IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/entreg/v9y1997i4p273-298.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The forms and determinants of technological change in US manufacturing†

Author

Listed:
  • David L. Rigby
  • Micheal J. Webber

Abstract

An evolutionary model of process-induced technological change is outlined. The model identifies processes of innovation, imitation, selection, and entry and exit. The theoretical impact of these processes on the rate and direction of technological change is specified. The model of technological change is estimated for the US manufacturing sector between 1965 and 1990 and for 20 individual manufacturing industries. The post-war history of process-induced innovation in the manufacturing sector of the US reveals that the pace and direction of technical change has been dominated by the effects of selection and by the entry and exit of marginal firms rather than by innovation and imitation. Thus, the movement of production costs has been driven more by changes in the structure of the market within which manufacturing firms operate than by changes in the pace of‘real’ technical change. Most accounts of technological change, at least in the case of the US manufacturing sector, exaggerate the impact of innovation and imitation on unit costs.

Suggested Citation

  • David L. Rigby & Micheal J. Webber, 1997. "The forms and determinants of technological change in US manufacturing†," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 273-298, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:entreg:v:9:y:1997:i:4:p:273-298
    DOI: 10.1080/08985629700000016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/08985629700000016
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/08985629700000016?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. Utterback, James M & Abernathy, William J, 1975. "A dynamic model of process and product innovation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 3(6), pages 639-656, December.
    2. M Webber & E Sheppard & D Rigby, 1992. "Forms of Technical Change," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 24(12), pages 1679-1709, December.
    3. Chakrabarti, Alok K., 1990. "Innovation and productivity: An analysis of the chemical, textiles and machine tool industries in the U.S," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 257-269, June.
    4. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    5. Giovanni Dosi & Christopher Freeman & Richard Nelson & Gerarld Silverberg & Luc Soete (ed.), 1988. "Technical Change and Economic Theory," LEM Book Series, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy, number dosietal-1988, November.
    6. Utterback, James M. & Suarez, Fernando F., 1993. "Innovation, competition, and industry structure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 1-21, February.
    7. Alfred Kleinknecht, 1987. "Innovation Patterns in Crisis and Prosperity," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-349-18559-7, December.
    8. Stoneman, P., 1980. "The rate of imitation, learning and profitability," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 179-183.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Andreas Pyka & Uwe Cantner & Alfred Greiner & Thomas Kuhn (ed.), 2009. "Recent Advances in Neo-Schumpeterian Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12982.
    2. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    3. Linda F. Tegarden & Ann E. Echols & Donald E. Hatfield, 2000. "The Value of Patience and Start-up Firms: A Re-Examination of Entry Timing for Emerging Markets," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 24(4), pages 41-58, July.
    4. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    5. Vermeulen, Ben & Pyka, Andreas, 2016. "Agent-based modeling for decision making in economics under uncertainty," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 10, pages 1-33.
    6. Kangasharju, Aki & Nijkamp, Peter, 2001. "Innovation dynamics in space: local actors and local factors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 31-56, March.
    7. Triulzi, G., 2014. "Technology life cycle and specialization patterns of latecomer countries: The case of the semiconductor industry," MERIT Working Papers 2014-012, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    8. Soh, Pek-Hooi & Roberts, Edward B., 2003. "Networks of innovators: a longitudinal perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1569-1588, October.
    9. Narayanan, V.K. & Chen, Tianxu, 2012. "Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1375-1406.
    10. Lee, Keun & Lim, Chaisung & Song, W, 2005. "Emerging Digital Technology as a Window of Opportunity and Technological Leapfrogging: Catch-up in Digital TV by the Korean Firms," MPRA Paper 109777, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Korkut Erturk, 2002. "Revisiting the Old Theory of Cyclical Growth: Harrod, Kaldor cum Schumpeter," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 179-192.
    12. Baldwin, Carliss Y. & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Kapoor, Rahul & West, Joel, 2024. "Focusing the ecosystem lens on innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    13. Mark Knell & Simone Vannuccini, 2022. "Tools and concepts for understanding disruptive technological change after Schumpeter," Jena Economics Research Papers 2022-005, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    14. Cecere, Grazia & Corrocher, Nicoletta & Battaglia, Riccardo David, 2015. "Innovation and competition in the smartphone industry: Is there a dominant design?," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 162-175.
    15. 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).
    16. Vialle, Pierre & Song, Junjie & Zhang, Jian, 2012. "Competing with dominant global standards in a catching-up context. The case of mobile standards in China," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 832-846.
    17. Lionel Nesta & Vincent Mangematin, 2002. "Industry Life Cycle, Knowledge Generation and Technological Networks," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-03398092, HAL.
    18. David Rigby, 2012. "The Geography of Knowledge Relatedness and Technological Diversification in U.S. Cities," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1218, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Oct 2012.
    19. Taalbi, Josef, 2017. "What drives innovation? Evidence from economic history," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1437-1453.
    20. Fagerberg, Jan, 2018. "Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: A comment on transformative innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1568-1576.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:entreg:v:9:y:1997:i:4:p:273-298. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/TEPN20 .

    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.