Industrial renewal and growth through nanotechnology? An overview with focus on Finland

Hardly any other field has received so much public R&D investments globally in such a short time as nanotechnology. Nanotechnology can be considered as an umbrella term for R&D at the nanometer scale (1-100 nm) where unique phenomena enable novel applications. The interest given to nanotechnology is largely due to its perceived, and partly also over-hyped, generic nature and potentials to renew industries in a revolutionary way. Nonetheless, the field is still in a fluid and nascent phase without clear indications of how and where commercial breakthroughs will emerge on a larger scale. This paper aims to conceptualize nanotechnology in the literature on the economics of technological change, review the extant empirical research towards this end, and provide a brief overview and new insights into the development of nanotechnology in Finland. It discusses to what degree nanotechnology fits the criteria of a general purpose technology (GPT) and, in this context, highlights some important issues related to technology transfer, industrial dynamics and organisation. The case of Finland is interesting due to recent and relatively significant nanotechnology policy initiatives and the competitive position that it holds in many traditional industries. Although new firms also are emerging, Finnish nanotechnology primarily appears to be driven by scientific developments and the role of large firms is still small. Patenting is picking up from a low level, and process engineering and chemicals are emerging as the main application fields.

[1]  T. Allen Managing the flow of technology , 1977 .

[2]  Patrick Llerena,et al.  Interdisciplinary Research and the Organization of the University: General Challenges and a Case Study , 2003 .

[3]  M. Tushman,et al.  Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments , 1986 .

[4]  Martin Meyer Hurdles on the Way to Growth: Commercializing Novel Technologies, The Case of Nanotechnology , 2000 .

[5]  Daniel Ratner,et al.  Nanotechnology: A Gentle Introduction to the Next Big Idea , 2002 .

[6]  Maj Munch Andersen,et al.  PATH CREATION IN THE MAKING - THE CASE OF NANOTECHNOLOGY , 2005 .

[7]  P. Romer Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth , 1986, Journal of Political Economy.

[8]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  The Analytical Approach and Methodology , 2002 .

[9]  Kathryn L. Combs,et al.  The Economics of Science and Technology , 2012 .

[10]  F. Rothaermel Strategic Management Journal Research Note Incumbent's Advantage through Exploiting Complementary Assets via Interfirm Cooperation , 2022 .

[11]  J. Storrs Hall,et al.  Nanofuture: What's Next For Nanotechnology , 2005 .

[12]  Thomas Heinze,et al.  Nanoscience and Nanotechnology in Europe : Analysis of Publications and Patent Applications including Comparisons with the United States , 2004 .

[13]  R. Hermans,et al.  Sustainable Biotechnology Development - New Insights into Finland , 2006 .

[14]  Michael R. Darby,et al.  Grilichesian Breakthroughs: Inventions of Methods of Inventing and Firm Entry in Nanotechnology , 2005 .

[15]  M. L. Mancusi Geographical concentration and the dynamics of countries' specialization in technologies , 2003 .

[16]  Grid Thoma,et al.  Scientific and technological regimes in nanotechnology. Combinatorial inventors and performance , 2005 .

[17]  Michael R. Darby,et al.  Socio-Economic Impact of Nanoscale Science: Initial Results and Nanobank , 2005 .

[18]  M. McAleer,et al.  Nanotechnology strength indicators: international rankings based on US patents , 2003 .

[19]  M. Tushman,et al.  Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change , 1990 .

[20]  Clayton M. Christensen,et al.  Technological Discontinuties, Organizational Capabilities, and Strategic Commitments , 1994, Industrial and Corporate Change.

[21]  Zan Huang,et al.  International nanotechnology development in 2003: Country, institution, and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database , 2004 .

[22]  Clayton M. Christensen,et al.  Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave , 1995 .

[23]  J. Fagerberg Schumpeter and the revival of evolutionary economics: an appraisal of the literature , 2003 .

[24]  Christopher Freeman Policies for Developing New Technologies , 2003 .

[25]  Martin Meyer,et al.  Publications and patents in nanotechnology , 2003, Scientometrics.

[26]  Kathryn Graziano The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail , 1998 .

[27]  Hariolf Grupp Dynamics of science-based innovation , 1992 .

[28]  Olle Persson,et al.  Mapping excellence in nanotechnologies. Preparatory study for the European Commission, DG Research. , 2002 .

[29]  Dana Nicolau Innovation and knowledge transfer in emerging fields: the case of Nanotechnology in Australia , 2005 .

[30]  J. Fagerberg Schumpeter and the revival of evolutionary economics: an appraisal of the literature , 2003 .

[31]  Ron Adner,et al.  Disruptive Technologies and the Emergence of Competition , 2003 .

[32]  Terttu Luukkonen,et al.  Variability in organisational forms of biotechnology firms , 2005 .

[33]  Araújo,et al.  An Evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[34]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[35]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of , 1990 .

[36]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory , 2000 .

[37]  Mark A. Schankerman,et al.  Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators , 2004 .

[38]  M. Meyer Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature , 2000 .