IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sru/ssewps/180.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Missing links in nanomaterials governance: bringing industrial dynamics and downstream policies into view

Author

Listed:
  • Ismael Rafols

    (SPRU, University of Sussex and TPAC, Georgia Tech)

  • Patrick van Zwanenberg

    (SPRU, University of Sussex)

  • Molly Morgan

    (SPRU, University of Sussex)

  • Paul Nightingale

    (SPRU, University of Sussex)

  • Adrian Smith

    (SPRU, University of Sussex)

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Ismael Rafols & Patrick van Zwanenberg & Molly Morgan & Paul Nightingale & Adrian Smith, 2010. "Missing links in nanomaterials governance: bringing industrial dynamics and downstream policies into view," SPRU Working Paper Series 180, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
  • Handle: RePEc:sru:ssewps:180
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/documents/sewp180
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rosenberg, Nathan, 1963. "Technological Change in the Machine Tool Industry, 1840–1910," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 414-443, December.
    2. Smith, Adrian & Stirling, Andy & Berkhout, Frans, 2005. "The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1491-1510, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Jacobsson, Staffan & Johnson, Anna, 2000. "The diffusion of renewable energy technology: an analytical framework and key issues for research," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(9), pages 625-640, July.
    5. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    6. 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.
    7. David, Paul A, 1985. "Clio and the Economics of QWERTY," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 332-337, May.
    8. Bergek, Anna & Jacobsson, Staffan & Carlsson, Bo & Lindmark, Sven & Rickne, Annika, 2008. "Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 407-429, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Walker, William, 2000. "Entrapment in large technology systems: institutional commitment and power relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7-8), pages 833-846, August.
    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. Sheona A. K. Read & Gary S. Kass & Hilary R. Sutcliffe & Steven M. Hankin, 2016. "Foresight Study on the Risk Governance of New Technologies: The Case of Nanotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(5), pages 1006-1024, May.
    2. 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.

    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. Singh, Shiwangi & Dhir, Sanjay & Das, V. Mukunda & Sharma, Anuj, 2020. "Bibliometric overview of the Technological Forecasting and Social Change journal: Analysis from 1970 to 2018," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    2. Safarzyńska, Karolina & Frenken, Koen & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2012. "Evolutionary theorizing and modeling of sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1011-1024.
    3. Cantner, Uwe & Vannuccini, Simone, 2021. "Pervasive technologies and industrial linkages: Modeling acquired purposes," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 386-399.
    4. Rakas, Marija & Hain, Daniel S., 2019. "The state of innovation system research: What happens beneath the surface?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    5. Vantoch-Wood, Angus & Connor, Peter M., 2013. "Using network analysis to understand public policy for wave energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 676-685.
    6. Foxon, Timothy J., 2011. "A coevolutionary framework for analysing a transition to a sustainable low carbon economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2258-2267.
    7. Raven, Rob, 2007. "Co-evolution of waste and electricity regimes: Multi-regime dynamics in the Netherlands (1969-2003)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 2197-2208, April.
    8. Zolfagharian, Mohammadreza & Walrave, Bob & Raven, Rob & Romme, A. Georges L., 2019. "Studying transitions: Past, present, and future," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    9. Stirling, Andy, 2010. "Multicriteria diversity analysis: A novel heuristic framework for appraising energy portfolios," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1622-1634, April.
    10. Geels, Frank W., 2004. "From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 897-920, September.
    11. Hoppmann, Joern & Peters, Michael & Schneider, Malte & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2013. "The two faces of market support—How deployment policies affect technological exploration and exploitation in the solar photovoltaic industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 989-1003.
    12. Robert, Verónica & Yoguel, Gabriel, 2016. "Complexity paths in neo-Schumpeterian evolutionary economics, structural change and development policies," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 3-14.
    13. Gustafsson, Robin & Autio, Erkko, 2011. "A failure trichotomy in knowledge exploration and exploitation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 819-831, July.
    14. Jens Hanson & Markus Steen & Tyson Weaver & Håkon E. Normann & Gard H. Hansen, 2016. "Path creation through branching and transfer of complementary resources: the role of established industries for new renewable energy technologies," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20160310, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    15. Markard, Jochen & Raven, Rob & Truffer, Bernhard, 2012. "Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 955-967.
    16. Garud, Raghu & Gehman, Joel, 2012. "Metatheoretical perspectives on sustainability journeys: Evolutionary, relational and durational," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 980-995.
    17. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    18. Ramani, Shyama V. & Thutupalli, Ajay, 2015. "Emergence of controversy in technology transitions: Green Revolution and Bt cotton in India," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 198-212.
    19. Markard, Jochen & Truffer, Bernhard, 2008. "Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 596-615, May.
    20. Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The triple helix: an evolutionary model of innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 243-255, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    nanotechnology; manufactured nanomaterials; innovation governance; industrial dynamics; enabling technology; technology assessment; public engagement.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L52 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Industrial Policy; Sectoral Planning Methods
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    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:sru:ssewps:180. 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spessuk.html .

    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: University of Sussex Business School Communications Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spessuk.html .

    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.