问题描述：
英语翻译
Column 1 in Table 1 shows the social rate of return to industry from R&D conducted by
firms within the same industry.These estimates range from 17% to 34%.The second
column shows the social return attributable to R&D conducted in one industry but used in
another (for example,R&D carried out in an upstream industry).Estimates of the social
rate of return on this R&D are significantly higher.Adding the two together implies a
social rate of return of around 100%.These estimates are largely based on data for the
manufacturing sector.
Empirical results on the social rate of return to R&D are integrated into a macroeconomic
model of endogenous innovation and growth by Jones and Williams (1998).They show
that the estimates of the social rate of return in the R&D literature (i.e.the studies shownin Table 1) actually provide a lower bound to the true social rate of return,once we take
into account the dynamic general equilibrium effects emphasised in the endogenous
growth literature.
Another way in which these models will underestimate the social rate of return to R&D is
that they assume that imitation is costless.However,knowledge is ‘tacit’ in nature:it
takes time and effort to explain new ideas to others and to codify inventions in manuals
and textbooks.This means that imitation itself can be costly.6 Recent work has
emphasised the role that R&D plays,not only in leading to new innovations but also in
enhancing firms’ ability to imitate.R&D not only stimulates innovation but also plays an
important role in the adoption of existing technologies.Empirical evidence lends support
to these ideas.
Griffith,Redding and Van Reenen (2000) present an empirical framework in which the
rate of return to R&D is composed of an effect on productivity through innovation and an
effect through increased potential for imitation.This second component will be
particularly important for firms,industries and countries far behind the technological
frontier.Innovation and technology transfer provide two potential sources of productivity
growth for countries behind the technological frontier.A country’s distance from the
technological frontier is used as a direct measure of the potential for technology transfer,
where the frontier is defined for each industry as the country with the highest level of
total factor productivity (TFP).The further a country lies behind the technological
frontier,the greater the potential for R&D to increase TFP growth through technology
transfer from more advanced countries.7
Griffith et al.(2000) provide econometric evidence that R&D expenditure plays a role in
assimilating the research discoveries of others as well as its conventional role as a source
of innovation.
Column 1 in Table 1 shows the social rate of return to industry from R&D conducted by
firms within the same industry.These estimates range from 17% to 34%.The second
column shows the social return attributable to R&D conducted in one industry but used in
another (for example,R&D carried out in an upstream industry).Estimates of the social
rate of return on this R&D are significantly higher.Adding the two together implies a
social rate of return of around 100%.These estimates are largely based on data for the
manufacturing sector.
Empirical results on the social rate of return to R&D are integrated into a macroeconomic
model of endogenous innovation and growth by Jones and Williams (1998).They show
that the estimates of the social rate of return in the R&D literature (i.e.the studies shownin Table 1) actually provide a lower bound to the true social rate of return,once we take
into account the dynamic general equilibrium effects emphasised in the endogenous
growth literature.
Another way in which these models will underestimate the social rate of return to R&D is
that they assume that imitation is costless.However,knowledge is ‘tacit’ in nature:it
takes time and effort to explain new ideas to others and to codify inventions in manuals
and textbooks.This means that imitation itself can be costly.6 Recent work has
emphasised the role that R&D plays,not only in leading to new innovations but also in
enhancing firms’ ability to imitate.R&D not only stimulates innovation but also plays an
important role in the adoption of existing technologies.Empirical evidence lends support
to these ideas.
Griffith,Redding and Van Reenen (2000) present an empirical framework in which the
rate of return to R&D is composed of an effect on productivity through innovation and an
effect through increased potential for imitation.This second component will be
particularly important for firms,industries and countries far behind the technological
frontier.Innovation and technology transfer provide two potential sources of productivity
growth for countries behind the technological frontier.A country’s distance from the
technological frontier is used as a direct measure of the potential for technology transfer,
where the frontier is defined for each industry as the country with the highest level of
total factor productivity (TFP).The further a country lies behind the technological
frontier,the greater the potential for R&D to increase TFP growth through technology
transfer from more advanced countries.7
Griffith et al.(2000) provide econometric evidence that R&D expenditure plays a role in
assimilating the research discoveries of others as well as its conventional role as a source
of innovation.
问题解答：
我来补答展开全文阅读