Identifying nanotechnological linkages in the finnish economy - An explorative study

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 513-531

  Nikulainen, Tuomo ^a  

^a Elinkeinoelaman Tutkimuslaitos   (Finland)

Author keywords

Absorptive capacity; General purpose technology; Nanotechnology; Technology diffusion; Technology life cycle

Indexed keywords

INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY; LIFE CYCLE; NANOTECHNOLOGY; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION;

FINLAND;

EID: 77953681054     PISSN: 09537325     EISSN: 14653990     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2010.488054     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Abernathy, W.J., and K.B. Clark. 1985. Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy 14, no. 1: 3-22.
2. Bozeman, B., P. Laredo, and V. Mangematin. 2007. Understanding the emergence and deployment of 'nano' S&T. Research Policy 36, no. 6: 807-12.
3. Bresnahan, T.F., and M. Trajtenberg. 1995. General purpose technologies: 'Engines of growth'? Journal of Econometrics 65, no. 1: 83-108.
4. Cantwell, J., and S. Iammarino. 2000. Multinational corporations and the location of technological innovation in the UK regions. Regional Studies 34, no. 4: 317-32.
5. Carlsson, B., and G. Eliasson. 2003. Industrial dynamics and endogenous growth. Industry and Innovation 10, no. 4: 435-55.
6. Christensen, C.M., and J.L. Bower. 1996. Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal 17, no. 3: 197-218.
7. Cohen, W.M., and D.A. Levinthal. 1989. Innovation and learning - the two faces of R&D. Economic Journal 99, no. 397: 569-96.
8. Cohen, W.M., and D.A. Levinthal. 1990. Absorptive-capacity - a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35, no. 1: 128-52.
9. David, P.A. 1990. The dynamo and the computer - an historical-perspective on the modern productivity paradox. American Economic Review 80, no. 2: 355-61.
10. Fogelberg, H., and B.A. Sanden. 2008. Understanding reflexive systems of innovation: An analysis of Swedish nanotechnology discourse and organization. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20, no. 1: 65-81.
11. Granstrand, O. 1998. Towards a theory of the technology-based firm. Research Policy 27, no. 5: 465-89.
12. Griliches, Z. 1990. Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature 28, no. 4: 1661-707.
13. Helpman, E., and M. Trajtenberg. 1994. A time to sow and a time to reap: Growth based on general purpose technologies. CIAR Working Paper 32.
14. Hill, C.W.L., and F.T. Rothaermel. 2003. The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Academy of Management Review 28, no. 2: 257-74.
15. Hullman, A. 2006. The economic development of nanotechnology - An indicator based analysis. European Commission, DG Research, Unit "Nano S&T-Convergent Science and Technologies". ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/nanoarticle_hullman_nov2006.pdf
16. Igami, M., and T. Okazaki. 2007. Capturing nanotechnology's current state of development via analysis of patents. STI Working Paper, 2007/4, OECD, Paris.
17. Lee, R., and P.D. Jose. 2008. Self-interest, self-restraint and corporate responsibility for nanotechnologies: Emerging dilemmas for modern managers. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20, no. 1: 113-25.
18. Lipsey, R.G., K.I. Carlaw, and C.T. Bekar. 2005. Economic transformations: General purpose technologies and long-term economic growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. Loveridge, D., P. Dewick, and S. Randles. 2008. Converging technologies at the nanoscale: The making of a new world? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20, no. 1: 29-43.
20. Luukkonen, T., and C. Palmberg. 2007. Living up to the expectations set by ICT? The case of biotechnology commercialisation in Finland. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 19, no. 3: 329-49.
21. Meyer, M. 2000. Hurdles on the way to commercialising novel technologies - The case of nanotechnology. Working Paper Series, 2000: 1, Helsinki University of Technology, Institute of Strategy and International Business.
22. Meyer, M. 2005. Nanotechnology in Sweden: Tracking patenting activity and links between nanotech firms and Swedish science. Knowledge Flows Report IVA, Helsinki.
23. Meyer, M., and O. Persson. 1998. Nanotechnology-interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics 42, no. 2: 195-205.
24. Mitchell, W. 1989. Whether and when? Probability and timing of incumbents' entry into emerging industrial subfields. Administrative Science Quarterly 34, no. 2: 208-30.
25. Mitchell, W. 1991. Dual clocks: Entry order influences on incumbent and newcomer market share and survival when specialized assets retain their value. Strategic Management Journal 12, no. 2: 85-100.
26. Nikulainen, T. 2007. What makes a gatekeeper? - Insights from the Finnish nanocommunity. Druid Working Paper, no. 07-03.DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
27. Nikulainen, T., M. Pajarinen, and C. Palmberg. 2005. Patents and technological change - a review with focus on the FEPOCI database. ETLA Discussion paper, 984. Research Institute of the Finnish Economy, Helsinki.
28. Palmberg, C. 2008. The transfer and commercialization of nanotechnology - a comparative analysis of university and company researchers. The Journal of Technology Transfer 33, no. 6: 631-52.
29. Palmberg, C., and T. Nikulainen. 2006. Industrial renewal and growth through nanotechnology? - An overview with focus on Finland. ETLA Discussion paper, 1020. DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
30. Palmberg, C., M. Pajarinen, and T. Nikulainen. 2007. Transferring science-based technologies to industry - does nanotechnology make a difference? ETLA Discussion paper, 1064. Research Institute of the Finnish Economy, Helsinki.
31. Pavitt, K. 1984. Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy 13, no. 6: 343-73.
32. Rothaermel, F.T., and W. Boeker. 2008. Old technology meets new technology: Complementarities, similarities, and alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal 29, no. 1: 47-77.
33. Rothaermel, F.T., and C.W.L. Hill. 2005. Technological discontinuities and complementary assets: A longitudinal study of industry and firm performance. Organization Science 16, no. 1: 52-70.
34. Rothaermel, F.T., and M. Thursby. 2007. The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: Sources of productivity in incumbent firm research. Research Policy 36, no. 6: 832-49.
35. Schmidt, J.C. 2008. Tracing interdisciplinarity of converging technologies at the nanoscale: A critical analysis of recent nanotechnosciences. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20, no. 1: 45-63.
36. Shea, C.M. 2005. Future management research directions in nanotechnology: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 22, no. 3: 185-200.
37. Soete, L. 1987.The impact of technological innovation on international trade patterns: The evidence reconsidered. Research Policy 16, nos. 2-4: 101-30.
38. Stephan, P.E. 1996. The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature 34, no. 3: 1199-235.
39. Teece, D.J. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation - implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public-policy. Research Policy 15, no. 6: 285-305.
40. Teece, D.J. 2006. Reflections on 'profiting from innovation'. Research Policy 35, no. 8: 1131-46.
41. Throne-Holst, H., and E. Sto. 2008. Who should be precautionary? Governance of nanotechnology in the risk society. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20, no. 1: 99-112.
42. Tripsas, M. 1997. Unraveling the process of creative destruction: Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management Journal 18, no. 1: 119-42.
43. Tushman, M.L., and P. Anderson. 1986. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 31, no. 3: 439-465.
44. Wood, S., A. Geldart, and R. Jones. 2008. Crystallizing the nanotechnology debate. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20, no. 1: 13-27.
45. Youtie, J., M. Iacopetta, and S. Graham. 2008. Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: Can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology? The Journal of Technology Transfer 33, no. 3: 315-29.