Structural change and industrial classification
Understanding of structural change is compromised because scholars do not clearly articulate the limits of the classification infrastructure (NAICS or GICS) that shapes empirical analysis. These limits are particularly salient in the study of innovation, an activity that by its nature challenges existing categories. Because innovative industries are often not part of the classification infrastructure, they are invisible in empirical analyses and in government statistics. This paper examines the classification of a population of highly innovative, often small, firms working in gaming devices, packaging, filtration, photonics, imaging, biomedical research and fabless semiconductor design. I find examples of knowledge integration, vertical disintegration and emerging industries that challenge both NAICS and GICS exposing their strengths and weaknesses.
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.
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.
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.:
- Fagerberg, Jan & Verspagen, Bart, 2009.
"Innovation studies--The emerging structure of a new scientific field,"
Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 218-233, March.
- Jan Fagerberg & Bart Verspagen, 2009. "Innovation Studies – the emerging structure of a new scientific field," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20090104, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
- Jacobides, Michael G. & Knudsen, Thorbjorn & Augier, Mie, 2006. "Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1200-1221, October.
- Gene M. Grossman & Esteban Rossi-Hansberg, 2008.
"Trading Tasks: A Simple Theory of Offshoring,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 98(5), pages 1978-1997, December.
- Dalziel, Margaret, 2007. "A systems-based approach to industry classification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 1559-1574, December.
- Sanjeev Bhojraj & Charles M. C. Lee & Derek K. Oler, 2003. "What's My Line? A Comparison of Industry Classification Schemes for Capital Market Research," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(5), pages 745-774, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:streco:v:22:y:2011:i:2:p:93-105. 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: (Dana Niculescu)
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.