IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ifwkwp/1455.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What drives innovation? Causes of and Consequences for nanotechnologies

Author

Listed:
  • Ott, Ingrid
  • Papilloud, Christian
  • Zülsdorf, Torben

Abstract

Nanotechnologies are expected to be the dominant general purpose technology of the next decades. Their market potential is immense and especially demand side arguments will have far reaching consequences for innovations. They may occur as increased miniaturization or via building completely new products, processes or services. Innovations in the field of nanotechnologies do not only affect productivity in downstream sectors but these feed back to nanotechnologies thereby inducing circles of continuing innovation. Demand for nanocomponents mainly arises by firms while private demand is assigned to final products, processes or services that are augmented by nanotechnologies. Due to the technology's controversial character, the consumer's attitude towards risk and technology affects private demand and this may either spur or hamper innovation. The paper aims to unravel how these complex interdependencies and feedback mechanisms affect overall innovation that is induced by nanotechnologies and how this on its part affects further improvements of nanotechnologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Ott, Ingrid & Papilloud, Christian & Zülsdorf, Torben, 2008. "What drives innovation? Causes of and Consequences for nanotechnologies," Kiel Working Papers 1455, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ifwkwp:1455
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/24851/1/582142369.PDF
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bellon, Mauricio R. & Adato, Michelle & Becerril, Javier & Mindek, Dubravka, 2006. "Poor farmers' perceived benefits from different types of maize germplasm: The case of creolization in lowland tropical Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 113-129, January.
    2. Chiquiar, Daniel, 2005. "Why Mexico's regional income convergence broke down," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 257-275, June.
    3. Angrist, Joshua D, 2001. "Estimations of Limited Dependent Variable Models with Dummy Endogenous Regressors: Simple Strategies for Empirical Practice," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 19(1), pages 2-16, January.
    4. Hanan G. Jacoby, 1993. "Shadow Wages and Peasant Family Labour Supply: An Econometric Application to the Peruvian Sierra," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 60(4), pages 903-921.
    5. Michel Dumont & Glenn Rayp & Olivier Thas & Peter Willemé, 2005. "Correcting Standard Errors in Two‐stage Estimation Procedures with Generated Regressands," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 67(3), pages 421-433, June.
    6. Melinda Smale & Richard E. Just & Howard D. Leathers, 1994. "Land Allocation in HYV Adoption Models: An Investigation of Alternative Explanations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(3), pages 535-546.
    7. Van Dusen, M. Eric, 2000. "In Situ Conservation Of Crop Genetic Resources In A Center Of Diversity," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21889, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Finan, Frederico & Sadoulet, Elisabeth & de Janvry, Alain, 2002. "Measuring the Poverty Reduction Potential of Land in Rural Mexico," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt6xg1q0dg, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    9. Christopher B. Barrett & Christine M. Moser & Oloro V. McHugh & Joeli Barison, 2004. "Better Technology, Better Plots, or Better Farmers? Identifying Changes in Productivity and Risk among Malagasy Rice Farmers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(4), pages 869-888.
    10. Bellon, Mauricio R & Taylor, J Edward, 1993. ""Folk" Soil Taxonomy and the Partial Adoption of New Seed Varieties," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(4), pages 763-786, July.
    11. Feder, Gershon, 1980. "Farm Size, Risk Aversion and the Adoption of New Technology under Uncertainty," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 263-283, July.
    12. Edmeades, Svetlana & Smale, Melinda & Renkow, Mitch & Phaneuf, Dan, 2004. "Variety demand within the framework of an agricultural household model with attributes: the case of bananas in Uganda," EPTD discussion papers 125, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    13. Koo, B. & Pardey, P. G. & Wright, B. D., 2003. "The economic costs of conserving genetic resources at the CGIAR centres," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 287-297, December.
    14. Steve Boucher & J. Edward Taylor, 2006. "Subsistence Response to Market Shocks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(2), pages 279-291.
    15. Emmanuel Skoufias, 1994. "Using Shadow Wages to Estimate Labor Supply of Agricultural Households," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(2), pages 215-227.
    16. Finan, Frederico & Sadoulet, Elisabeth & de Janvry, Alain, 2005. "Measuring the poverty reduction potential of land in rural Mexico," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 27-51, June.
    17. Anna Peterson, 2000. "Alternatives, traditions, and diversity in agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 17(1), pages 95-106, March.
    18. Nigel Key & Elisabeth Sadoulet & Alain De Janvry, 2000. "Transactions Costs and Agricultural Household Supply Response," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(2), pages 245-259.
    19. Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1983. "Stochastic Structure, Farm Size and Technology Adoption in Developing Agriculture," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 307-328, July.
    20. Van Dusen, M. Eric & Taylor, J. Edward, 2005. "Missing markets and crop diversity: evidence from Mexico," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(4), pages 513-531, August.
    21. Francis Vella, 1998. "Estimating Models with Sample Selection Bias: A Survey," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 33(1), pages 127-169.
    22. de Janvry, Alain & Fafchamps, Marcel & Sadoulet, Elisabeth, 1991. "Peasant Household Behaviour with Missing Markets: Some Paradoxes Explained," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(409), pages 1400-1417, November.
    23. Van Dusen, M. Eric, 2000. "In Situ Conservation Of Crop Genetic Resources In The Mexican Milpa System," Dissertations 11941, University of California, Davis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    24. de Janvry, Alain & Fafchamps, M. & Sadoulet, Elisabeth, 1991. "Peasant Household Behavior with Missing Markets: Some Paradoxes Explain," CUDARE Working Papers 198579, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    25. Joseph Cooper & Leslie Marie Lipper & David Zilberman (ed.), 2005. "Agricultural Biodiversity and Biotechnology in Economic Development," Natural Resource Management and Policy, Springer, number 978-0-387-25409-8, March.
    26. J. Taylor & Irma Adelman, 2003. "Agricultural Household Models: Genesis, Evolution, and Extensions," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 33-58, January.
    27. Melinda Smale, 2005. "Managing Crop Biological Diversity on Farms," Natural Resource Management and Policy, in: Joseph Cooper & Leslie Marie Lipper & David Zilberman (ed.), Agricultural Biodiversity and Biotechnology in Economic Development, chapter 0, pages 79-101, Springer.
    28. Smale, M. & Bellon, M. R. & Aguirre, J. A. & Manuel Rosas, I. & Mendoza, J. & Solano, A. M. & Martinez, R. & Ramirez, A. & Berthaud, J., 2003. "The economic costs and benefits of a participatory project to conserve maize landraces on farms in Oaxaca, Mexico," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 265-275, December.
    29. Heckman, James J, 1974. "Shadow Prices, Market Wages, and Labor Supply," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 42(4), pages 679-694, July.
    30. S. Ryan Isakson, 2007. "Uprooting Diversity? Peasant Farmers’ Market Engagements and the on-Farm Conservation of Crop Genetic Resources in the Guatemalan Highlands," Working Papers wp122, Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
    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. Vöpel, Henning & Uehlecke, Jens, 2009. "Wissen schafft Wachstum: Wirtschaftspolitische Handlungsoptionen für Innovation und Fortschritt," HWWI Policy Papers 1-13, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI).

