IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v30y2021i1p137-159..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the fourth industrial revolution a continuation of the third industrial revolution or something new under the sun? Analyzing technological regimes using US patent data
[Vertical integration and disintegration of computer firms: a history-friendly model of the coevolution of the computer and semiconductor industries]

Author

Listed:
  • Jongho Lee
  • Keun Lee

Abstract

This study has compared the technological regimes of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) and the Third Industrial Revolution (3IR) technologies. If we limit the comparison based on absolute values representing diverse elements of the technological regime, 4IR technologies are more original and science-based and have a longer technological cycle time (TCT). However, all these differences turn insignificant or reversed when the comparison is made using normalized values of variables reflecting over-time trends. Moreover, 4IR technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), have an impact on subsequent innovations in less wide fields (lower degree of generality) compared with 3IR, which means that they may not be counted as a new general-purpose technology. Furthermore, a longer TCT of 4IR technologies, including AI, means that they tend to keep citing 3IR technologies or older. In this sense, 4IR technologies are not much a radical break from past technologies but tend to be evolutionary, whereas 3IR technologies correspond to a more radical break from the past technologies because they have a shorter TCT and rely less on old technologies. At the aggregate level, technologies in the 21st century heavily rely on science, combining knowledge from more diverse fields (higher originality) and becoming longer cycled but having impact on less diverse fields (lower generality), which is true not just in a few technologies commonly associated with the so-called 4IR but across the board of technologies. Finally, although five representative 4IR technologies do not command radically different technological regimes compared with 3IR technologies, they are still outstanding, that is, they have higher originality, generality, and shorter TCT compared with the average technologies in the 2010s.

Suggested Citation

  • Jongho Lee & Keun Lee, 2021. "Is the fourth industrial revolution a continuation of the third industrial revolution or something new under the sun? Analyzing technological regimes using US patent data [Vertical integration and ," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(1), pages 137-159.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:30:y:2021:i:1:p:137-159.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/icc/dtaa059
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Malerba, Franco, 2002. "Sectoral systems of innovation and production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 247-264, February.
    2. Franco Malerba & Richard Nelson & Luigi Orsenigo & Sidney Winter, 2008. "Vertical integration and disintegration of computer firms: a history-friendly model of the coevolution of the computer and semiconductor industries," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 17(2), pages 197-231, April.
    3. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann, 2012. "Mapping (USPTO) patent data using overlays to Google Maps," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(7), pages 1442-1458, July.
    4. Kyoo-Ho Park & Keun Lee, 2006. "Linking the technological regime to the technological catch-up: analyzing Korea and Taiwan using the US patent data," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 15(4), pages 715-753, August.
    5. Winter, Sidney G., 1984. "Schumpeterian competition in alternative technological regimes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 5(3-4), pages 287-320.
    6. Hall, B. & Jaffe, A. & Trajtenberg, M., 2001. "The NBER Patent Citations Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools," Papers 2001-29, Tel Aviv.
    7. 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.
    8. Teece, David J., 2018. "Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1367-1387.
    9. Strumsky, Deborah & Lobo, José, 2015. "Identifying the sources of technological novelty in the process of invention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1445-1461.
    10. Breschi, Stefano & Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 2000. "Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 388-410, April.
    11. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi & Peretto, Pietro, 1997. "Persistence of innovative activities, sectoral patterns of innovation and international technological specialization," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 801-826, October.
    12. Keun Lee & Jongho Lee, 2020. "National innovation systems, economic complexity, and economic growth: country panel analysis using the US patent data," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 897-928, September.
    13. Armanda Cetrulo & Alessandro Nuvolari, 2019. "Industry 4.0: revolution or hype? Reassessing recent technological trends and their impact on labour," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 46(3), pages 391-402, September.
    14. Stolpe, Michael, 2002. "Determinants of knowledge diffusion as evidenced in patent data: the case of liquid crystal display technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(7), pages 1181-1198, September.
    15. Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson & Adam Jaffe, 1997. "University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window On The Basicness Of Invention," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 19-50.
    16. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1996. "Schumpeterian patterns of innovation are technology-specific," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 451-478, May.
    17. von Tunzelmann, Nick, 2003. "Historical coevolution of governance and technology in the industrial revolutions," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 365-384, December.
    18. Iain M. Cockburn & Rebecca Henderson & Scott Stern, 2018. "The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Innovation," NBER Working Papers 24449, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Igna, Ioana & Venturini, Francesco, 2023. "The determinants of AI innovation across European firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    2. van Meeteren, Michiel & Trincado-Munoz, Francisco & Rubin, Tzameret H. & Vorley, Tim, 2022. "Rethinking the digital transformation in knowledge-intensive services: A technology space analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    3. Mendonça, Sandro & Damásio, Bruno & Charlita de Freitas, Luciano & Oliveira, Luís & Cichy, Marcin & Nicita, António, 2022. "The rise of 5G technologies and systems: A quantitative analysis of knowledge production," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4).
    4. Marlini Moodley & Dipolelo Fungile & Farai Nyika & Winiswa Mavutha, 2023. "Understanding Marketing Communications Strategies During and Post Covid 19: A South African Perspective," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 13(2), pages 36-46, March.
    5. Wim Naudé, 2023. "Late industrialisation and global value chains under platform capitalism," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 50(1), pages 91-119, March.
    6. Casas, Pablo & Román, Concepción, 2023. "Early retired or automatized? Evidence from the survey of health, ageing and retirement in Europe," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 24(C).
    7. Mario Benassi & Elena Grinza & Francesco Rentocchini & Laura Rondi, 2022. "Patenting in 4IR technologies and firm performance [Robots and jobs: evidence from US labor markets]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 31(1), pages 112-136.
    8. Simone d’alessandro & Tiziano Distefano & Guilherme Spinato Morlin & Davide Villani, 2023. "Policy Responses to Labour-Saving Technologies: Basic Income, Job Guarantee, and Working Time Reduction," JRC Working Papers on Social Classes in the Digital Age 2023-09, Joint Research Centre.
    9. Dosi, G. & Pereira, M.C. & Roventini, A. & Virgillito, M.E., 2022. "Technological paradigms, labour creation and destruction in a multi-sector agent-based model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    10. Lundvall, Bengt-Åke & Rikap, Cecilia, 2022. "China's catching-up in artificial intelligence seen as a co-evolution of corporate and national innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    11. Buru Im & Keun Lee, 2021. "From Catching Up to Convergence of the Latecomer Firms: Comparing Behavior and Innovation Systems of Firms in Korea and the US," JOItmC, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-23, August.
    12. Waßenhoven, Anna & Rennings, Michael & Laibach, Natalie & Bröring, Stefanie, 2023. "What constitutes a “Key Enabling Technology” for transition processes: Insights from the bioeconomy's technological landscape," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).

