IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rii/riidoc/295.html

Entrepreneuriat et géront’innovations : L’exemple des robots sociaux d’assistance
[Entrepreneurship and geront’innovations: the case of welfare robotics]

Author

Listed:
  • Sophie BOUTILLIER

  • Dimitri UZUNIDIS

    (Lab.RII, ULCO/Clersé-UMR8019, Université Lille Nord de France, RRI)

Abstract

Dans le cadre de cette étude, nous avons choisi de nous concentrer sur la robotique sociale d’assistance qui constitue l’une des technologies clés des géront’innovations. Avoir un robot comme compagnon ou aide-soignant à domicile n’est plus du domaine de la science-fiction, mais est devenue une réalité. Ceci grâce à l’inventivité et à la créativité de nombreux entrepreneurs passionnés en France et dans d’autres pays. Mais, quelles sont les motivations de ces entrepreneurs ? Cherchent-ils simplement à saisir une opportunité d’affaire ? Quelles sont leurs ressources ? Sont-ils préoccupés par la question du vieillissement de la population et par celle de sa prise en charge ? L’ensemble de ces initiatives va-t-il contribuer à créer une nouvelle trajectoire technologique, induisant à la fois de nouvelles pratiques industrielles (conception et production de robots) et sociales (demande de la part des personnes âgées pour ce type de produit) ?

Suggested Citation

  • Sophie BOUTILLIER & Dimitri UZUNIDIS, 2015. "Entrepreneuriat et géront’innovations : L’exemple des robots sociaux d’assistance [Entrepreneurship and geront’innovations: the case of welfare robotics]," Working Papers 295, Laboratoire de Recherche sur l'Industrie et l'Innovation. ULCO / Research Unit on Industry and Innovation.
    • Handle: RePEc:rii:riidoc:295
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://riifr.univ-littoral.fr/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/doc-295.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2015
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laurent Tissot, 2007. "Entreprises, cheminements technologiques et innovation," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 58(1), pages 113-130.
    2. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Olivier Boissin, 1999. "La construction des actifs spécifiques : une analyse critique de la théorie des coûts de transaction," Revue d'Économie Industrielle, Programme National Persée, vol. 90(1), pages 7-24.
    4. Christopher Freeman, 2008. "Systems of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12797.
    5. Baumol, William J., 1996. "Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 3-22, January.
    6. Giovanni Dosi, 2000. "Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation," Chapters, in: Innovation, Organization and Economic Dynamics, chapter 2, pages 63-114, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Sophie Boutillier & Dimitri Uzunidis, 2014. "The theory of the entrepreneur: from heroic to socialised entrepreneurship," Journal of Innovation Economics, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(2), pages 9-40.
    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. Sophie BOUTILLIER & Dimitri UZUNIDIS, 2014. "Innovations dans l’agroalimentaire le parcours de quatre entrepreneurs héroïques initiative individuelle et trajectoire techno-économique sectorielle [At the origins of the food industry the trajectory of four historical entrepreneurs – an analysi," Working Papers 281, Laboratoire de Recherche sur l'Industrie et l'Innovation. ULCO / Research Unit on Industry and Innovation.
    2. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    3. Olsson, Ola, 2001. "Why Does Technology Advance in Cycles?," Working Papers in Economics 38, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    4. Andrew Burke & Serhiy Lyalkov & Ana Millán & José María Millán & André Stel, 2021. "How do country R&D change the allocation of self-employment across different types?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 695-721, February.
    5. Joly, P. B. & Mangematin, V., 1996. "Profile of public laboratories, industrial partnerships and organisation of R & D: the dynamics of industrial relationships in a large research organisation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 901-922, September.
    6. Giovanni Dosi & Andrea Roventini & Emanuele Russo, 2021. "Public policies and the art of catching up: matching the historical evidence with a multicountry agent-based model [Catching up, forging ahead, and falling behind]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(4), pages 1011-1036.
    7. Alexander Galetovic & Ángel Cabrera, "undated". "Tópicos en la Economía de la Investigación Tecnológica," Documentos de Trabajo 121, Instituto de Economia. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile..
    8. Elert, Niklas & Henrekson, Magnus & Stenkula, Mikael, 2017. "Institutional Reform for Innovation and Entrepreneurship: An Agenda for Europe," Working Paper Series 1150, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, revised 16 Feb 2017.
    9. Tania Babina & Sabrina T. Howell, 2018. "Entrepreneurial Spillovers from Corporate R&D," NBER Working Papers 25360, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Rajeev Goel & Devrim Göktepe-Hultén, 2013. "Nascent entrepreneurship and inventive activity: a somewhat new perspective," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 471-485, August.
    11. Taalbi, Josef, 2017. "What drives innovation? Evidence from economic history," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1437-1453.
    12. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    13. Balconi, Margherita, 2002. "Tacitness, codification of technological knowledge and the organisation of industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 357-379, March.
    14. Anu Wadhwa & Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas & M. B. Sarkar, 2017. "The Paradox of Openness and Value Protection Strategies: Effect of Extramural R&D on Innovative Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 873-896, October.
    15. Sophie Urmetzer & Michael P. Schlaile & Kristina B. Bogner & Matthias Mueller & Andreas Pyka, 2018. "Exploring the Dedicated Knowledge Base of a Transformation towards a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, May.
    16. Agarwal, Rajshree & Shah, Sonali K., 2014. "Knowledge sources of entrepreneurship: Firm formation by academic, user and employee innovators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1109-1133.
    17. Montobbio, Fabio & Sterzi, Valerio, 2013. "The Globalization of Technology in Emerging Markets: A Gravity Model on the Determinants of International Patent Collaborations," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 281-299.
    18. Kamilia LOUKIL, 2020. "Intellectual property rights, human capital and types of entrepreneurship in emerging and developing countries," Theoretical and Applied Economics, Asociatia Generala a Economistilor din Romania / Editura Economica, vol. 0(1(622), S), pages 21-40, Spring.
    19. Sophie Boutillier, 2019. "Small Entrepreneurship, Knowledge and Social Resources in a Heavy Industrial Territory. The Case of Eco-Innovations in Dunkirk, North of France," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(3), pages 997-1018, September.
    20. James Simmie, 2002. "Knowledge Spillovers and Reasons for the Concentration of Innovative SMEs," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 39(5-6), pages 885-902, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • L26 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Entrepreneurship
    • O14 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Industrialization; Manufacturing and Service Industries; Choice of Technology
    • J19 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Other

    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:rii:riidoc:295. 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: Philippe Chagnon (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rilitfr.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.