IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rif/dpaper/1101.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Identifying Nanotechnological Linkages in the Finnish Economy - An Explorative Study

Author

Listed:
  • Nikulainen, Tuomo

Abstract

Nanotechnology, as an emerging science-based technology, is seen to have great potential both in scientific as well as economic terms. In this paper the focus is on identifying the technological linkages between the Finnish nanotechnology community and the industrial incumbents. These technological link-ages are first observed at a broader level in comparison with the technological strengths of the Finnish industries, and then in greater detail at the level of companies. In addition, the absorptive capacity of the incumbents is discussed to illustrate their ability to take advantage of external sources of knowledge. The descriptive analysis shows that the R&D activities of the Finnish nano-community are linked up to the technological specialisation of Finnish industry in broader sense and that there are potential technological linkages to various industrial sectors. Further, the nano-related incumbents are characterised by a higher level of absorptive capacity. The conclusion is that nanotechnology is connected to traditional and high-tech industries. The nano-related incumbents might also exhibit an ability to utilise external sources of knowledge, and can possibly provide commercialisation paths for the smaller nano-dedicated companies. The future will tell whether the incumbent companies will play a key role in the commercialisation of nanotechnology in Finland.

Suggested Citation

  • Nikulainen, Tuomo, 2007. "Identifying Nanotechnological Linkages in the Finnish Economy - An Explorative Study," Discussion Papers 1101, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
  • Handle: RePEc:rif:dpaper:1101
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.etla.fi/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/dp1101.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bresnahan, Timothy F. & Trajtenberg, M., 1995. "General purpose technologies 'Engines of growth'?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 83-108, January.
    2. Rothaermel, Frank T. & Thursby, Marie, 2007. "The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: Sources of productivity in incumbent firm research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 832-849, July.
    3. David, Paul A, 1990. "The Dynamo and the Computer: An Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity Paradox," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 355-361, May.
    4. Palmberg, Christopher & Nikulainen, Tuomo, 2006. "Industrial Renewal and Growth through Nanotechnology ? - An Overview with Focus on Finland," Discussion Papers 1020, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    5. Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco & Malerba, Franco, 2003. "Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 69-87, January.
    6. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Will Mitchell, 1991. "Dual clocks: Entry order influences on incumbent and newcomer market share and survival when specialized assets retain their value," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(2), pages 85-100, February.
    9. Christopher Palmberg, 2008. "The transfer and commercialisation of nanotechnology: a comparative analysis of university and company researchers," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(6), pages 631-652, December.
    10. Helpman, Elhanan & Trajtenberg, Manuel, 1994. "A Time to Sow and a Time to Reap: Growth Based on General Purpose Technologies," CEPR Discussion Papers 1080, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Frank T. Rothaermel & Charles W. L. Hill, 2005. "Technological Discontinuities and Complementary Assets: A Longitudinal Study of Industry and Firm Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 52-70, February.
    13. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    14. Bo Carlsson & Gunnar Eliasson, 2003. "Industrial Dynamics and Endogenous Growth," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 435-455.
    15. Bozeman, Barry & Laredo, Philippe & Mangematin, Vincent, 2007. "Understanding the emergence and deployment of "nano" S&T," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 807-812, July.
    16. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," 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 217-273, Elsevier.
    17. Masatsura Igami & Teruo Okazaki, 2007. "Capturing Nanotechnology's Current State of Development via Analysis of Patents," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2007/4, OECD Publishing.
    18. Soete, Luc, 1987. "The impact of technological innovation on international trade patterns: The evidence reconsidered," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2-4), pages 101-130, August.
    19. Tuomo Nikulainen, 2007. "What makes a gatekeeper? Insights from the Finnish nano-community," DRUID Working Papers 07-03, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    20. Teece, David J., 2006. "Reflections on "Profiting from Innovation"," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1131-1146, October.
    21. John Cantwell & Simona Iammarino, 2000. "Multinational Corporations and the Location of Technological Innovation in the UK Regions," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(4), pages 317-332.
    22. Mary Tripsas, 1997. "Unraveling The Process Of Creative Destruction: Complementary Assets And Incumbent Survival In The Typesetter Industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(S1), pages 119-142, July.
    23. Palmberg, Christopher & Pajarinen, Mika & Nikulainen, Tuomo, 2007. "Transferring Science-based Technologies to Industry - Does Nanotechnology Make a Difference?," Discussion Papers 1064, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    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. Mohammad Ali Bahreini Zarj & Ali Mobini Dehkordi & Nima Heirati & Mohammad Reza Meigounpoory, 2019. "The Evolution Of Business Relationships Between Technology-Intensive New Ventures And Incumbents During The New Product Development Process," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(06), pages 1-27, August.
    2. Tuomo Nikulainen, 2012. "R&D Collaboration And Nanotechnology — An Opportunity For Traditional Industries," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(03), pages 1-16.
    3. Nikulainen, Tuomo & Kulvik, Martti, 2009. "How General Are General Purpose Technologies? Evidence from nano-, bio- and ICT-technologies in Finland," Discussion Papers 1208, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    4. Nikulainen, Tuomo, 2013. "Generating commercial ideas in Finnish universities. The role of interdisciplinarity and networking," ETLA Working Papers 9, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.