    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. Fulvio Castellacci, 2007. "Technological regimes and sectoral differences in productivity growth ," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(6), pages 1105-1145, December.
    2. Show-Ling Jang & Shihmin Lo & Wen Hao Chang, 2009. "How do latecomers catch up with forerunners? Analysis of patents and patent citations in the field of flat panel display technologies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(3), pages 563-591, June.
    3. Epicoco, Marianna, 2016. "Patterns of innovation and organizational demography in emerging sustainable fields: An analysis of the chemical sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 427-441.
    4. Marianna Epicoco, 2016. "Patterns of innovation and organizational demography in emerging sustainable fields: An analysis of the chemical sector," Post-Print hal-03381224, HAL.
    5. Fulvio Castellacci & Jinghai Zheng, 2010. "Technological regimes, Schumpeterian patterns of innovation and firm-level productivity growth," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(6), pages 1829-1865, December.
    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. Safarzyńska, Karolina & Frenken, Koen & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2012. "Evolutionary theorizing and modeling of sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1011-1024.
    8. Alessandro Caiani, 2017. "Innovation Dynamics and Industry Structure Under Different Technological Spaces," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 3(3), pages 307-341, November.
    9. Muscio, Alessandro & Nardone, Gianluca & Stasi, Antonio, 2012. "Perceived Technological Regimes: An Empirical Analysis of the Apulian Wine Industry," 2012 International European Forum, February 13-17, 2012, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 144969, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    10. Albert Faber & Koen Frenken, 2008. "Models in evolutionary economics and environmental policy: Towards an evolutionary environmental economics," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-15, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Apr 2008.
    11. Franco Malerba & Fabio Montobbio, 2000. "Knowledge Flows, Structure of Innovative Activity and International Specialization," KITeS Working Papers 119, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised Nov 2000.
    12. Apa, Roberta & De Noni, Ivan & Orsi, Luigi & Sedita, Silvia Rita, 2018. "Knowledge space oddity: How to increase the intensity and relevance of the technological progress of European regions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1700-1712.
    13. Anna Laura Baraldi & Claudia Cantabene & Giulio Perani, 2014. "Reverse causality in the R&D-patents relationship: an interpretation of the innovation persistence," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 304-326, April.
    14. Han, Junhee & Lee, Keun, 2022. "Heterogeneous technology and specialization for economic growth beyond the middle-income stage," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    15. Dario Diodato & Andrea Morrison, 2019. "Technological regimes and the geography of innovation: a long-run perspective on US inventions," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1924, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jul 2019.
    16. Petralia, Sergio & Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Morrison, Andrea, 2017. "Climbing the ladder of technological development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 956-969.
    17. Stefano Brusoni & Elena Cefis & Luigi Orsenigo, 2006. "Innovate or Die? A critical review of the literature on innovation and performance," KITeS Working Papers 179, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised Sep 2006.
    18. P. G. J. Persoon & R. N. A. Bekkers & F. Alkemade, 2020. "How cumulative is technological knowledge?," Papers 2012.00095, arXiv.org, revised May 2021.
    19. Alessandro Nuvolari & Emanuele Russo, 2019. "Technical progress and structural change: a long-term view," LEM Papers Series 2019/17, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    20. Alkemade, Floortje & Heimeriks, Gaston & Schoen, Antoine & Villard, Lionel & Laurens, Patricia, 2015. "Tracking the internationalization of multinational corporate inventive activity: national and sectoral characteristics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(9), pages 1763-1772.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    forth industrial revolution; technological regimes; AI (artificial intellence); general purpose technologies; cycle time of technologies;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    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:oup:indcch:v:30:y:2021:i:1:p:137-159.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/icc .

    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.