IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v197y2023ics0040162523005589.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What constitutes a “Key Enabling Technology” for transition processes: Insights from the bioeconomy's technological landscape

Author

Listed:
  • Waßenhoven, Anna
  • Rennings, Michael
  • Laibach, Natalie
  • Bröring, Stefanie

Abstract

In policy strategies, Key Enabling Technologies (KETs) are described as knowledge intensive and multidisciplinary technologies driving profound transformations for modernization of industries. However, within scientific literature the concept of KETs is rather unexplored and prevalent case studies lack any clear definition of KETs. The question therefore arises as to whether KETs are needed as a new concept and how they differ to other technology types. Therefore, in this study we apply and extend existing patent indicators targeting the identification of promising technologies for transition processes from an ex-ante as well as ex-post perspective. By relying on hierarchical clustering on principal components of patent data complemented by an expert-based survey, we delineate KETs from emerging technologies and General Purpose Technologies (GPTs). On the example of the transition towards a bio-based economy, our results highlight that KETs combine broad knowledge revealing complementarity within a specific field of transition, while emerging technologies are less knowledge intensive and GPTs accelerate further innovation. Hence, we provide guidance to managers and policymakers in developing, identifying, and promoting promising technologies as engines of transition processes and economic growth. We, thus, support designing funding schemes and directing research endeavors for development and application of KETs.

Suggested Citation

  • Waßenhoven, Anna & Rennings, Michael & Laibach, Natalie & Bröring, Stefanie, 2023. "What constitutes a “Key Enabling Technology” for transition processes: Insights from the bioeconomy's technological landscape," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:197:y:2023:i:c:s0040162523005589
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122873
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162523005589
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122873?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carmen Priefer & Juliane Jörissen & Oliver Frör, 2017. "Pathways to Shape the Bioeconomy," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-23, February.
    2. Sick, Nathalie & Bröring, Stefanie, 2022. "Exploring the research landscape of convergence from a TIM perspective: A review and research agenda," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    3. Sunghae Jun & Sangsung Park & Dongsik Jang, 2015. "A Technology Valuation Model Using Quantitative Patent Analysis: A Case Study of Technology Transfer in Big Data Marketing," Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(5), pages 963-974, September.
    4. Sergio Petralia, 2020. "Mapping General Purpose Technologies with Patent Data," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2027, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jul 2020.
    5. Barbieri, Nicolò & Marzucchi, Alberto & Rizzo, Ugo, 2020. "Knowledge sources and impacts on subsequent inventions: Do green technologies differ from non-green ones?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    6. Rotolo, Daniele & Hicks, Diana & Martin, Ben R., 2015. "What is an emerging technology?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1827-1843.
    7. Lê, Sébastien & Josse, Julie & Husson, François, 2008. "FactoMineR: An R Package for Multivariate Analysis," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 25(i01).
    8. Bronwyn H. Hall & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2006. "Uncovering General Purpose Technologies with Patent Data," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli & Dominique Foray & Bronwyn H. Hall & W. Edward Steinmueller (ed.), New Frontiers in the Economics of Innovation and New Technology, chapter 14, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Verhoeven, Dennis & Bakker, Jurriën & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2016. "Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 707-723.
    10. Rahul Kapoor & David J. Teece, 2021. "Three Faces of Technology’s Value Creation: Emerging, Enabling, Embedding," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 1-4, March.
    11. Magistretti, Stefano & Dell'Era, Claudio & Verganti, Roberto, 2020. "Searching for the right application: A technology development review and research agenda," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    12. Arianna Martinelli & Andrea Mina & Massimo Moggi, 2021. "The enabling technologies of industry 4.0: examining the seeds of the fourth industrial revolution [Mapping innovation dynamics in the Internet of Things domain: evidence from patent analysis]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(1), pages 161-188.
    13. Maine, Elicia & Garnsey, Elizabeth, 2006. "Commercializing generic technology: The case of advanced materials ventures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 375-393, April.
    14. Sam Arts & Francesco Paolo Appio & Bart Looy, 2013. "Inventions shaping technological trajectories: do existing patent indicators provide a comprehensive picture?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 397-419, November.
    15. Schmoch, Ulrich, 2007. "Double-boom cycles and the comeback of science-push and market-pull," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 1000-1015, September.
