IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rif/dpaper/1208.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How General Are General Purpose Technologies? Evidence from nano-, bio- and ICT-technologies in Finland

Author

Listed:
  • Nikulainen, Tuomo
  • Kulvik, Martti

Abstract

General purpose technologies (GPT) have a significant impact on economic activity through radical technological change and wide technological diffusion. This paper aims to address the generality of technologies associated with the GPT concept. Information and communications technologies (ICT), biotechnology and nanotechnology are viewed as existing or potential general purpose technologies, but there is a lack of empirical evidence of their generality. This paper addresses the argument by using patent, industry and company level data from Finland. The results provide evidence that ICT, as expected, is a GPT. Nanotechnology shows signs of being potentially widely applicable, but for biotechnology the channels of technological diffusion seem to be fewer and more focused on areas where Finnish companies are less active. The results and discussion are also reflected on the newly formed innovation policy instrument in Finland - SHOKs (Strategic centres for science, technology and innovation), which aim to direct a large share of the Finnish public R&D subsidies towards more demand-based and incumbent-driven innovation activity.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:rif:dpaper:1208
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.etla.fi/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/dp1208.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. Tahvanainen, Antti-Jussi, 2009. "Finnish University Technology Transfer in a Whirl of Changes - a Brief Summary," Discussion Papers 1188, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    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. 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.
    8. Hopkins, Michael M. & Martin, Paul A. & Nightingale, Paul & Kraft, Alison & Mahdi, Surya, 2007. "The myth of the biotech revolution: An assessment of technological, clinical and organisational change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 566-589, May.
    9. Romer, Paul M, 1990. "Endogenous Technological Change," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 71-102, October.
    10. 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.
    11. Maliranta, Mika & Nikulainen, Tuomo, 2008. "Labour Force Paths as Industry Linkages: A Perspective on Clusters and Industry Life Cycles," Discussion Papers 1168, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    12. Lipsey, Richard G. & Carlaw, Kenneth I. & Bekar, Clifford T., 2005. "Economic Transformations: General Purpose Technologies and Long-Term Economic Growth," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199290895.
    13. Nikulainen, Tuomo & Tahvanainen, Antti-Jussi, 2009. "Towards Demand Based Innovation Policy? The Introduction of SHOKs as Innovation Policy Instrument," Discussion Papers 1182, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    14. Bo Carlsson & Gunnar Eliasson, 2003. "Industrial Dynamics and Endogenous Growth," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 435-455.
    15. 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.
    16. Nikulainen, Tuomo, 2007. "Identifying Nanotechnological Linkages in the Finnish Economy - An Explorative Study," Discussion Papers 1101, 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. Kalm, Matias, 2012. "The Impact of Networking on Firm Performance - Evidence from Small and Medium-Sized Firms in Emerging Technology Areas," Discussion Papers 1278, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    2. Norbert Berthold & Klaus Gr�ndler, 2015. "The Growth Crisis of Germany: A Blueprint of the Developed Economies," International Economic Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 195-229, June.
    3. Evangelos I. Gkanas & Vasso MagkouKriticou & Sofoklis S. Makridis & Athanasios K. Stubos & Ioannis Bakouros, 2013. "Nanotechnology and Innovation, Recent status and the strategic implication for the formation of high tech clusters in Greece, in between a global economic crisis," Papers 1303.5290, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2013.

    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, 2007. "Identifying Nanotechnological Linkages in the Finnish Economy - An Explorative Study," Discussion Papers 1101, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    2. Clifford Bekar & Kenneth Carlaw & Richard Lipsey, 2018. "General purpose technologies in theory, application and controversy: a review," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 28(5), pages 1005-1033, December.
    3. Дементьев В.Е., 2013. "Структурные Факторы Технологического Развития," Журнал Экономика и математические методы (ЭММ), Центральный Экономико-Математический Институт (ЦЭМИ), vol. 49(4), pages 33-46, октябрь.
    4. Daniel Schiess & Roger Wehrli, 2008. "The Calm Before the Storm? - Anticipating the Arrival of General Purpose Technologies," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 08/81, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    5. Daniel Schiess & Roger Wehrli, 2011. "Long-Term Growth Driven by a Sequence of General Purpose Technologies," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 11/148, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Chang, Sungyong & Kim, Hyunseob & Song, Jaeyong & Lee, Keun, 2024. "Dynamics of imitation versus innovation in technological leadership change: Latecomers’ catch-up strategies in diverse technological regimes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(9).
    10. Olsson, Ola, 2001. "Why Does Technology Advance in Cycles?," Working Papers in Economics 38, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    11. 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.
    12. Josef Taalbi, 2017. "Development blocks in innovation networks," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 461-501, July.
    13. Mauro Napoletano & Andrea Roventini & Sandro Sapio, 2004. "Yeast vs. Mushrooms: A Note on Harberger's "A Vision of the Growth Process"," LEM Papers Series 2004/03, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    14. Raiteri, Emilio, 2018. "A time to nourish? Evaluating the impact of public procurement on technological generality through patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 936-952.
    15. Kenneth Carlaw & Richard Lipsey, 2011. "Sustained endogenous growth driven by structured and evolving general purpose technologies," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 563-593, October.
    16. Paul David & Gavin Wright, 1999. "Early Twentieth Century Productivity Growth Dynamics: An Inquiry into the Economic History of Our Ignorance," Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers _033, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    17. Kopytov, Alexandr & Roussanov, Nikolai & Taschereau-Dumouchel, Mathieu, 2018. "Short-run pain, long-run gain? Recessions and technological transformation," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 29-44.
    18. Kemeny, Tom & Petralia, Sergio & Storper, Michael, 2022. "Disruptive innovation and spatial inequality," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 115953, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Liao, Hailin & Wang, Bin & Li, Baibing & Weyman-Jones, Tom, 2016. "ICT as a general-purpose technology: The productivity of ICT in the United States revisited," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 10-25.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    general purpose technology; technology diffusion; science-based technology; ICT; biotechnology; nanotechnology; SHOK;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    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:1208. 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.