IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sru/ssewps/68.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Can the Large Penrosian Firm cope with the Dynamics of Technology?

Author

Listed:

Abstract

Whilst knowledge is a growing feature of corporate competitiveness and growth, it will make firms increasingly dependent on outside resources (including public and foreign resources), and will be increasingly disruptive to their internal organisation. This is because knowledge is increasingly specialised in its production, and leads to periodic step-jumps in technical performance with potentially disruptive effects on corporate organisation.

Suggested Citation

  • Keith Pavitt, 2001. "Can the Large Penrosian Firm cope with the Dynamics of Technology?," SPRU Working Paper Series 68, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    • Handle: RePEc:sru:ssewps:68
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru/publications/imprint/sewps/sewp68/sewp68.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Konstantinos Koumpis & Keith Pavitt, 1999. "Corporate Activities In Speech Recognition And Natural Language: Another "New Science"-Based Technology," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(03), pages 335-366.
    2. Pavitt, Keith, 1998. "Technologies, Products and Organization in the Innovating Firm: What Adam Smith Tells Us and Joseph Schumpeter Doesn't," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 7(3), pages 433-452, September.
    3. Ashish Arora & Andrea Fosfuri & Alfonso Gambardella, 2004. "Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262511819, April.
    4. Hicks, Diana, 1995. "Published Papers, Tacit Competencies and Corporate Management of the Public/Private Character of Knowledge," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 4(2), pages 401-424.
    5. G. N. von Tunzelmann, 1995. "Technology and Industrial Progress," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 437.
    6. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    7. Surya Mahdi & Keith Pavitt, 1997. "Key National Factors in the Emergence of Computational Chemistry Firms," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 1(04), pages 355-386.
    8. Narin, Francis & Hamilton, Kimberly S. & Olivastro, Dominic, 1997. "The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 317-330, October.
    9. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Florida, Richard, 1997. "The globalization of R&D: Results of a survey of foreign-affiliated R&D laboratories in the USA," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 85-103, March.
    11. Methe, David & Swaminathan, Anand & Mitchell, Will, 1996. "The Underemphasized Role of Established Firms as the," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 5(4), pages 1181-1203.
    12. Rosenberg, Nathan & Nelson, Richard R., 1994. "American universities and technical advance in industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 323-348, May.
    13. Levinthal, Daniel A, 1998. "The Slow Pace of Rapid Technological Change: Gradualism and Punctuation in Technological Change," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 7(2), pages 217-247, June.
    14. Richardson, G B, 1972. "The Organisation of Industry," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 82(327), pages 883-896, September.
    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. Dedrick, Jason & Kraemer, Kenneth L., 2015. "Who captures value from science-based innovation? The distribution of benefits from GMR in the hard disk drive industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1615-1628.
    2. Andrea Szalavetz, 2003. "Peripheral participants in global production networks - changing dynamics in the transformation from industrial to intellectual capitalism," IWE Working Papers 142, Institute for World Economics - Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    3. Sasaki, Hajime & Sakata, Ichiro, 2021. "Identifying potential technological spin-offs using hierarchical information in international patent classification," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    4. Björkdahl, Joakim, 2009. "Technology cross-fertilization and the business model: The case of integrating ICTs in mechanical engineering products," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1468-1477, November.
    5. Joakim Björkdahl, 2011. "The Phenomenon, Causes And Effects Of Integrating Icts In Manufacturing Products," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(02), pages 335-358.

    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. Yin Li & Jan Youtie & Philip Shapira, 2015. "Why do technology firms publish scientific papers? The strategic use of science by small and midsize enterprises in nanotechnology," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 1016-1033, December.
    2. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Lia Sheer, 2017. "Back to Basics: Why do Firms Invest in Research?," NBER Working Papers 23187, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Becker Wolfgang & Peters Jürgen, 2005. "Innovation Effects of Science-Related Technological Opportunities / Innovationseffekte von technologischen Möglichkeiten aus dem Wissenschaftsbereich: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Findings," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 225(2), pages 130-150, April.
    4. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    5. Simeth, Markus & Lhuillery, Stephane, 2015. "How do firms develop capabilities for scientific disclosure?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1283-1295.
    6. Pavitt, Keith, 1998. "The social shaping of the national science base," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 793-805, December.
    7. Wolfgang Becker & Juergen Peters, 2000. "Technological Opportunities, Absorptive Capacities, and Innovation," Discussion Paper Series 195, Universitaet Augsburg, Institute for Economics.
    8. Gersbach, Hans & Schneider, Maik & Schetter, Ulrich, 2015. "How Much Science? The 5 Ws (and 1 H) of Investing in Basic Research," CEPR Discussion Papers 10482, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Sternitzke, Christian, 2010. "Knowledge sources, patent protection, and commercialization of pharmaceutical innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 810-821, July.
    10. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    11. Scott Stern, 1999. "Do Scientists Pay to Be Scientists?," NBER Working Papers 7410, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Consoli, Davide & Patrucco, Pierpaolo, 2004. "The Knowledge Trade-Off: Circulation, Growth and the Role of Knowledge-Intensive Business Services in Urban Innovation Systems," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 200402, University of Turin.
    13. Wolfgang Becker, 2003. "Evaluation of the Role of Universities in the Innovation Process," Discussion Paper Series 241, Universitaet Augsburg, Institute for Economics.
    14. Su Jung Jee & So Young Sohn, 2023. "Firms’ influence on the evolution of published knowledge when a science-related technology emerges: the case of artificial intelligence," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 209-247, January.
    15. Keith Pavitt, 2002. "Knowledge about knowledge since Nelson & Winter: a mixed record," SPRU Working Paper Series 83, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    16. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Lee Branstetter & Kwon Hyeog Ug, 2004. "The Restructuring Of Japanese Research And Development: The Increasing Impact Of Science On Japanese R&D," Discussion papers 04021, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    18. Basse Mama, Houdou, 2018. "Nonlinear capital market payoffs to science-led innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1084-1095.
    19. Malo, Stéphane, 2009. "The contribution of (not so) public research to commercial innovations in the field of combinatorial chemistry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 957-970, July.
    20. Cowan, Robin & Jonard, Nicolas, 2004. "Network structure and the diffusion of knowledge," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 28(8), pages 1557-1575, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    specialised knowledge; technical performance; corporate organisation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • L2 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    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:sru:ssewps:68. 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: University of Sussex Business School Communications Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spessuk.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.