IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i7d10.1007_s11192-021-03936-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deep learning, deep change? Mapping the evolution and geography of a general purpose technology

Author

Listed:
  • Joel Klinger

    (Nesta)

  • Juan Mateos-Garcia

    (Nesta)

  • Konstantinos Stathoulopoulos

    (Nesta)

Abstract

General purpose technologies that can be applied in many industries are an important driver of economic growth and national and regional competitiveness but there is little research about their geographic dynamics and the role of industrial ecosystems in spurring their development. We address this with an analysis of Deep Learning, a core technique of artificial intelligence systems increasingly being recognized as the latest example of a transformational general purpose technology. We identify Deep Learning papers through a semantic analysis of a novel dataset from arXiv, a popular preprints website, and use CrunchBase, a technology business directory to map business capabilities. After showing that Deep Learning conforms to the definition of a general purpose technology, we study changes in its geography and its drivers revealing China’s rise in Deep Learning research. We also find that initial volatility in the geography of Deep Learning has been followed by consolidation suggesting that the window of opportunity for new entrants might be closing. We study the regional drivers of Deep Learning competitive advantage, finding that strong research clusters tend to appear in regions that specialise in research and industrial activities related to Deep Learning, underscoring the importance of supportive innovation ecosystems for the development of general purpose technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Joel Klinger & Juan Mateos-Garcia & Konstantinos Stathoulopoulos, 2021. "Deep learning, deep change? Mapping the evolution and geography of a general purpose technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5589-5621, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:7:d:10.1007_s11192-021-03936-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-03936-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-021-03936-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-021-03936-9?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
    ---><---