    16. Arts, Sam & Hou, Jianan & Gomez, Juan Carlos, 2021. "Natural language processing to identify the creation and impact of new technologies in patent text: Code, data, and new measures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).
    17. Büchi, Giacomo & Cugno, Monica & Castagnoli, Rebecca, 2020. "Smart factory performance and Industry 4.0," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    18. Arnold Verbeek & Koenraad Debackere & Marc Luwel & Petra Andries & Edwin Zimmermann & Filip Deleus, 2002. "Linking science to technology: Using bibliographic references in patents to build linkage schemes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(3), pages 399-420, July.
    19. Teece, David J., 2018. "Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1367-1387.
    20. Li, Baibing & Martin, Elaine B. & Morris, A. Julian, 2002. "On principal component analysis in L1," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 471-474, September.
    21. Kwon, Seokbeom & Liu, Xiaoyu & Porter, Alan L. & Youtie, Jan, 2019. "Research addressing emerging technological ideas has greater scientific impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    22. Rainer Frietsch & Andreas Kladroba & Paresa Markianidou & Peter Neuhausler & Viola Peter & Julien Ravet & Olivier Rothengatter & Julia Schneider, 2017. "Final report on the collection of patents and business indicators by economic sector: Societal Grand Challenges and Key Enabling Technologies," JRC Research Reports JRC109299, Joint Research Centre.
    23. William Black & Barry J. Babin, 2019. "Multivariate Data Analysis: Its Approach, Evolution, and Impact," Springer Books, in: Barry J. Babin & Marko Sarstedt (ed.), The Great Facilitator, pages 121-130, Springer.
    24. United Nations UN, 2015. "Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," Working Papers id:7559, eSocialSciences.
    25. Laibach, Natalie & Börner, Jan & Bröring, Stefanie, 2019. "Exploring the future of the bioeconomy: An expert-based scoping study examining key enabling technology fields with potential to foster the transition toward a bio-based economy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    26. M. Argüelles & C. Benavides & I. Fernᮤez, 2014. "A new approach to the identification of regional clusters: hierarchical clustering on principal components," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(21), pages 2511-2519, July.
    27. Sarah Kaplan & Keyvan Vakili, 2015. "The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(10), pages 1435-1457, October.
    28. Pearson, Peter J.G. & Foxon, Timothy J., 2012. "A low carbon industrial revolution? Insights and challenges from past technological and economic transformations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 117-127.
    29. Featherston, Charles R. & O'Sullivan, Eoin, 2017. "Enabling technologies, lifecycle transitions, and industrial systems in technology foresight: Insights from advanced materials FTA," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 261-277.
    30. Maryann P. Feldman & Ji Woong Yoon, 2012. "An empirical test for general purpose technology: an examination of the Cohen--Boyer rDNA technology," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 21(2), pages 249-275, April.
    31. Zolfagharian, Mohammadreza & Walrave, Bob & Raven, Rob & Romme, A. Georges L., 2019. "Studying transitions: Past, present, and future," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    32. Alkemade, Floortje & Suurs, Roald A.A., 2012. "Patterns of expectations for emerging sustainable technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 448-456.
    33. Appio, Francesco Paolo & Martini, Antonella & Fantoni, Gualtiero, 2017. "The light and shade of knowledge recombination: Insights from a general-purpose technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 154-165.
    34. Moehrle, Martin G. & Caferoglu, Hüseyin, 2019. "Technological speciation as a source for emerging technologies. Using semantic patent analysis for the case of camera technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 776-784.
    35. Antonio Vezzani & Fabio Montobbio & Sandro Montresor & Gianluca Tarasconi, 2014. "The patenting activity of the top IRI Scoreboard Companies: an introductory note," JRC Research Reports JRC86166, Joint Research Centre.
    36. Joshua Lerner, 1994. "The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 319-333, Summer.
    37. Nicholas Crafts, 2021. "Artificial intelligence as a general-purpose technology: an historical perspective," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 37(3), pages 521-536.
    38. Petralia, Sergio, 2020. "Mapping general purpose technologies with patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    39. Alfonso Gambardella & Sohvi Heaton & Elena Novelli & David J. Teece, 2021. "Profiting from Enabling Technologies?," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 75-90, March.
    40. Yang, Chih-Hai, 2022. "How Artificial Intelligence Technology Affects Productivity and Employment: Firm-level Evidence from Taiwan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    41. Teubal, Morris, 1997. "A catalytic and evolutionary approach to horizontal technology policies (HTPs)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(8), pages 1161-1188, January.
