IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

A failure trichotomy in knowledge exploration and exploitation

  • Gustafsson, Robin
  • Autio, Erkko

In this article, we review current rationales for policy intervention in innovative activities. Focusing particularly on market and system failure rationales, we disentangle related underlying mechanisms for knowledge exploration and exploitation. We provide a novel contribution to the system failure literature by distinguishing between system-level inertia and inhibited emergence. Our conceptualization of inhibited emergence draws on literatures related to neo-institutional sociology, the social construction of technology, and on organizational cognition and learning literatures, and it presents elemental socio-cognitive mechanisms that influence and direct knowledge exploration and exploitation in innovation systems. We compare related, yet theoretically distinct concepts of market failure, system-level inertia, and inhibited emergence, and show how each addresses distinct coordinative mechanisms and field-level dynamics and related socio-cognitive processes.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733311000503
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Research Policy.

Volume (Year): 40 (2011)
Issue (Month): 6 (July)
Pages: 819-831

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:40:y:2011:i:6:p:819-831
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Cooke, Philip & Gomez Uranga, Mikel & Etxebarria, Goio, 1997. "Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4-5), pages 475-491, December.
  2. Chesbrough, Henry W, 1999. "The Organizational Impact of Technological Change: A Comparative Theory of National Institutional Factors," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 447-85, September.
  3. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521477185 is not listed on IDEAS
  4. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67, pages 297.
  5. Paul M Romer, 1999. "Endogenous Technological Change," Levine's Working Paper Archive 2135, David K. Levine.
  6. repec:dgr:kubcen:200632 is not listed on IDEAS
  7. Partha, Dasgupta & David, Paul A., 1994. "Toward a new economics of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 487-521, September.
  8. Timothy F. Bresnahan & Manuel Trajtenberg, 1992. "General Purpose Technologies "Engines of Growth?"," NBER Working Papers 4148, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  9. Dosi, G. & Marengo, L. & Pasquali, C., 2006. "How much should society fuel the greed of innovators?: On the relations between appropriability, opportunities and rates of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1110-1121, October.
  10. Victor Gilsing & Bart Noteboom & Wim Vanhaverbeke & Geert Duysters & Ad van Noord, 2006. "Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: technological distance, betweenness centrality and density," Working Papers 06-08, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies, revised Apr 2006.
  11. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2002. "The Assessment: Technology Policy," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 1-9, Spring.
  12. Dosi, Giovanni, 1982. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 147-162, June.
  13. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1996. "The Dynamics and Evolution of Industries," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 51-87.
  14. Carlsson, Bo & Jacobsson, Staffan, 1994. "Technological systems and economic policy: the diffusion of factory automation in Sweden," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 235-248, May.
  15. Sahal, Devendra, 1981. "Alternative conceptions of technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 2-24, January.
  16. Callon, M., 1980. "The state and technical innovation: a case study of the electrical vehicle in France," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 358-376, October.
  17. Carlsson, Bo & Jacobsson, Staffan & Holmen, Magnus & Rickne, Annika, 2002. "Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 233-245, February.
  18. Bresnahan, Timothy F, 1986. "Measuring the Spillovers from Technical Advance: Mainframe Computers inFinancial Services," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 742-55, September.
  19. 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.
  20. Sobel, Russell S & Holcombe, Randall G, 2001. " The Unanimous Voting Rule Is Not the Political Equivalent to Market Exchange," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 106(3-4), pages 233-42, March.
  21. 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.
  22. David, Paul A, 1985. "Clio and the Economics of QWERTY," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 332-37, May.
  23. repec:dgr:tuecis:0608 is not listed on IDEAS
  24. 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.
  25. Klette, T.J. & Moen, J. & Griliches, Z., 1999. "Do Subsidies to Commercial R&D Reduce Market Failures? Microeconometric Evaluation Studies," Papers 16/99, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration-.
  26. Utterback, James M & Abernathy, William J, 1975. "A dynamic model of process and product innovation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 3(6), pages 639-656, December.
  27. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-31, March.
  28. Walker, William, 2000. "Entrapment in large technology systems: institutional commitment and power relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7-8), pages 833-846, August.
  29. Thomas Keil & Erkko Autio & Gerard George, 2008. "Corporate Venture Capital, Disembodied Experimentation and Capability Development," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(8), pages 1475-1505, December.
  30. Teece, David J., 1986. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 285-305, December.
  31. Geels, Frank W. & Schot, Johan, 2007. "Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 399-417, April.
  32. Andreas Pyka & Uwe Cantner, 1999. "Informal Networking and Industrial Life Cycles," Discussion Paper Series 181, Universitaet Augsburg, Institute for Economics.
  33. Lundvall, Bengt-Ake & Johnson, Bjorn & Andersen, Esben Sloth & Dalum, Bent, 2002. "National systems of production, innovation and competence building," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 213-231, February.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:40:y:2011:i:6:p:819-831. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.