    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. Arslan, AslIhan, 2011. "Shadow vs. market prices in explaining land allocation: Subsistence maize cultivation in rural Mexico," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 605-613, October.
    2. Fred Mawunyo Dzanku, 2018. "Rational But Poor? An Explanation for Rural Economic Livelihood Strategy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(2), pages 365-381, June.
    3. Wang, Xiaobing, 2007. "Labor market behavior of Chinese rural households during transition," Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Transition Economies, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), volume 42, number 92321.
    4. Luca Tiberti & Marco Tiberti, 2015. "Rural Policies, Price Change and Poverty in Tanzania: An Agricultural Household Model-Based Assessment," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 24(2), pages 193-229.
    5. Arslan, Aslihan & McCarthy, Nancy & Lipper, Leslie & Asfaw, Solomon & Cattaneo, Andrea, 2013. "Adoption and Intensity of Adoption of Conservation Farming Practices in Zambia," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 147461, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    6. Dimitris Christopoulos & Margarita Genius & Vangelis Tzouvelekas, 2021. "Farm and non-farm labor decisions and household efficiency," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 15-31, August.
    7. Benjamin, Catherine & Gallic, Ewen, 2018. "Does climate change influence demand ? Indian household behavior with imperfect labor markets," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274185, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Cocchi, Horacio & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Quiroga, Ricardo E., 2004. "Farm Benefits And Natural Resource Projects In Honduras And El Salvador," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20328, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Benin, Samuel & Gebremedhin, Berhanu & Smale, Melinda & Pender, John L. & Ehui, Simeon, 2003. "Determinants of cereal diversity in communities and on household farms of the Northern Ethiopian Highlands:," EPTD discussion papers 105, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    10. Henning, Christian H.C.A. & Henningsen, Arne, 2005. "Modeling Price Response of Farm Households Under Imperfect Labor Markets: A Farm Household Approach to Family Farms in Poland," 94th Seminar, April 9-10, 2005, Ashford, UK 24431, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Merfeld, Joshua D., 2020. "Smallholders, Market Failures, and Agricultural Production: Evidence from India," IZA Discussion Papers 13682, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Tsuda, Shunsuke, 2022. "Refugee inflows, surplus farm labor, and crop marketization in rural Africa," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    13. Taylor, J. Edward & Dyer, George A. & Yunez-Naude, Antonio, 2005. "Disaggregated Rural Economywide Models for Policy Analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1671-1688, October.
    14. Bellon, Mauricio R. & Hellin, Jon, 2011. "Planting Hybrids, Keeping Landraces: Agricultural Modernization and Tradition Among Small-Scale Maize Farmers in Chiapas, Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 1434-1443, August.
    15. Theriault, Veronique & Smale, Melinda, 2021. "The unintended consequences of the fertilizer subsidy program on crop species diversity in Mali," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    16. Wang, Xiaobing & Herzfeld, Thomas & Glauben, Thomas, 2007. "Labor allocation in transition: Evidence from Chinese rural households," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 287-308.
    17. Chen, Jing & Rozelle, Scott, 2003. "Market Emergence And The Rise And Fall Of Backyard Hog Production In China," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 21969, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Ekin Birol & Melinda Smale & Agnes Gyovai, 2005. "Sustainable Use and Management of Crop Genetic Resources: Landraces on Hungarian Small Farms," Environmental Economy and Policy Research Working Papers 02.2005, University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economics, revised 2005.
    19. Depetris Chauvin, Nicolas & Porto, Guido G., 2011. "Market Competition in Export Cash Crops and Farm Income," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126159, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Dillon, Brian & Barrett, Christopher B., 2017. "Agricultural factor markets in Sub-Saharan Africa: An updated view with formal tests for market failure," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 64-77.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    General purpose technologies; controversial technologies; determinants of innovation;
    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
    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification

    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:zbw:ifwkwp:1455. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iwkiede.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.