    42. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    43. Burmaoglu, Serhat & Sartenaer, Olivier & Porter, Alan, 2019. "Conceptual definition of technology emergence: A long journey from philosophy of science to science policy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    44. Small, Henry & Boyack, Kevin W. & Klavans, Richard, 2014. "Identifying emerging topics in science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1450-1467.
    45. Monika Duskova & Marketa Souckova, 2020. "Company and State Performance in Key Enabling Technologies — Case Study of Nanotechnology Industry," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(01), pages 1-20, February.
    46. Berg, S. & Wustmans, M. & Bröring, S., 2019. "Identifying first signals of emerging dominance in a technological innovation system: A novel approach based on patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 706-722.
    47. Sandro Montresor & Francesco Quatraro, 2017. "Regional Branching and Key Enabling Technologies: Evidence from European Patent Data," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 93(4), pages 367-396, August.
    48. Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson & Adam Jaffe, 1997. "University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window On The Basicness Of Invention," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 19-50.
    49. Schoenmakers, Wilfred & Duysters, Geert, 2010. "The technological origins of radical inventions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 1051-1059, October.
    50. Gordon, Adam Vigdor & Ramic, Mirza & Rohrbeck, René & Spaniol, Matthew J., 2020. "50 Years of corporate and organizational foresight: Looking back and going forward," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    51. Jason M. Rathje & Riitta Katila, 2021. "Enabling Technologies and the Role of Private Firms: A Machine Learning Matching Analysis," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 5-21, March.
    52. Frietsch, Rainer & Neuhäusler, Peter & Rothengatter, Oliver & Jonkers, Koen, 2016. "Societal Grand Challenges from a technological perspective: Methods and identification of classes of the International Patent Classification IPC," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 53, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    53. Harhoff, Dietmar & Scherer, Frederic M. & Vopel, Katrin, 2003. "Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1343-1363, September.
    54. Boehlje, Michael & Broring, Stefanie, 2011. "The Increasing Multifunctionality of Agricultural Raw Materials: Three Dilemmas for Innovation and Adoption," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, May.
    55. Marta Gancarczyk & Slawomir Konopa, 2021. "Exploring the Governance of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems for Productive High Growth," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 15(4), pages 9-21.
    56. Block, Carolin & Wustmans, Michael & Laibach, Natalie & Bröring, Stefanie, 2021. "Semantic bridging of patents and scientific publications – The case of an emerging sustainability-oriented technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    57. von Tunzelmann, Nick, 2003. "Historical coevolution of governance and technology in the industrial revolutions," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 365-384, December.
    58. Geels, Frank W., 2002. "Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1257-1274, December.
    59. Janssen, Matthijs J. & Abbasiharofteh, Milad, 2022. "Boundary spanning R&D collaboration: Key enabling technologies and missions as alleviators of proximity effects?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 180.
    60. José Lobo & Deborah Strumsky, 2019. "Sources of inventive novelty: two patent classification schemas, same story," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 19-37, July.
    61. Corrocher Nicoletta & Malerba Franco & Montobbio Fabio, 2003. "The emergence of new technologies in the ICT field: main actors, geographical distribution and knowledge sources," Economics and Quantitative Methods qf0317, Department of Economics, University of Insubria.
    62. Joel Klinger & Juan Mateos-Garcia & Konstantinos Stathoulopoulos, 2021. "Deep learning, deep change? Mapping the evolution and geography of a general purpose technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5589-5621, July.
    63. Tilman Santarius & Johanna Pohl & Steffen Lange, 2020. "Digitalization and the Decoupling Debate: Can ICT Help to Reduce Environmental Impacts While the Economy Keeps Growing?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-20, September.
    64. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2005. "A Note on the Bias in Herfindahl-Type Measures Based on Count Data," Revue d'Économie Industrielle, Programme National Persée, vol. 110(1), pages 149-156.
    65. Singh, Anuraag & Triulzi, Giorgio & Magee, Christopher L., 2021. "Technological improvement rate predictions for all technologies: Use of patent data and an extended domain description," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    66. I. T. Jolliffe, 1972. "Discarding Variables in a Principal Component Analysis. I: Artificial Data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 21(2), pages 160-173, June.
