IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/gemptp/hal-00526726.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Large Players In The Nanogame: Dedicated Nanotech Subsidiaries Or Distributed Nanotech Capabilities?

Author

Listed:
  • Vincent Mangematin

    () (MTS - Management Technologique et Strategique - Grenoble École de Management (GEM))

  • Khalid Errabi

    () (MTS - Management Technologique et Strategique - Grenoble École de Management (GEM))

  • Caroline Gauthier

    () (MTS - Management Technologique et Strategique - Grenoble École de Management (GEM))

Abstract

Nanotechnologies are reshaping the boundaries between industries, combining two aspects of innovation - both enhancing competences based on cumulative knowledge and experience and destroying competences by forcing the renewal of the firm's knowledge base. To analyze how worldwide R&D leaders adapt to this new technology, we conduct an econometric analysis of about 3,000 subsidiaries of the largest R&D spenders. We find that large groups are creating medium size subsidiary companies to explore nanotechnologies. Knowledge circulates mostly amongst subsidiaries within the same group and scientific clusters do not affect their involvement in nanotechnologies. Nanotechnologies remain marginal within these subsidiaries' knowledge bases and are distributed within corporate groups, stimulating recombination between nanotechnology and other technologies

Suggested Citation

  • Vincent Mangematin & Khalid Errabi & Caroline Gauthier, 2011. "Large Players In The Nanogame: Dedicated Nanotech Subsidiaries Or Distributed Nanotech Capabilities?," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00526726, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:gemptp:hal-00526726
    DOI: 10.1007/s10961-011-9209-8
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: http://hal.grenoble-em.com/hal-00526726
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hal.grenoble-em.com/hal-00526726/document
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bresnahan, Timothy F. & Trajtenberg, M., 1995. "General purpose technologies 'Engines of growth'?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 83-108, January.
    2. Rothaermel, Frank T. & Thursby, Marie, 2007. "The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: Sources of productivity in incumbent firm research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 832-849, July.
    3. Grid Thoma, 2009. "Striving for a large market: evidence from a general purpose technology in action," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 107-138, February.
    4. Nesta, Lionel, 2008. "Knowledge and productivity in the world's largest manufacturing corporations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(3-4), pages 886-902, September.
    5. Bozeman, Barry & Laredo, Philippe & Mangematin, Vincent, 2007. "Understanding the emergence and deployment of "nano" S&T," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 807-812, July.
    6. Mogoutov, Andrei & Kahane, Bernard, 2007. "Data search strategy for science and technology emergence: A scalable and evolutionary query for nanotechnology tracking," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 893-903, July.
    7. Gino Cattani, 2006. "Technological pre-adaptation, speciation, and emergence of new technologies: how Corning invented and developed fiber optics," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 285-318, April.
    8. Zucker, Lynne G. & Darby, Michael R. & Furner, Jonathan & Liu, Robert C. & Ma, Hongyan, 2007. "Minerva unbound: Knowledge stocks, knowledge flows and new knowledge production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 850-863, July.
    9. Chris Freeman & Luc Soete, 1997. "The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 3, volume 1, number 0262061953, January.
    10. Vincent Mangematin & Khalid Errabi, 2012. "The Determinants of Science-Based Cluster Growth: The Case of Nanotechnology," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(1), pages 128-146, February.
    11. Ron Boschma, 2005. "Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 61-74.
    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. Corine Genet & Khalid Errabi & Caroline Gauthier, 2012. "Which Model of Technology Transfer for Nanotechnology? A Comparison with Biotech and Microelectronics," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00749152, HAL.
    2. Alessandra Colombelli & Jackie Krafft & Francesco Quatraro, 2012. "The emergence of new technology-based sectors at the regional level: a proximity-based analysis of nanotechnology," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1211, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jun 2012.
    3. Colombelli, Alessandra & Krafft, Jackie & Quatraro, Francesco, 2014. "The emergence of new technology-based sectors in European regions: A proximity-based analysis of nanotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1681-1696.
    4. Daniela Baglieri & Gianni Lorenzoni, 2014. "Closing the distance between academia and market: experimentation and user entrepreneurial processes," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 52-74, February.
    5. Vincent Mangematin & Khalid Errabi, 2012. "The Determinants Of The Science-Based Cluster Growth: The Case Of Nanotechnologies," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00526701, HAL.
    6. Mario Coccia & Ugo Finardi & Diego Margon, 2012. "Current trends in nanotechnology research across worldwide geo-economic players," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 777-787, October.
    7. Caroline Gauthier & Corine Genet, 2014. "Nanotechnologies and Green Knowledge Creation: Paradox or Enhancer of Sustainable Solutions?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 124(4), pages 571-583, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    incumbent; inflexibility; hybridization; nanotechnology; pre-adaptation;

    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:hal:gemptp:hal-00526726. 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: (CCSD). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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 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.

    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.