prometheus (Italy)","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prometheus (Italy)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13169/prometheus.38.2.0147","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Prompted by rising income inequality (in short, inequality) in advanced economies, a rapidly growing number of studies across various fields and disciplines of social science have, since the 1990s, sought to find out how innovation (as the main engine of economic progress) affects the distribution of income in modern-day capitalist societies. Using the systematic literature review method, this paper provides the first critical review of 166 studies on innovation and inequality published in 114 journals in the last three decades (1990–2019). It is shown that, while the great majority of studies under review concur that innovation induces inequality, this finding is subject to the disciplinary origins of research (e.g., development studies, economics, geography, innovation studies, etc.) and the country under investigation. Furthermore, guided by an original causally holistic analytical framework, the analysis demonstrates that the relationship between innovation and inequality is significantly more causally complex than the most popular theoretical perspective (i.e., skill-biased technological change account) has let us believe; in particular, it is subject to five causal scenarios and a range of explanatory factors (i.e., skill premiums, technological unemployment, international trade, declining union membership, spatial aspects, changing employment conditions, policy, horizontal inequalities, sectoral composition and types of innovation). The paper ends by discussing findings, policy implications and knowledge gaps, one of which concerns the following under-researched question: how, and under what conditions do publicly funded innovation policies reduce (or increase) inequality?
创新与不平等的三十年研究:因果情景、解释因素和建议
由于发达经济体收入不平等(简而言之,不平等)的加剧,自20世纪90年代以来,越来越多的研究跨越社会科学的各个领域和学科,试图找出创新(作为经济进步的主要引擎)如何影响现代资本主义社会的收入分配。本文采用系统文献综述法,对近30年来(1990-2019年)114种期刊上发表的166篇关于创新与不平等的研究进行了首次批判性回顾。研究表明,虽然绝大多数研究都认为创新会导致不平等,但这一发现取决于研究的学科起源(例如,发展研究、经济学、地理学、创新研究等)和被调查的国家。此外,在原始的因果整体分析框架的指导下,分析表明,创新与不平等之间的关系比最流行的理论观点(即技能偏向的技术变革账户)让我们相信的因果关系要复杂得多;特别是,它受到五种因果情景和一系列解释因素(即技能溢价、技术性失业、国际贸易、工会会员人数下降、空间方面、就业条件变化、政策、横向不平等、部门构成和创新类型)的影响。本文最后讨论了研究结果、政策影响和知识差距,其中一个涉及以下研究不足的问题:公共资助的创新政策如何以及在什么条件下减少(或增加)不平等?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Prometheus (Italy)
Prometheus (Italy) Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信