    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. David, Paul A, 1990. "The Dynamo and the Computer: An Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity Paradox," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 355-361, May.
    2. repec:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:12630-12637 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Cesar A. Hidalgo & Ricardo Hausmann, 2009. "The Building Blocks of Economic Complexity," Papers 0909.3890, arXiv.org.
    4. Stefano Breschi & Julie Lassébie & Carlo Menon, 2018. "A portrait of innovative start-ups across countries," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2018/2, OECD Publishing.
    5. Koen Frenken & Frank Van Oort & Thijs Verburg, 2007. "Related Variety, Unrelated Variety and Regional Economic Growth," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(5), pages 685-697.
    6. Jason Furman & Robert Seamans, 2019. "AI and the Economy," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(1), pages 161-191.
    7. Erik Brynjolfsson & Daniel Rock & Chad Syverson, 2018. "Artificial Intelligence and the Modern Productivity Paradox: A Clash of Expectations and Statistics," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda, pages 23-57, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Aghion, Philippe & David, Paul A. & Foray, Dominique, 2009. "Science, technology and innovation for economic growth: Linking policy research and practice in 'STIG Systems'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 681-693, May.
    9. Timothy Bresnahan & Pai-Ling Yin, 2010. "Reallocating innovative resources around growth bottlenecks," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(5), pages 1589-1627, October.
    10. Helpman, Elhanan & Trajtenberg, Manuel, 1994. "A Time to Sow and a Time to Reap: Growth Based on General Purpose Technologies," CEPR Discussion Papers 1080, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Bronwyn H. Hall & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2004. "Uncovering GPTS with Patent Data," NBER Working Papers 10901, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Pierre-Alexandre Balland & David Rigby, 2017. "The Geography of Complex Knowledge," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 93(1), pages 1-23, January.
    13. Nick Bostrom, 2017. "Strategic Implications of Openness in AI Development," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(2), pages 135-148, May.
    14. Audretsch, David B & Feldman, Maryann P, 1996. "R&D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation and Production," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 630-640, June.
    15. Matt Taddy, 2018. "The Technological Elements of Artificial Intelligence," NBER Working Papers 24301, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Xu, Guannan & Wu, Yuchen & Minshall, Tim & Zhou, Yuan, 2018. "Exploring innovation ecosystems across science, technology, and business: A case of 3D printing in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 208-221.
    17. 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.
    18. Ron Boschma, 2005. "Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 61-74.
    19. Ajay Agrawal & John McHale & Alexander Oettl, 2018. "Finding Needles in Haystacks: Artificial Intelligence and Recombinant Growth," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda, pages 149-174, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Matt Taddy, 2018. "The Technological Elements of Artificial Intelligence," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda, pages 61-87, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Avi Goldfarb & Daniel Trefler, 2018. "AI and International Trade," NBER Working Papers 24254, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    22. Klepper, Steven, 1996. "Entry, Exit, Growth, and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 562-583, June.
    23. Jean-Michel Dalle & Matthijs den Besten & Carlo Menon, 2017. "Using Crunchbase for economic and managerial research," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2017/08, OECD Publishing.
    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. Bianchini, Stefano & Müller, Moritz & Pelletier, Pierre, 2022. "Artificial intelligence in science: An emerging general method of invention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    2. Ding, Jeffrey, 2022. "Techno-industrial Policy for New Infrastructure: China’s Approach to Promoting Artificial Intelligence as a General Purpose Technology," Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, Working Paper Series qt1sb844ws, Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, University of California.
    3. Stefano Bianchini & Moritz Müller & Pierre Pelletier, 2022. "Artificial intelligence in science: An emerging general method of invention," Post-Print hal-03958025, HAL.
    4. Zhang, Wei & Zhang, Ting & Li, Hangyu & Zhang, Han, 2022. "Dynamic spillover capacity of R&D and digital investments in China's manufacturing industry under long-term technological progress based on the industry chain perspective," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    5. Damioli, Giacomo & Van Roy, Vincent & Vertesy, Daniel & Vivarelli, Marco, 2024. "AI as a new emerging technological paradigm: evidence from global patenting," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1467, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    6. Daniel Souza & Aldo Geuna & Jeff Rodr'iguez, 2024. "How Small is Big Enough? Open Labeled Datasets and the Development of Deep Learning," Papers 2408.10359, arXiv.org.
    7. Wachs, Johannes & Nitecki, Mariusz & Schueller, William & Polleres, Axel, 2022. "The Geography of Open Source Software: Evidence from GitHub," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    8. Li, Munan & Wang, Wenshu & Zhou, Keyu, 2021. "Exploring the technology emergence related to artificial intelligence: A perspective of coupling analyses," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    9. 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).
    10. Damioli, Giacomo & Van Roy, Vincent & Vertesy, Daniel & Vivarelli, Marco, 2024. "Is Artificial Intelligence Generating a New Paradigm? Evidence from the Emerging Phase," IZA Discussion Papers 17183, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Zheng, Yuelong & Zhou, Bingjie & Hao, Chen & Gao, Ruize & Li, Mengya, 2024. "Evolutionary game analysis on the cross-organizational cooperative R&D strategy of general purpose technologies under two-way collaboration," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(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. J. Klinger & J. Mateos-Garcia & K. Stathoulopoulos, 2018. "Deep learning, deep change? Mapping the development of the Artificial Intelligence General Purpose Technology," Papers 1808.06355, arXiv.org.
    2. Ajay Agrawal & Joshua Gans & Avi Goldfarb, 2019. "Economic Policy for Artificial Intelligence," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(1), pages 139-159.
    3. Kopka, Alexander & Grashof, Nils, 2022. "Artificial intelligence: Catalyst or barrier on the path to sustainability?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    4. Niccolò Innocenti & Francesco Capone & Luciana Lazzeretti & Sergio Petralia, 2022. "The role of inventors’ networks and variety for breakthrough inventions," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 101(1), pages 37-57, February.
    5. Uwe Cantner & Simone Vannuccini, 2012. "A New View of General Purpose Technologies," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-054, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    6. Ekaterina Prytkova, 2021. "ICT's Wide Web: a System-Level Analysis of ICT's Industrial Diffusion with Algorithmic Links," Jena Economics Research Papers 2021-005, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    7. Cristiano Antonelli, 2011. "The Economic Complexity of Technological Change: Knowledge Interaction and Path Dependence," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Bernardo S Buarque & Ronald B Davies & Ryan M Hynes & Dieter F Kogler, 2020. "OK Computer: the creation and integration of AI in Europe," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 13(1), pages 175-192.
    9. Hidalgo, César A., 2023. "The policy implications of economic complexity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    10. Mariane Santos Françoso & Ron Boschma & Nicholas Vonortas, 2024. "Regional diversification in Brazil: The role of relatedness and complexity," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), March.
    11. Abbasiharofteh, Milad & Kogler, Dieter F. & Lengyel, Balázs, 2023. "Atypical combinations of technologies in regional co-inventor networks," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 52(10), pages 1-1.
    12. Penny Mealy & Diane Coyle, 2022. "To them that hath: economic complexity and local industrial strategy in the UK," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 29(2), pages 358-377, April.
    13. Eduardo Hernandez-Rodriguez & Ron Boschma & Andrea Morrison & Xianjia Ye, 2024. "Functional upgrading and downgrading in global value chains: The role of complementary interregional value chain linkages in EU regions," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2432, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Oct 2024.
    14. Carlo Corradini, 2019. "Location determinants of green technological entry: evidence from European regions," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 845-858, April.
    15. David L. Rigby & Christoph Roesler & Dieter Kogler & Ron Boschma & Pierre-Alexandre Balland, 2019. "Do EU regions benefit from smart specialization?," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1931, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Nov 2019.
    16. Dominic Chalmers & Niall G. MacKenzie & Sara Carter, 2021. "Artificial Intelligence and Entrepreneurship: Implications for Venture Creation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 45(5), pages 1028-1053, September.
    17. Erik Brynjolfsson & Daniel Rock & Chad Syverson, 2021. "The Productivity J-Curve: How Intangibles Complement General Purpose Technologies," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(1), pages 333-372, January.
    18. van der Wouden, Frank & Youn, Hyejin, 2023. "The impact of geographical distance on learning through collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    19. Elekes, Zoltán & Juhász, Sándor & Gyurkovics, János, 2016. "A tudáshálózatok időbeli változásának vizsgálati lehetőségei [A new perspective for examining change in knowledge networks over time]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(12), pages 1375-1388.
    20. Sándor Juhász & Tom Broekel & Ron Boschma, 2021. "Explaining the dynamics of relatedness: The role of co‐location and complexity," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 100(1), pages 3-21, February.

    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:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:7:d:10.1007_s11192-021-03936-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.