IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ris/ecoint/0612.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Issues on Nanotechnology: An International Comparison and Results From Economic And Econometric Analysis - Questioni economiche sulle nanotecnologie: un confronto internazionale e risultati da una analisi economica ed econometrica

Author

Listed:
  • Amato, Amedeo

    (Università di Genova, Dipartimento di Economia e Metodi Quantitativi)

  • Dagostino, Virginia

    (Università di Genova, Dipartimento di Economia e Metodi Quantitativi)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to survey the current inventive activities in nanotechnology (NT) based on the analysis of patent application to the European Patent Office. The current status of NT around the world, the increase in NT patent over the last 10 years will be discussed together with a critical analysis on the effect on NT on work, employment and productivity. In particular, the first section of this article aims to analyse the progress of nanotechnology in various countries through an international comparison, by using as indicators mainly nanotechnology patents. Whilst the second section of the article critically analyses the results of the Freeman model (2006) on the effects of nanotechnology on work, employment and productivity, comparing these results with the opinions of other authors such as Stephan et al. (2007) and Hornyak (2006). The results are summarised under the following headings: Effects on Work, Employment and Productivity, Issues concerning Industrial Organisation, Patents,Regulation and New Products. - Il presente lavoro si propone di analizzare criticamente lo stato di avanzamento delle nanotecnologie (NT) attraverso una analisi dei brevetti presentati all’Ufficio Europeo dei Brevetti (EPO). In particolare la prima sezione dell’articolo analizza i progressi delle nanotecnologie in diversi paesi attraverso un confronto internazionale, utilizzando come indicatori principalmente i brevetti NT. Nella seconda sezione vengono invece analizzati criticamente i risultati del modello di Freeman (2006) sugli effetti delle nanotecnologie su lavoro, occupazione e produttività. Tali risultati vengono, tra l’altro, comparati con le opinioni di altri autori, come Stephan et al. (2007) e Hornyak (2006), per citarne alcuni. I risultati sono sintetizzati sotto le seguenti voci: Effetti su Lavoro, Occupazione e Produttività, Questioni di Organizzazione Industriale, Brevetti, Regolazione e Nuovi Prodotti.

Suggested Citation

  • Amato, Amedeo & Dagostino, Virginia, 2011. "Economic Issues on Nanotechnology: An International Comparison and Results From Economic And Econometric Analysis - Questioni economiche sulle nanotecnologie: un confronto internazionale e risultati d," Economia Internazionale / International Economics, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato Agricoltura di Genova, vol. 64(2), pages 131-151.
    • Handle: RePEc:ris:ecoint:0612
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.iei1946.it/RePEc/ccg/AMATO_DAGOSTINO%20131_151.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wartburg, Iwan von & Teichert, Thorsten, 2008. "Valuing patents and licenses from a business strategy perspective - Extending valuation considerations using the case of nanotechnology," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 106-114, June.
    2. Masatsura Igami & Teruo Okazaki, 2007. "Capturing Nanotechnology's Current State of Development via Analysis of Patents," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2007/4, OECD Publishing.
    3. Jan Youtie & Philip Shapira, 2008. "Mapping the nanotechnology enterprise: a multi-indicator analysis of emerging nanodistricts in the US South," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 209-223, April.
    4. Jennifer L. Woolley & Renee M. Rottner, 2008. "Innovation Policy and Nanotechnology Entrepreneurship," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 32(5), pages 791-811, September.
    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. Walsh, James P. & Ridge, Claron, 2012. "Knowledge production and nanotechnology: Characterizing American dissertation research, 1999–2009," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 127-137.
    2. Joern H. Block & Christian O. Fisch & Mirjam van Praag, 2017. "The Schumpeterian entrepreneur: a review of the empirical evidence on the antecedents, behaviour and consequences of innovative entrepreneurship," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 61-95, January.
    3. Yashuang Qi & Na Zhu & Yujia Zhai & Ying Ding, 2018. "The mutually beneficial relationship of patents and scientific literature: topic evolution in nanoscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 893-911, May.
    4. Mohd Shadab Danish & Pritam Ranjan & Ruchi Sharma, 2022. "Assessing the Impact of Patent Attributes on the Value of Discrete and Complex Innovations," Papers 2208.07222, arXiv.org.
    5. Mohd Shadab Danish & Pritam Ranjan & Ruchi Sharma, 2021. "Identification of “Valuable” Technologies via Patent Statistics in India: An Analysis Based on Renewal Information," BASE University Working Papers 13/2021, BASE University, Bengaluru, India.
    6. Michael Fritsch & Mirko Titze & Matthias Piontek, 2020. "Identifying cooperation for innovation―a comparison of data sources," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(6), pages 630-659, June.
    7. Alenka Guzmán & Edgar Acatitla Romero & Flor Brown Grossman, 2018. "Convergence of innovation in the nanotechnology paradigm across countries," Contaduría y Administración, Accounting and Management, vol. 63(1), pages 37-38, Enero - M.
    8. Manuela Presutti & Cristina Boari & Antonio Majocchi, 2013. "Inter-organizational geographical proximity and local start-ups' knowledge acquisition: a contingency approach," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(5-6), pages 446-467, June.
    9. Jennifer L. Woolley, 2014. "The Creation and Configuration of Infrastructure for Entrepreneurship in Emerging Domains of Activity," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 38(4), pages 721-747, July.
    10. Alenka Guzmán & Edgar Acatitla Romero & Flor Brown Grossman, 2018. "Convergencia de innovación en el nuevo paradigma tecnológico denanotecnología entre países," Contaduría y Administración, Accounting and Management, vol. 63(1), pages 35-36, Enero - M.
    11. Delgado, Gian Carlo, 2010. "Economics and governance of nanomaterials: potential and risks," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 137-144.
    12. Carmen Lafuente & Ignacio López & Carlos Poza, 2014. "Education, Innovation, Stage of Activity and the Recent Economic Crisis as Key Factors of Internationalization: An Empirical Analysis of the Spanish Entrepreneurs Using the GEM Database," International Journal of Business and Social Research, LAR Center Press, vol. 4(10), pages 54-67, October.
    13. Tuomo Nikulainen, 2012. "R&D Collaboration And Nanotechnology — An Opportunity For Traditional Industries," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(03), pages 1-16.
    14. Masatsura Igami & Sadao Nagaoka & John Walsh, 2015. "Contribution of postdoctoral fellows to fast-moving and competitive scientific research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 723-741, August.
    15. Haessler, Philipp & Giones, Ferran & Brem, Alexander, 2023. "The who and how of commercializing emerging technologies: A technology-focused review," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    16. Woolley Jennifer L., 2011. "Studying the Emergence of New Organizations: Entrepreneurship Research Design," Entrepreneurship Research Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-28, January.
    17. Corine Genet & Khalid Errabi & Caroline Gauthier, 2012. "Which Model of Technology Transfer for Nanotechnology? A Comparison with Biotech and Microelectronics," Post-Print hal-00749152, HAL.
    18. Nina Granqvist & Stine Grodal & Jennifer L. Woolley, 2013. "Hedging Your Bets: Explaining Executives' Market Labeling Strategies in Nanotechnology," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 395-413, April.
    19. Daisuke Kanama, 2013. "Multimodal Evaluations Of Japan'S Nanotechnology Competitiveness," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 10(02), pages 1-20.
    20. Masatsura Igami, 2008. "Exploration of the evolution of nanotechnology via mapping of patent applications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(2), pages 289-308, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Nanotechnology; International Comparison; Economic Effects;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    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:ris:ecoint:0612. 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: Angela Procopio (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cacogit.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.