IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eti/polidp/14020.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Dynamics and Determinants of De Jure Standards: Evidence from the electronic and electrical engineering industries

Author

Listed:
  • TAMURA Suguru

Abstract

This study evaluates the time intervals over which standards should be reviewed as a function of the standards' dynamics. Determining the optimum interval over which to review standards facilitates the creation of new product markets. Data for this study (about 15,000 active or withdrawn de jure standards) were collected and analyzed, which resulted in several findings. First, the effective time interval over which standards should be reviewed differs as a function of the technological field in which the standard is used. Second, a standard's type (particularly design and symbol standards) also significantly affects the effective time interval for a standard's review. Third, the types of review (e.g., amendment) are significantly associated with the standards' effective terms. These findings allow for the validation of a mathematical model that explains the dynamics of the standard's value. This model allows for an analysis of the relationship between a standard's value and the type of review to which it should be subjected. The model features a critical value that uniformly explains de facto standards and de jure standards in terms of the standards' dynamics.

Suggested Citation

  • TAMURA Suguru, 2014. "The Dynamics and Determinants of De Jure Standards: Evidence from the electronic and electrical engineering industries," Policy Discussion Papers 14020, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    • Handle: RePEc:eti:polidp:14020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/pdp/14p020.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Knut Blind & Stephan Gauch, 2009. "Research and standardisation in nanotechnology: evidence from Germany," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 320-342, June.
    2. Knut Blind, 2006. "Explanatory factors for participation in formal standardisation processes: Empirical evidence at firm level," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 157-170.
    3. Knut Blind & Andre Jungmittag, 2005. "Trade and the impact of innovations and standards: the case of Germany and the UK," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(12), pages 1385-1398.
    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. TAMURA Suguru, 2019. "Results of a survey on standardization activities: Japanese institutions' standardization activities in 2017 (Implementation, knowledge source, organizational structure, and interest to artificial int," Policy Discussion Papers 19013, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).

    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. Knut Blind & Maximilian Laer, 2022. "Paving the path: drivers of standardization participation at ISO," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1115-1134, August.
    2. Aikaterini Zi & Knut Blind, 2015. "Researchers’ participation in standardisation: a case study from a public research institute in Germany," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 346-360, April.
    3. Blind, Knut & Mangelsdorf, Axel, 2016. "Motives to standardize: Empirical evidence from Germany," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 48, pages 13-24.
    4. Anna Pohle & Knut Blind & Dmitry Neustroev, 2018. "The Impact of International Management Standards on Academic Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, December.
    5. Knut Blind & Jakob Pohlisch & Anne Rainville, 2020. "Innovation and standardization as drivers of companies’ success in public procurement: an empirical analysis," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 664-693, June.
    6. Blind, Knut & Pohlisch, Jakob & Zi, Aikaterini, 2018. "Publishing, patenting, and standardization: Motives and barriers of scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1185-1197.
    7. Knut Blind, 2010. "The Role of Standards for Trade in Services: Hypotheses and First Insights," Chapters, in: Faïz Gallouj & Faridah Djellal (ed.), The Handbook of Innovation and Services, chapter 22, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Blind, Knut & Filipović, Ellen & Lazina, Luisa K., 2022. "Motives to Publish, to Patent and to Standardize: An Explorative Study Based on Individual Engineers’ Assessments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    9. Groesser, Stefan N., 2014. "Co-evolution of legal and voluntary standards: Development of energy efficiency in Swiss residential building codes," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-16.
    10. TAMURA Suguru, 2017. "Empirical Analysis: Technological character, type of function, and longevity of standardized knowledge," Policy Discussion Papers 17007, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    11. Asna Ashari, Parsa & Blind, Knut, 2024. "The effects of hydrogen research and innovation on international hydrogen trade," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    12. TAMURA Suguru, 2015. "What Decides the Lifespan of Standardized Technologies? The first look at de jure standards in Japan," Policy Discussion Papers 15012, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    13. Knut Blind & Andre Jungmittag, 2008. "The impact of patents and standards on macroeconomic growth: a panel approach covering four countries and 12 sectors," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 51-60, February.
    14. Slowak, André P., 2009. "Market fields structure & dynamics in industrial automation," FZID Discussion Papers 02-2009, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    15. Chen, Natalie & Novy, Dennis, 2012. "On the measurement of trade costs: direct vs. indirect approaches to quantifying standards and technical regulations," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 401-414, July.
    16. Jong-Hyun Paik & Moon-Koo Kim & Jong-Hyun Park, 2017. "The antecedents and consequences of technology standardizations in Korean IT small and medium-sized enterprises," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 293-304, December.
    17. Anne Rainville, 2022. "Green Public Procurement in Mission-Orientated Innovation Systems: Leveraging Voluntary Standards to Improve Sustainability Performance of Municipalities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-22, July.
    18. Anders, Sven M. & Caswell, Julie A., 2006. "Assessing the Impact of Stricter Food Safety Standards on Trade: HACCP in U.S. Seafood Trade with the Developing World," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21338, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Hao Zhang & Jiadong Jiang & Liwei Zheng & Xiangzhen Li, 2019. "The interaction between standards development and economic growth of China," International Journal of Quality Innovation, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    20. Yuan Li & John C. Beghin, 2017. "A meta-analysis of estimates of the impact of technical barriers to trade," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 4, pages 63-77, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..

    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:eti:polidp:14020. 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: TANIMOTO, Toko (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rietijp.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.