IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/martim/1105.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Die Entwicklung der technologischen Wissensbasis in technologiegetriebenen Industrien am Beispiel der deutschen Solarindustrie: Eine empirische Analyse der Akteure und ihrer Herkunft

Author

Listed:
  • Ackermann, Malte
  • Brenner, Thomas
  • Lorenz, Steffi
  • Stephan, Michael

Abstract

Die Entstehung von Technologien und Industrien ist ein vielschichtiger und komplexer Prozess. Lebenszykluskonzepte, welche dem evolutorischen Grundgedanken entlehnt sind, versuchen Phasen und Muster der zeitlichen Entwicklung von Objekten nachzuzeichnen. Im vorliegenden Diskussionspapier soll die Entfaltung der Solartechnologie und der deutschen Solarbranche analysiert werden. Die Branche gilt als eine der dynamischsten und wissensintensivsten der deutschen Industrie, zugleich aber auch als eine der subventionsabhängigsten. Das Ziel des vorliegenden Beitrags liegt in der Identifikation, Beschreibung und Klassifizierung derjenigen Akteure, die in verschiedenen Phasen der Diffusion der solarindustriespezifischen Schlüsseltechnologie eine relevante Rolle spielen. Es zeigt sich, dass der Eintritt in die Solar-Schlüsseltechnologiefelder bevorzugt durch die technologische Diversifikation von Unternehmen erfolgt. Eine zunehmende Bedeutung einzelner Akteursgruppen im Verlauf des Industrie- und Technologielebenszyklus konnte nicht nachgewiesen werden. Die Anzahl der akteursgruppenbezogenen Markteintritte blieb über den Betrachtungszeitraum hinweg relativ konstant, dies deutet einerseits daraufhin, dass sich diese Branche immer noch in der Wachstumsphase befindet, andererseits führen die angebots- sowie nachfrageseitigen Subventionen zu erheblichen Verzerrungen in der Branche. Aufbauend auf diesen Erkenntnissen wurde die These formuliert, dass die Scheiterungswahrscheinlichkeit von Neugründungen in den frühen Phasen des Lebenszyklus aufgrund der intensiven, öffentlichen Förderung tendenziell geringer ist. Diese Annahme konnte bestätigt werden. Bemerkenswert ist in diesem Kontext, dass im Falle des Scheiterns gerade diejenigen Unternehmen die höchste Überlebensdauer aufweisen, die in vergleichsweise frühen Jahren des Industrielebenszyklus gegründet wurden. Es kommt vermeintlich zu einer Art verspäteten Insolvenz. Ob sich diese Tatsache ausschließlich auf die intensive, öffentliche Förderung zurückführen lässt, konnte jedoch noch nicht abschließend geklärt werden.

Suggested Citation

  • Ackermann, Malte & Brenner, Thomas & Lorenz, Steffi & Stephan, Michael, 2011. "Die Entwicklung der technologischen Wissensbasis in technologiegetriebenen Industrien am Beispiel der deutschen Solarindustrie: Eine empirische Analyse der Akteure und ihrer Herkunft," Discussion Papers on Strategy and Innovation 11-05, Philipps-University Marburg, Department of Technology and Innovation Management (TIM).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:martim:1105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/77073/1/751411396.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Meyer, Martin, 2000. "Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 409-434, March.
    2. Cynthia A. Montgomery & Harbir Singh, 1984. "Diversification strategy and systematic risk," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(2), pages 181-191, April.
    3. John Londregan, 1990. "Entry and Exit over the Industry Life Cycle," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(3), pages 446-458, Autumn.
    4. Utterback, James M & Abernathy, William J, 1975. "A dynamic model of process and product innovation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 3(6), pages 639-656, December.
    5. Raphael Amit & Joshua Livnat, 1988. "Diversification strategies, business cycles and economic performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(2), pages 99-110, March.
    6. Haupt, Reinhard & Kloyer, Martin & Lange, Marcus, 2007. "Patent indicators for the technology life cycle development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 387-398, April.
    7. Joshua Lerner, 1994. "The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 319-333, Summer.
    8. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1997. "Technological Regimes and Sectoral Patterns of Innovative Activities," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 6(1), pages 83-117.
    9. Rajshree Agarwal & David B. Audretsch, 2001. "Does Entry Size Matter? The Impact of the Life Cycle and Technology on Firm Survival," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 21-43, March.
    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. Martin Kalthaus, 2020. "Knowledge recombination along the technology life cycle," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 643-704, July.
    2. Yuan Zhou & Fang Dong & Yufei Liu & Liang Ran, 2021. "A deep learning framework to early identify emerging technologies in large-scale outlier patents: an empirical study of CNC machine tool," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 969-994, February.
    3. Scott Shane, 2001. "Technology Regimes and New Firm Formation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(9), pages 1173-1190, September.
    4. Gao, Lidan & Porter, Alan L. & Wang, Jing & Fang, Shu & Zhang, Xian & Ma, Tingting & Wang, Wenping & Huang, Lu, 2013. "Technology life cycle analysis method based on patent documents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 398-407.
    5. Albert, Till & Moehrle, Martin G. & Meyer, Stefan, 2015. "Technology maturity assessment based on blog analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 196-209.
    6. Lionel Nesta & Vincent Mangematin, 2002. "Industry Life Cycle, Knowledge Generation and Technological Networks," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-03398092, HAL.
    7. Fischer, Timo & Henkel, Joachim, 2012. "Patent trolls on markets for technology – An empirical analysis of NPEs’ patent acquisitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1519-1533.
    8. Altuntas, Serkan & Dereli, Turkay & Kusiak, Andrew, 2015. "Analysis of patent documents with weighted association rules," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 249-262.
    9. Andreas Pyka & Uwe Cantner & Alfred Greiner & Thomas Kuhn (ed.), 2009. "Recent Advances in Neo-Schumpeterian Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12982.
    10. Song, Kisik & Kim, Kyuwoong & Lee, Sungjoo, 2018. "Identifying promising technologies using patents: A retrospective feature analysis and a prospective needs analysis on outlier patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 118-132.
    11. Angel Sevil & Alfonso Cruz & Tomas Reyes & Roberto Vassolo, 2022. "When Being Large Is Not an Advantage: How Innovation Impacts the Sustainability of Firm Performance in Natural Resource Industries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-20, December.
    12. Dietmar Harhoff & Georg von Graevenitz & Stefan Wagner, 2016. "Conflict Resolution, Public Goods, and Patent Thickets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 704-721, March.
    13. Bos, Jaap W.B. & Economidou, Claire & Sanders, Mark W.J.L., 2013. "Innovation over the industry life-cycle: Evidence from EU manufacturing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 78-91.
    14. Ugo Rizzo & Nicolò Barbieri & Laura Ramaciotti & Demian Iannantuono, 2020. "The division of labour between academia and industry for the generation of radical inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 393-413, April.
    15. Cefis, Elena & Marsili, Orietta, 2012. "Going, going, gone. Exit forms and the innovative capabilities of firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 795-807.
    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. Elliott, Robert & Sun, Puyang & Zhu, Tong, 2019. "Electricity prices and industry switching: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 567-588.
    18. Sam Tavassoli & Nunzia Carbonara, 2014. "The role of knowledge variety and intensity for regional innovation," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 493-509, August.
    19. Kim, Jungho & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2016. "Technological regimes and firm survival," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 232-243.
    20. Tavassoli, Sam, 2015. "Innovation determinants over industry life cycle," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 18-32.

    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:martim:1105. 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/fwmarde.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.