IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sfu/sfudps/dp21-04.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Funding of Important Emerging and Evolving Technologies by the Public and Private Sectors

Author

Listed:
  • Kenneth I. Carlaw

    (University of British Columbia - Okanagan)

  • Richard G. Lipsey

    (Simon Fraser University)

Abstract

We examine the sources of the finance that has enabled technological evolution, distinguishing between sources in the private, or for-profit, sector (FPS) and sources in the public or not-for-profit sector (NPS). We investigate the roles that agents in each sector have played, both directly and indirectly, in financing the creation and evolution of twelve major technologies that were innovated between the late 19th and early 21st centuries, many of which have been labelled GPTs. To document this, we describe the development of our selected technologies in some considerable detail. Although much of this is already well known, what has not been done, to the best of our knowledge, is to emphasise for all these developments the extent to which agents in the NPS and FPS provided the supporting finance. Studies of the physical location of R&D, inventions and innovations typically give heavy weight to the FPS and much less to the NPS. However, when we study the sources of the finance that enabled these tenological developments, this greatly increases the relative weight attached do the NPS compared with that of the FPS. We distinguish four trajectories in the evolution of any new technology: the invention trajectory covers the scientific and technological developments that precede the emergence of an identifiable technology; the efficiency trajectory is the time path of the cost of producing a unit of the service provided by the technology; the applications trajectory is comprised of the technological products, processes, and forms of organization that depend on it; the diffusion trajectory is the spread of the technology to uses in other places and other times, both nationally and internationally. For each of these trajectories in each of our 12 technologies we indicate which developments were financed mainly by the NPS, mainly by the FPS, or by some combination of both. We divide our technologies into five main groups (groups that were discerned after completing our case studies rather than being imposed a priori): Group 1, little NPS support except for the applications trajectory, the internal combustion engine; Group 2, NPS support mainly for the invention trajectory, refrigeration; Group 3, NPS support mainly for the efficiency and applications and diffusion trajectories, railways, automobiles, aircraft and agriculture; Group 4, NPS support mainly for the invention and efficiency trajectories, the iron steam ship; Group 5, NPS Support for all trajectories, electricity, computers, the Internet, and lasers. After reporting on each of our 12 technologies, we suggest lessons that are drawn from them and are appropriate to industrial policy. For example, when there is much uncertainty about the technology early on, as it is so often and was with refrigeration, certain practical components of it need to be demonstrated by agents in the NPS before those in the FPS can foresee profitable investments in the technology. In such cases NPS support is needed early in the invention trajectory. After completing our case studies, we draw several lessons that seem appropriate to most or all of them. Two examples follow. First, the more does a technology depend on science, the larger the place for NPS support for the relevant trajectories. Second, major technologies have significant co-evolutionary complementarities amongst themselves. As a result, NPS support in the development trajectories of any one technology has significant positive and often difficult-to- 3 foresee, impacts, on the development trajectories of other technologies, including some that were not directly supported by NPS themselves. NPS investments can also help to create positive feedbacks through these indirect impacts by creating further complementarities that subsequently operate on the originally supported technology. Thus, calculations of the “return to NPS support†for a particular technology typically underestimate that return, unless they take account of the impact on the entire interconnected, complementary system. The work concludes that dismissing industrial policy with statements such as ‘governments cannot pick winners’ relies on an empty slogan to avoid detailed consideration of the actual complicated, multifaceted relationships between the private and public sectors in encouraging the inventions and innovations that are the root of economic growth.

