IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v67y2021i5p3022-3040.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk-Mitigating Technologies: The Case of Radiation Diagnostic Devices

Author

Listed:
  • Alberto Galasso

    (University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1, Canada; Centre for Economic Policy Research, London EC1V 0DX, United Kingdom; National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138)

  • Hong Luo

    (Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

Abstract

We study the impact of consumers’ risk perception on firm innovation. Our analysis exploits a major surge in the perceived risk of radiation diagnostic devices following extensive media coverage of a set of overradiation accidents involving computed tomography (CT) scanners in late 2009. Using data on radiation diagnostic device patents and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) product clearances, we find that the increased perception of radiation risk spurred the development of new technologies that mitigated such risk and led to a greater number of new products. Using CT scanners as a case study, we provide an in-depth characterization of two different types of risk-mitigating technologies that firms developed after the shock. Firm-level analysis shows that, although firms were similarly responsive in their patenting activities, large incumbents were significantly more responsive than smaller firms in terms of new product introductions, and, in the case of CT scanners, large incumbents were also significantly more responsive in terms of the more radical type of risk-mitigating technologies. We also provide qualitative evidence and describe patterns of equipment usage and upgrade that are consistent with increased risk perception and, consequently, a greater willingness to pay for safety. Overall, our findings suggest that changes in risk perception can be an important driver of innovation, can shape the direction of technological progress, and can impact market structure.

Suggested Citation

  • Alberto Galasso & Hong Luo, 2021. "Risk-Mitigating Technologies: The Case of Radiation Diagnostic Devices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 3022-3040, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:67:y:2021:i:5:p:3022-3040
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2020.3634
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3634
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3634?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daughety, Andrew F & Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1995. "Product Safety: Liability, R&D, and Signaling," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1187-1206, December.
    2. Eric von Hippel, 1986. "Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 791-805, July.
    3. Ashish Arora & Alfonso Gambardella, 2010. "Ideas for rent: an overview of markets for technology," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(3), pages 775-803, June.
    4. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Viscusi, W Kip, 1993. "The Value of Risks to Life and Health," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 31(4), pages 1912-1946, December.
    6. Alberto Galasso & Hong Luo, 2018. "When does Product Liability Risk Chill Innovation? Evidence from Medical Implants," NBER Working Papers 25068, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Klevorick, Alvin K. & Levin, Richard C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Winter, Sidney G., 1995. "On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 185-205, March.
    8. Alberto Galasso & Hong Luo, 2017. "Tort Reform and Innovation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(3), pages 385-412.
    9. Mowery, David & Rosenberg, Nathan, 1993. "The influence of market demand upon innovation: A critical review of some recent empirical studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 107-108, April.
    10. Schmalensee, Richard, 1982. "Product Differentiation Advantages of Pioneering Brands," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 349-365, June.
    11. Seth Freedman & Melissa Kearney & Mara Lederman, 2012. "Product Recalls, Imperfect Information, and Spillover Effects: Lessons from the Consumer Response to the 2007 Toy Recalls," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(2), pages 499-516, May.
    12. Galasso, Alberto & Luo, Hong, 2019. "Risk-Mitigating Technologies: the Case of Radiation Diagnostic Devices," CEPR Discussion Papers 13682, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Utterback, James M & Abernathy, William J, 1975. "A dynamic model of process and product innovation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 3(6), pages 639-656, December.
    14. Daron Acemoglu & Joshua Linn, 2004. "Market Size in Innovation: Theory and Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(3), pages 1049-1090.
    15. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2002. "When Does Start-Up Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 571-586, Winter.
    16. Alberto Galasso & Hong Luo, 2019. "Risk-Mitigating Technologies: the Case of Radiation Diagnostic Devices," NBER Working Papers 26305, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Mary Tripsas, 1997. "Unraveling The Process Of Creative Destruction: Complementary Assets And Incumbent Survival In The Typesetter Industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(S1), pages 119-142, July.
    18. Cohen, Wesley M & Klepper, Steven, 1996. "Firm Size and the Nature of Innovation within Industries: The Case of Process and Product R&D," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 78(2), pages 232-243, May.
    19. Giada Di Stefano & Alfonso Gambardella & Gianmario Verona, 2012. "Technology Push and Demand Pull Perspectives in Innovation Studies: Current Findings and Future Research Directions," Post-Print hal-00696607, HAL.
    20. Di Stefano, Giada & Gambardella, Alfonso & Verona, Gianmario, 2012. "Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1283-1295.
    21. Rosenberg, Nathan, 1974. "Science, Invention and Economic Growth," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 84(333), pages 90-108, March.
    22. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    23. Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Underinvestment and Incompetence as Responses to Radical Innovation: Evidence from the Photolithographic Alignment Equipment Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(2), pages 248-270, Summer.
    24. Dranove, David & Olsen, Chris, 1994. "The Economic Side Effects of Dangerous Drug Announcements," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(2), pages 323-348, October.
    25. Miao, Qing & Popp, David, 2014. "Necessity as the mother of invention: Innovative responses to natural disasters," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 280-295.
    26. Raffaele Conti & Alfonso Gambardella & Elena Novelli, 2019. "Specializing in Generality: Firm Strategies When Intermediate Markets Work," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 126-150, February.
    27. Ron Adner & Daniel Levinthal, 2001. "Demand Heterogeneity and Technology Evolution: Implications for Product and Process Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 611-628, May.
    28. Aaron K. Chatterji & Kira Fabrizio, 2012. "How Do Product Users Influence Corporate Invention?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 971-987, August.
    29. Amy Finkelstein, 2004. "Static and Dynamic Effects of Health Policy: Evidence from the Vaccine Industry," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(2), pages 527-564.
    30. Jarrell, Gregg & Peltzman, Sam, 1985. "The Impact of Product Recalls on the Wealth of Sellers," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(3), pages 512-536, June.
    31. Viscusi, W Kip & Moore, Michael J, 1993. "Product Liability, Research and Development, and Innovation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(1), pages 161-184, February.
    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. Arzi Adbi & Chirantan Chatterjee & Anant Mishra, 2022. "How Do MNEs and Domestic Firms Respond Locally to a Global Demand Shock? Evidence from a Pandemic," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(12), pages 9003-9025, December.

