IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cir/cirwor/2000s-60.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Technological Paradigms and the Measurement of Innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Bernard Sinclair-Desgagné

Abstract

This paper proposes a formal definition of the notion of technological paradigm. This definition is consistent with the fundamental proposition of Kuhnian philosophy of science, that progress only happens through successive and abrupt shifts of paradigm. It also helps clarifying a number of other notions, such as demand-pulled vs. supply-driven innovation, incremental vs. radical innovation, and present vs. next-generation product. Cet article propose une définition formelle de la notion de paradigme technologique. Cette définition s'avère compatible avec la proposition fondamentale de l'approche Kuhnienne du développement scientifique, à l'effet que le progrès à long terme des connaissances ne survient que grâce à de brusques changements de paradigme. La présente définition permet aussi de clarifier plusieurs notions, comme celle d'innovation tirée par la demande ou bien poussée par l'offre, d'innovation incrémentale ou bien radicale, ou encore de générations de produits.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernard Sinclair-Desgagné, 2000. "Technological Paradigms and the Measurement of Innovation," CIRANO Working Papers 2000s-60, CIRANO.
    • Handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2000s-60
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cirano.qc.ca/files/publications/2000s-60.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Meyer, Martin, 2000. "Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 409-434, March.
    2. Giovanni Dosi, 2000. "Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation," Chapters, in: Innovation, Organization and Economic Dynamics, chapter 2, pages 63-114, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Philippe Aghion & Jean Tirole, 1994. "The Management of Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 109(4), pages 1185-1209.
    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. Stefan Ambec & Michel Poitevin, 2000. "Organizational Design of R & D Activities," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 0190, Econometric Society.
    2. Maurseth, Per Botolf & Svensson, Roger, 2020. "The Importance of Tacit Knowledge: Dynamic Inventor Activity in the Commercialization Phase," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    3. Keld Laursen & Solon Moreira & Toke Reichstein & Maria Isabella Leone, 2017. "Evading the Boomerang Effect: Using the Grant-Back Clause to Further Generative Appropriability from Technology Licensing Deals," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 514-530, June.
    4. Hyytinen, Ari & Pajarinen, Mika, 2005. "Financing of technology-intensive small businesses: some evidence on the uniqueness of the ICT sector," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 115-132, January.
    5. Sterzi, Valerio, 2013. "Patent quality and ownership: An analysis of UK faculty patenting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 564-576.
    6. Bruno Cassiman, 1998. "The organization of research corporations and researcher ability," Economics Working Papers 327, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    7. Chang-Yang Lee & Ji-Hwan Lee & Ajai S. Gaur, 2017. "Are large business groups conducive to industry innovation? The moderating role of technological appropriability," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 313-337, June.
    8. Philip Cooke, 2002. "Biotechnology Clusters as Regional, Sectoral Innovation Systems," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 25(1), pages 8-37, January.
    9. Michael Peneder, 2003. "Industry Classifications: Aim, Scope and Techniques," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 109-129, March.
    10. Patrick Legros & Andrew F. Newman & Eugenio Proto, 2014. "Smithian Growth through Creative Organization," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 96(5), pages 796-811, December.
    11. Kuosmanen, Natalia & Valmari, Nelli, 2023. "Renewal of Companies Through Product Switching," ETLA Working Papers 104, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    12. Ozgur Aydogmus & Erkan Gürpinar, 2022. "Science, Technology and Institutional Change in Knowledge Production: An Evolutionary Game Theoretic Framework," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 1163-1188, December.
    13. Febi Jensen & Hans Lööf & Andreas Stephan, 2020. "New ventures in Cleantech: Opportunities, capabilities and innovation outcomes," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 902-917, March.
    14. Schmitz, Patrick W., 2021. "On the optimality of outsourcing when vertical integration can mitigate information asymmetries," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    15. Jarle Moen, 2005. "Is Mobility of Technical Personnel a Source of R&D Spillovers?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(1), pages 81-114, January.
    16. Cimoli, Mario & Primi, Annalisa & Rovira, Sebastián, 2011. "National innovation surveys in latin America: empirical evidence and policy implications," Documentos de Proyectos 3897, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    17. Markus Solf, 2004. "Unternehmenskooperationen als Folge von Informations- und Kommunikations-technologieveränderungen: Eine theoretische Analyse," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 146-167, March.
    18. John M. de Figueiredo & Brian S. Silverman, 2017. "On the Genesis of Interfirm Relational Contracts," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(4), pages 234-245, December.
    19. Dequiedt, V. & Versaevel, B., 2004. "Patent pools and the dynamic incentives to R&D," Working Papers 200412, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    20. Elisabetta Iossa & David Martimort, 2012. "Risk allocation and the costs and benefits of public--private partnerships," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(3), pages 442-474, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Lattice theory; Galois connections; concept lattices; modularity; Théorie des treillis; connections de Galois; treillis de concepts; modularité;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • C60 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - General

    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:cir:cirwor:2000s-60. 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: Webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ciranca.html .

    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.