    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. Nikulainen, Tuomo & Kulvik, Martti, 2009. "How General Are General Purpose Technologies? Evidence from nano-, bio- and ICT-technologies in Finland," Discussion Papers 1208, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    2. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," 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 129-213, Elsevier.
    3. Stefano Basilico & Holger Graf, 2023. "Bridging technologies in the regional knowledge space: measurement and evolution," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 1085-1124, September.
    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. Colombelli, Alessandra & Krafft, Jackie & Quatraro, Francesco, 2014. "The emergence of new technology-based sectors in European regions: A proximity-based analysis of nanotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1681-1696.
    6. Vincent Mangematin & Khalid Errabi & Caroline Gauthier, 2011. "Large players in the nanogame: dedicated nanotech subsidiaries or distributed nanotech capabilities?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 640-664, December.
    7. Antonelli, Cristiano & Krafft, Jackie & Quatraro, Francesco, 2010. "Recombinant knowledge and growth: The case of ICTs," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 50-69, March.
    8. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    9. Faria, Lourenço Galvão Diniz & Andersen, Maj Munch, 2017. "Sectoral patterns versus firm-level heterogeneity - The dynamics of eco-innovation strategies in the automotive sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 266-281.
    10. Barirani, Ahmad & Beaudry, Catherine & Agard, Bruno, 2017. "Can universities profit from general purpose inventions? The case of Canadian nanotechnology patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 271-283.
    11. Feng Zhang & Guohua Jiang, 2019. "Combination of Complementary Technological Knowledge to Generate “Hard to Imitate” Technologies," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 1-24, June.
    12. Bei, Xiaoshu, 2019. "Trademarks, specialized complementary assets, and the external sourcing of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    13. Natarajan Balasubramanian, 2011. "New Plant Venture Performance Differences Among Incumbent, Diversifying, and Entrepreneurial Firms: The Impact of Industry Learning Intensity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 549-565, March.
    14. Bruce Rasmussen, 2010. "Innovation and Commercialisation in the Biopharmaceutical Industry," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13680.
    15. Jan Youtie & Maurizio Iacopetta & Stuart Graham, 2008. "Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 315-329, June.
    16. 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).
    17. Mahka Moeen & Rajshree Agarwal, 2017. "Incubation of an industry: Heterogeneous knowledge bases and modes of value capture," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 566-587, March.
    18. Lucio Fuentelsaz & Elisabet Garrido & Juan P. Maicas, 2015. "Incumbents, technological change and institutions: How the value of complementary resources varies across markets," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(12), pages 1778-1801, December.
    19. Ansari, Shahzad (Shaz) & Krop, Pieter, 2012. "Incumbent performance in the face of a radical innovation: Towards a framework for incumbent challenger dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1357-1374.
    20. François Lafond & Daniel Kim, 2019. "Long-run dynamics of the U.S. patent classification system," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 631-664, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    nanotechnology; Finland; general purpose technology; technology life cycle; absorptive capacity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:rif:dpaper:1101. 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: Kaija Hyvönen-Rajecki (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/etlaafi.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.