    67. Jongho Lee & Keun Lee, 2021. "Is the fourth industrial revolution a continuation of the third industrial revolution or something new under the sun? Analyzing technological regimes using US patent data [Vertical integration and ," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(1), pages 137-159.
    68. Marc Gruber & Dietmar Harhoff & Karin Hoisl, 2013. "Knowledge Recombination Across Technological Boundaries: Scientists vs. Engineers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(4), pages 837-851, April.
    69. Michael Keenan, 2003. "Identifying emerging generic technologies at the national level: the UK experience," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2-3), pages 129-160.
    70. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fischer, Lennart & Losacker, Sebastian & Wydra, Sven, 2024. "National specialization and diversification in the bioeconomy: Insights from biobased technologies in chemical and pharmaceutical sectors," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Barbieri, Nicolò & Marzucchi, Alberto & Rizzo, Ugo, 2020. "Knowledge sources and impacts on subsequent inventions: Do green technologies differ from non-green ones?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    2. Goldfarb, Avi & Taska, Bledi & Teodoridis, Florenta, 2023. "Could machine learning be a general purpose technology? A comparison of emerging technologies using data from online job postings," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    3. Yoruk, Esin & Radosevic, Slavo & Fischer, Bruno, 2023. "Technological profiles, upgrading and the dynamics of growth: Country-level patterns and trajectories across distinct stages of development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(8).
    4. Ardito, Lorenzo & Petruzzelli, Antonio Messeni & Ghisetti, Claudia, 2019. "The impact of public research on the technological development of industry in the green energy field," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 25-35.
    5. Ugo Rizzo & Nicolò Barbieri & Laura Ramaciotti & Demian Iannantuono, 2020. "The division of labour between academia and industry for the generation of radical inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 393-413, April.
    6. Sandro Montresor & Gianluca Orsatti & Francesco Quatraro, 2023. "Technological novelty and key enabling technologies: evidence from European regions," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(6), pages 851-872, August.
    7. Haessler, Philipp & Giones, Ferran & Brem, Alexander, 2023. "The who and how of commercializing emerging technologies: A technology-focused review," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    8. Wang, Fang, 2024. "Does the recombination of distant scientific knowledge generate valuable inventions? An analysis of pharmaceutical patents," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    9. Bojovic, Neva, 2022. "Strategic framing of enabling technologies: Insights from firms digitizing smell and taste," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    10. Manuel Acosta & Daniel Coronado & Esther Ferrándiz & Manuel Jiménez, 2022. "Effects of knowledge spillovers between competitors on patent quality: what patent citations reveal about a global duopoly," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1451-1487, October.
    11. Ron Boschma & Ernest Miguelez & Rosina Moreno & Diego B. Ocampo-Corrales, 2021. "Technological breakthroughs in European regions: the role of related and unrelated combinations," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2118, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jun 2021.
    12. Sun, Bixuan & Kolesnikov, Sergey & Goldstein, Anna & Chan, Gabriel, 2021. "A dynamic approach for identifying technological breakthroughs with an application in solar photovoltaics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    13. Noh, Heeyong & Lee, Sungjoo, 2020. "What constitutes a promising technology in the era of open innovation? An investigation of patent potential from multiple perspectives," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    14. Uijun Kwon & Youngjung Geum, 2020. "Identification of promising inventions considering the quality of knowledge accumulation: a machine learning approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 1877-1897, December.
    15. Plantec, Quentin & Le Masson, Pascal & Weil, Benoît, 2021. "Impact of knowledge search practices on the originality of inventions: A study in the oil & gas industry through dynamic patent analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    16. Nils Grashof & Alexander Kopka, 2023. "Artificial intelligence and radical innovation: an opportunity for all companies?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 771-797, August.
    17. Boeker, Warren & Howard, Michael D. & Basu, Sandip & Sahaym, Arvin, 2021. "Interpersonal relationships, digital technologies, and innovation in entrepreneurial ventures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 495-507.
    18. Kathryn Rudie Harrigan & Maria Chiara Guardo & Bo Cowgill, 2017. "Multiplicative-innovation synergies: tests in technological acquisitions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(5), pages 1212-1233, October.
    19. Verhoeven, Dennis & Bakker, Jurriën & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2016. "Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 707-723.
    20. Quatraro, Francesco & Scandura, Alessandra, 2020. "Regional patterns of unrelated technological diversification: the role of academic inventors," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 202001, University of Turin.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:197:y:2023:i:c:s0040162523005589. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.