    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. Galasso, Alberto & Luo, Hong, 2019. "Risk-Mitigating Technologies: the Case of Radiation Diagnostic Devices," CEPR Discussion Papers 13682, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," 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 129-213, Elsevier.
    3. Kalcheva, Ivalina & McLemore, Ping & Pant, Shagun, 2018. "Innovation: The interplay between demand-side shock and supply-side environment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 440-461.
    4. Di Stefano, Giada & Gambardella, Alfonso & Verona, Gianmario, 2012. "Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1283-1295.
    5. Kristina McElheran, 2015. "Do Market Leaders Lead in Business Process Innovation? The Case(s) of E-business Adoption," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1197-1216, June.
    6. Tang Wang & Vikas A. Aggarwal & Brian Wu, 2020. "Capability interactions and adaptation to demand‐side change," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(9), pages 1595-1627, September.
    7. Mary Tripsas, 2008. "Customer preference discontinuities: a trigger for radical technological change," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2-3), pages 79-97.
    8. Yan, Hong-Bin & Li, Ming, 2022. "Consumer demand based recombinant search for idea generation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    9. Schmidt, Arne & Walter, Sascha G. & Walter, Achim, 2010. "Contingency Factors and the Technology-Performance-Relationship in Start-ups," EconStor Preprints 37082, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    10. Eckhardt, Jonathan T. & Shane, Scott A., 2011. "Industry changes in technology and complementary assets and the creation of high-growth firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 412-430, July.
    11. Migliori, Stefania & De Massis, Alfredo & Maturo, Fabrizio & Paolone, Francesco, 2020. "How does family management affect innovation investment propensity? The key role of innovation impulses," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 243-256.
    12. Roberto Fontana & Marco Guerzoni, 2008. "Incentives and uncertainty: an empirical analysis of the impact of demand on innovation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(6), pages 927-946, November.
    13. Alberto Galasso & Hong Luo, 2018. "When does Product Liability Risk Chill Innovation? Evidence from Medical Implants," NBER Working Papers 25068, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Banholzer, Nicolas & Behrens, Vanessa & Feuerriegel, Stefan & Heinrich, Sebastian & Rammer, Christian & Schmoch, Ulrich & Seliger, Florian & Wörter, Martin, 2019. "Knowledge spillovers from product and process inventions in patents and their impact on firm performance. End report," ZEW Expertises, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research, number 222367.
    15. Park, Inchae & Triulzi, Giorgio & Magee, Christopher L., 2022. "Tracing the emergence of new technology: A comparative analysis of five technological domains," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    16. Aaron K. Chatterji & Kira R. Fabrizio, 2014. "Using users: When does external knowledge enhance corporate product innovation?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(10), pages 1427-1445, October.
    17. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    18. Nemet, Gregory F. & Zipperer, Vera & Kraus, Martina, 2018. "The valley of death, the technology pork barrel, and public support for large demonstration projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 154-167.
    19. Hoppmann, Joern & Wu, Geng & Johnson, Jillian, 2021. "The impact of demand-pull and technology-push policies on firms’ knowledge search," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    20. Melissa Haller & David L. Rigby, 2020. "The geographic evolution of optics technologies in the United States, 1976–2010," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 99(6), pages 1539-1559, December.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:67:y:2021:i:5:p:3022-3040. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.