IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/csc/cerisp/201105.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Asian tigers in nanotechnologies: evolutionary path of scientific production of People’s Republic of China, Japan and South Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Ugo Finardi

    (University of Turin and National Research Council, Ceris - Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth, Moncalieri (TO), Italy)

Abstract

Nanosciences and nanotechnologies (NST) are a developing scientifictechnological area in full expansion and evolution. Their character of General Purpose Technology has been assessed. Asian countries play a relevant role in the evolutionary path and growth of NST, as in some cases they present a rapid growth of scientific production. This work analyzes the performance of three of such countries – People’s Republic of China, Japan, South Korea – emphasizing several aspects of their performance in scientific production and putting in reciprocal relations these aspects. Results show a different behaviour of Japan – which starting from a dominant position is loosing ground with respect to its competitors – and of the other two countries which are catching up. Insights on the internal organization and on the mutual relations are also offered, together with a comparison of the relation with other important areas of NST scientific production.

Suggested Citation

  • Ugo Finardi, 2011. "Asian tigers in nanotechnologies: evolutionary path of scientific production of People’s Republic of China, Japan and South Korea," CERIS Working Paper 201105, CNR-IRCrES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth - Torino (TO) ITALY - former Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO) ITALY.
    • Handle: RePEc:csc:cerisp:201105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.byterfly.eu/islandora/object/librib:348610
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jan Youtie & Maurizio Iacopetta & Stuart Graham, 2008. "Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 315-329, June.
    2. Can Huang & Ad Notten & Nico Rasters, 2011. "Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: a review of social science studies and search strategies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 145-172, April.
    3. Cristiano Antonelli & Dominique Foray & Bronwyn H. Hall & W. Edward Steinmueller (ed.), 2006. "New Frontiers in the Economics of Innovation and New Technology," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3286, March.
    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. Kreuchauff, Florian & Teichert, Nina, 2014. "Nanotechnology as general purpose technology," Working Paper Series in Economics 53, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    2. Adam B. Jaffe & Gaétan de Rassenfosse, 2017. "Patent citation data in social science research: Overview and best practices," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(6), pages 1360-1374, June.
    3. Laura I. Schultz & Frederick L. Joutz, 2010. "Methods for identifying emerging General Purpose Technologies: a case study of nanotechnologies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 155-170, October.
    4. Elena M. Tur & Evangelos Bourelos & Maureen McKelvey, 2022. "The case of sleeping beauties in nanotechnology: a study of potential breakthrough inventions in emerging technologies," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 69(3), pages 683-708, December.
    5. Nabila Abid & James A Cunningham & José-Luis Perea-Vicente, 2024. "A thematic review of 45 years of The Journal of Technology Transfer," Post-Print hal-04980007, HAL.
    6. Kurz Heinz D. & Strohmaier Rita & Knell Mark, 2025. "Technological Change: History, Theory and Measurement. A Brief Account," JRC Working Papers on Labour, Education and Technology 2025-03, Joint Research Centre.
    7. Nabila Abid & James A. Cunningham & José-Luis Perea-Vicente, 2025. "A thematic review of 45 years of The Journal of Technology Transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 1739-1784, August.
    8. Patrick Herron & Aashish Mehta & Cong Cao & Timothy Lenoir, 2016. "Research diversification and impact: the case of national nanoscience development," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 629-659, November.
    9. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    10. Magnus Lodefalk, 2014. "The role of services for manufacturing firm exports," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 150(1), pages 59-82, February.
    11. Grazia Cecere, 2009. "VoIP Diffusion among New Entrants: A Path Dependent Process," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 219-245.
    12. RAITERI Emilio, 2015. "A time to nourish? Evaluating the impact of innovative public procurement on technological generality through patent data," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2015-05, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    13. Lehrer, Mark & Banerjee, Preeta M. & Wang, I. Kim, 2017. "When the sky is the limit on scale: From temporal to multiplicative scaling in process-based technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 151-159.
    14. Maxim Kotsemir & Tatiana Kuznetsova & Elena Nasybulina & Anna Pikalova, 2015. "Identifying Directions for Russia’s Science and Technology Cooperation," Foresight-Russia Форсайт, CyberLeninka;Федеральное государственное автономное образовательное учреждение высшего образования «Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики», vol. 9(4 (eng)), pages 54-72.
    15. Di Cagno, Daniela & Fabrizi, Andrea & Meliciani, Valentina & Wanzenböck, Iris, 2016. "The impact of relational spillovers from joint research projects on knowledge creation across European regions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 83-94.
    16. Raiteri, Emilio, 2018. "A time to nourish? Evaluating the impact of public procurement on technological generality through patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 936-952.
    17. David Mowery, 2011. "Nanotechnology and the US national innovation system: continuity and change," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 697-711, December.
    18. Alexandre Almeida & António Figueiredo & Mário Rui Silva, 2011. "From Concept to Policy: Building Regional Innovation Systems in Follower Regions," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(7), pages 1331-1356, July.
    19. Torben Zülsdorf & Ingrid Ott & Christian Papilloud, 2010. "Nanotechnologie in Deutschland - Eine Bestandsaufnahme aus Unternehmensperspektive," Working Paper Series in Economics 175, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    20. Martin Cimiterra & Jackie Krafft & Lionel Nesta, 2021. "Blockchain as Schumpeter Mark 1 or Mark 2? An empirical analysis of blockchain job offers in France and Germany [Innovation: mapping the winds of creative destruction]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(6), pages 1388-1402.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • L6 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing
    • 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

    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:csc:cerisp:201105. 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: Anna Perin or Giancarlo Birello (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cerisit.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.