Suggested Citation

  • Kenneth I. Carlaw & Richard G. Lipsey, 2021. "The Funding of Important Emerging and Evolving Technologies by the Public and Private Sectors," Discussion Papers dp21-04, Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University.
  • Handle: RePEc:sfu:sfudps:dp21-04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sfu.ca/repec-econ/sfu/sfudps/dp21-04.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marcel Boumans & Matthias Klaes, "undated". "Mark Blaug: A Rebel with Many Causes," Center for the History of Political Economy Working Paper Series 2013-08 4Creation-Date: 2, Center for the History of Political Economy.
    2. Kenneth I. Carlaw & Richard G. Lipsey & Ryan Webb, 2007. "Has the ICT Revolution Run its Course?," Discussion Papers dp07-18, Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University.
    3. Simonson, G. R., 1960. "The Demand for Aircraft and the Aircraft Industry, 1907–1958," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 361-382, September.
    4. Nathan Rosenberg, 2009. "Uncertainty and Technological Change," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Studies On Science And The Innovation Process Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, chapter 8, pages 153-172, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Rosenberg, Nathan, 1963. "Technological Change in the Machine Tool Industry, 1840–1910," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 414-443, December.
    6. Marcel Boumans & Matthias Klaes (ed.), 2013. "Mark Blaug: Rebel with Many Causes," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15224.
    7. Buttel, Frederick H & Kenney, Martin & Kloppenburg, Jack, Jr, 1985. "From Green Revolution to Biorevolution: Some Observations on the Changing Technological Bases of Economic Transformation in the Third World," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 31-55, October.
    8. Lane Kenworthy, 1996. "Balancing Competition and Cooperation," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 51-58, July.
    9. Boldrin,Michele & Levine,David K., 2010. "Against Intellectual Monopoly," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521127264, October.
    10. 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.
    11. Carlaw, Kenneth I. & Lipsey, Richard G., 2002. "Externalities, technological complementarities and sustained economic growth," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1305-1315, December.
    12. Channon, Geoffrey, 1981. "The Great Western Railway Under the British Railways Act of 1921," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(2), pages 188-216, July.
    13. Rosenberg,Nathan, 1994. "Exploring the Black Box," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521459556, September.
    14. Mowery, David C. & Langlois, Richard N., 1996. "Spinning off and spinning on(?): the federal government role in the development of the US computer software industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 947-966, September.
    15. Spielman, David J. & Pandya-Lorch, Rajul, 2009. "Millions fed: Proven successes in agricultural development," IFPRI books, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), number Millions Fed Book: 2009.
    16. Cootner, Paul H., 1963. "The Role of the Railroads in United States Economic Growth," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 477-521, December.
    17. Özgür CALISKAN, 2010. "An Analysis of the Airbus-Boeing Dispute From the Perspective of the WTO Process," Ege Academic Review, Ege University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, vol. 10(4), pages 1129-1238.
    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. 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.
    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. Christiaan Hogendorn & Brett Frischmann, 2020. "Infrastructure and general purpose technologies: a technology flow framework," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 469-488, December.
    4. Richard G. Lipsey, 2013. "Some contentious issues in theory and policy in memory of Mark Blaug," Chapters, in: Marcel Boumans & Matthias Klaes (ed.), Mark Blaug: Rebel with Many Causes, chapter 6, pages 31-62, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Greenstein, Shane, 2010. "Innovative Conduct in Computing and Internet Markets," 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 477-537, Elsevier.
    6. Kariem Soliman, 2021. "Are Industrial Robots a new GPT? A Panel Study of Nine European Countries with Capital and Quality-adjusted Industrial Robots as Drivers of Labour Productivity Growth," EIIW Discussion paper disbei307, Universitätsbibliothek Wuppertal, University Library.
    7. Charlie Wilson & Arnulf Grubler, 2011. "Lessons from the history of technological change for clean energy scenarios and policies," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 35(3), pages 165-184, August.
    8. Ajay Agrawal & Joshua S. Gans & Avi Goldfarb, 2023. "Similarities and Differences in the Adoption of General Purpose Technologies," NBER Chapters, in: Technology, Productivity, and Economic Growth, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. 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.
    10. Avi Goldfarb, 2024. "Pause artificial intelligence research? Understanding AI policy challenges," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(2), pages 363-377, May.
    11. Goldfarb, Avi & Taska, Bledi & Teodoridis, Florenta, 2023. "Could machine learning be a general purpose technology? A comparison of emerging technologies using data from online job postings," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    12. Kenny Ching & Joshua Gans & Scott Stern, 2019. "Control versus execution: endogenous appropriability and entrepreneurial strategy," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 28(2), pages 389-408.
    13. 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.
    14. Simms, Christopher & Frishammar, Johan, 2024. "Technology transfer challenges in asymmetric alliances between high-technology and low-technology firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    15. Richard G. Lipsey, 2009. "Some Legacies of Robbins' An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(s1), pages 845-856, October.
    16. Andrea Salanti, 2013. "Between the Scylla of Whig history and the Charybdis of methodological vacuum," Chapters, in: Marcel Boumans & Matthias Klaes (ed.), Mark Blaug: Rebel with Many Causes, chapter 14, pages 191-207, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Andreoni, Antonio, 2014. "Structural learning: Embedding discoveries and the dynamics of production," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 58-74.
    18. Knick Harley, 2003. "Growth theory and industrial revolutions in Britain and America," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 36(4), pages 809-831, November.
    19. Richard G. Lipsey, 2017. "Economic Policy with and without Maximizing Rules," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 189-212, May.
    20. Theo C.M.J. van de Klundert, 2013. "Capitalism and Democracy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15248.

    More about this item

    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:sfu:sfudps:dp21-04. 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: Working Paper Coordinator (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/desfuca.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.