IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

In Defence of the Linear Model: An Essay

  • Margherita Balconi

    (University of Pavia, Pavia - Italy)

  • Stefano Brusoni

    (CESPRI Bocconi University, Milan, Italy)

  • Luigi Orsenigo

    (University of Brescia, Brescia - Italy; CESPRI Bocconi University, Milan - Italy and Open University, U.K.)

This paper has been prompted by an increasing sense of dissatisfaction with the current fashion of criticising the so-called “Linear Model” of innovation. LM). The frequency and hostility of remarks against the linear model raises the suspicion that something is wrong indeed. Why so much hostility to a concept that is unanimously recognised to be false and discredited? Is it only a (repetitive and abused) rhetorical device? Or does the LM still maintain a credibility in scientific research and policy-making that makes it useful or even necessary to constantly remind its deep shortcomings? If this is the case, why is it that despite all the evidence, the LM continues to be so influential in the policy debate? The sense of uneasiness and dissatisfaction is compounded by the recognition that it is quite hard to find in the critical literature a precise definition of the so called linear model. To a considerable extent, the LM is just a straw man around which a set of arguments is constructed concerning the process of technological innovation and the implied policy prescriptions. In this paper, we seek to probe the deep reasons of our dissatisfaction with undisciplined critiques to the “infamous” linear model and to clarify what are the main and most relevant problems that indeed the LM suffers from. Moreover, we ask whether at least some features of the linear model retain some interpretative and normative validity and if a complete and outright rejection of the LM would amount to throw the baby away with the dirty water

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.

File URL: ftp://ftp.unibocconi.it/pub/RePEc/cri/papers/WP216BalconiBrusoniOrsenigo.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy in its series KITeS Working Papers with number 216.

as
in new window

Length: pages 37
Date of creation: Jan 2008
Date of revision: Apr 2008
Handle: RePEc:cri:cespri:wp216
Contact details of provider: Postal: via Sarfatti, 25 - 20136 Milano - Italy
Phone: +39.025836.3397
Fax: +39.025836.3399
Web page: http://www.kites.unibocconi.it/

Order Information: Postal: E G E A - via R. Sarfatti, 25 - 20136 Milano -Italy

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.:

as in new window
  1. David, Paul A. & Hall, Bronwyn H., 2006. "Property and the pursuit of knowledge: IPR issues affecting scientific research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 767-771, July.
  2. Giovanni Dosi & Luigi Orsenigo & Mauro Sylos Labini, 2002. "Technology and the Economy," LEM Papers Series 2002/18, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
  3. Rosenberg, Nathan & Nelson, Richard R., 1994. "American universities and technical advance in industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 323-348, May.
  4. Henry Grabowski & John Vernon, 2000. "The determinants of pharmaceutical research and development expenditures," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 201-215.
  5. Balconi, Margherita & Laboranti, Andrea, 2006. "University-industry interactions in applied research: The case of microelectronics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1616-1630, December.
  6. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Thoma, Grid, 2007. "Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 813-831, July.
  7. Luthje, Christian & Herstatt, Cornelius & von Hippel, Eric, 2005. "User-innovators and "local" information: The case of mountain biking," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 951-965, August.
  8. Mansfield, Edwin, 1991. "Academic research and industrial innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
  9. Nelson, Richard R., 2004. "The market economy, and the scientific commons," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 455-471, April.
  10. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67, pages 297.
  11. Mazzoleni, Roberto & Nelson, Richard R., 1998. "The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 273-284, July.
  12. Dosi, Giovanni & Llerena, Patrick & Labini, Mauro Sylos, 2006. "The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called `European Paradox'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1450-1464, December.
  13. 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.
  14. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
  15. Dosi, Giovanni, 1988. "Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 26(3), pages 1120-71, September.
  16. Richard Nelson, 1962. "The Link Between Science and Invention: The Case of the Transistor," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 549-584 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cri:cespri:wp216. 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: (Valerio Sterzi)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.