IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2003.00580.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Technological interdependencies predict innovation dynamics

Author

Listed:
  • Anton Pichler
  • Franc{c}ois Lafond
  • J. Doyne Farmer

Abstract

We propose a simple model where the innovation rate of a technological domain depends on the innovation rate of the technological domains it relies on. Using data on US patents from 1836 to 2017, we make out-of-sample predictions and find that the predictability of innovation rates can be boosted substantially when network effects are taken into account. In the case where a technology$'$s neighborhood future innovation rates are known, the average predictability gain is 28$\%$ compared to simpler time series model which do not incorporate network effects. Even when nothing is known about the future, we find positive average predictability gains of 20$\%$. The results have important policy implications, suggesting that the effective support of a given technology must take into account the technological ecosystem surrounding the targeted technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Anton Pichler & Franc{c}ois Lafond & J. Doyne Farmer, 2020. "Technological interdependencies predict innovation dynamics," Papers 2003.00580, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2003.00580
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.00580
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeff Alstott & Giorgio Triulzi & Bowen Yan & Jianxi Luo, 2017. "Mapping technology space by normalizing patent networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 443-479, January.
    2. Hall, Bronwyn H. & Mairesse, Jacques & Mohnen, Pierre, 2010. "Measuring the Returns to R&D," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1033-1082, Elsevier.
    3. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    4. Farmer, J. Doyne & Lafond, François, 2016. "How predictable is technological progress?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 647-665.
    5. Lorenzo Napolitano & Evangelos Evangelou & Emanuele Pugliese & Paolo Zeppini & Graham Room, 2017. "Technology networks: the autocatalytic origins of innovation," Papers 1708.03511, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2018.
    6. François Lafond & Daniel Kim, 2019. "Long-run dynamics of the U.S. patent classification system," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 631-664, April.
    7. Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), 2010. "Handbook of the Economics of Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1, 00.
    8. Taalbi, Josef, 2020. "Evolution and structure of technological systems - An innovation output network," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    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. Hötte, Kerstin & Pichler, Anton & Lafond, François, 2021. "The rise of science in low-carbon energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    2. Nicolo Barbieri & Alberto Marzucchi & Ugo Rizzo, 2021. "Green technologies, complementarities, and policy," SPRU Working Paper Series 2021-08, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.

    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. Elie Gray & André Grimaud, 2016. "The Lindahl equilibrium in Schumpeterian growth models," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 101-142, March.
    2. Kancs, d’Artis & Siliverstovs, Boriss, 2016. "R&D and non-linear productivity growth," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 634-646.
    3. Antoine Dechezleprêtre & Elias Einiö & Ralf Martin & Kieu-Trang Nguyen & John Van Reenen, 2016. "Do tax incentives for research increase firm innovation? An RD design for R&D, patents and spillovers," CEP Discussion Papers dp1413, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    4. Choi, Mincheol & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2021. "Technological diversification and R&D productivity: The moderating effects of knowledge spillovers and core-technology competence," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    5. Sasso, Simone & Ritzen, Jo, 2016. "Sectoral Cognitive Skills, R&D, and Productivity: A Cross-Country Cross-Sector Analysis," IZA Discussion Papers 10457, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Andrew Atkeson & Ariel Burstein, 2019. "Aggregate Implications of Innovation Policy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(6), pages 2625-2683.
    7. Raphaël Godefroy, 2010. "The birth of the congressional clinic," PSE Working Papers halshs-00564921, HAL.
    8. Luisa R. Blanco & Ji Gu & James E. Prieger, 2016. "The Impact of Research and Development on Economic Growth and Productivity in the U.S. States," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(3), pages 914-934, January.
    9. Schubert, Torben & Jäger, Angela & Türkeli, Serdar & Visentin, Fabiana, 2020. "Addressing the productivity paradox with big data: A literature review and adaptation of the CDM econometric model," MERIT Working Papers 2020-050, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    10. Burcu Fazlıoğlu & Başak Dalgıç & Ahmet Burçin Yereli, 2019. "The effect of innovation on productivity: evidence from Turkish manufacturing firms," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 439-460, April.
    11. Gray, Elie & Grimaud, André, 2014. "The Lindahl equilibrium in Schumpeterian growth models: Knowledge diffusion, social value of innovations and optimal R&D incentives," TSE Working Papers 14-469, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    12. Goni, Edwin & Maloney, William F., 2014. "Why don't poor countries do R&D ?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6811, The World Bank.
    13. Nomaler, Önder & Spinola, Danilo & Verspagen, Bart, 2021. "R&D-based economic growth in a supermultiplier model," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1-19.
    14. Gabrovski, Miroslav, 2017. "Coordination Frictions and Economic Growth," MPRA Paper 81298, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 17 Jul 2017.
    15. Lu, You-Xun & Chen, Shi-kuan & Lai, Ching-chong, 2022. "Subsidies, Entry, and Economic Growth in a Schumpeterian Model with Incumbents and Entrants," MPRA Paper 112179, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Elie Gray & André Grimaud, 2016. "The Lindahl equilibrium in Schumpeterian growth models," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 101-142, March.
    17. Stucki, Tobias & Woerter, Martin, 2019. "The private returns to knowledge: A comparison of ICT, biotechnologies, nanotechnologies, and green technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 62-81.
    18. Brown, James R. & Martinsson, Gustav & Petersen, Bruce C., 2012. "Do financing constraints matter for R&D?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 1512-1529.
    19. Lehmann, Paul & Gawel, Erik, 2013. "Why should support schemes for renewable electricity complement the EU emissions trading scheme?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 597-607.
    20. Dan Andrews & Chiara Criscuolo, 2013. "Knowledge-Based Capital, Innovation and Resource Allocation," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 1046, OECD Publishing.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2003.00580. 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: . General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.