Measurement of the clustering and dispersion of innovation

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511493386.003

2 - Measurement of the clustering and dispersion of innovation

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009

Anne P Carter

Edited by

Karen R. Polenske

Show author details

Anne P Carter: Affiliation:
Professor of Economics Emerita Brandeis University
Karen R. Polenske: Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

The chapters in this volume deal with the interplay of two characteristic features of today's global economy: rapid technological change and shifts in the loci of economic activity. As might be expected, no two authors interpret the terms “location” and “innovation” identically. Both domains are very broad and complex and authors single out particular facets for separate study. It is striking that most of them focus on research and the creation, acquisition, and sharing of knowledge, rather than dealing directly with changes in the production process and in the kinds of products on the market. Perhaps this should be taken as a reminder that we have indeed entered the era of the “knowledge economy.”

Economists might see this emphasis on information and communication as a focus on the first of Schumpeter's three major phases of technological change, namely invention. Seeing technological change as the primary focus of capitalism, Schumpeter draws sharp distinctions among invention, creating the idea behind a change in the production process; innovation, implementing that idea in the market environment for the first time; and diffusion, the spread of implementation to sites beyond the original one.

Schumpeter saw the innovator as the visionary and the primary risktaker in the chain of individuals responsible for technological change (Schumpeter 1926). His inventor was an inspired individual with a new idea, but was not an economic actor. Today, invention is likely to be purposive economic activity involving significant investment and risk.

Type: Chapter
Information: The Economic Geography of Innovation , pp. 13 - 29

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511493386.003 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aghion, P. and Howitt, P., 1998. Endogenous Growth Theory, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology PressGoogle Scholar

Carr, N., 1999. “Visualizing Innovation,” Harvard Business Review, 17(5)Google Scholar

Carter, A., 1970. Structural Change in the American Economy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressCrossRef Google Scholar

Christ, C., 1953. History of the Cowles Commission, 1932–52, at http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/P/reports/1932-52b.htm

Cowles Commission for Research in Economics, 1947. Report for 1947, Chicago, see also at http://209.41.24.153/rmt/rmt114k.htm

DeBresson, C., 1996. Economic Interdependence and Innovative Activity, Cheltenham: Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar

Dorfman, N., 1987. Innovation and Market Structure, Cambridge, MA: BallingerGoogle Scholar

Greenspan, A., 2001. “The Challenge of Measuring and Modeling a Dynamic Economy,” Presented at the Washington Economic Policy Conference of the National Association for Business Economics, Washington, DC, March 27, 2001, at http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2001/20010327.default.htm

Griliches, Z., 1957. “Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technical Change,” Econometrica, 25(4): 501–523CrossRef Google Scholar

1994. “Productivity, R&D, and the Data Constraint,” American Economic Review, 84(1): 1–23

Leontief, W., 1941. The Structure of American Economy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

1953. “Structural Change,” in Leontief, W.et al., Studies in the Structure of the American Economy, New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

1967. “An Alternative to Aggregation in Input-Output Analysis and National Accounts,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 49(3): 412–419CrossRef

1971. “Theoretical Assumptions and Nonobserved Facts,” American Economic Review, 61(2): 1–7

Mansfield, E., 1968. Industrial Research and Technological Innovation. New York: W.W. NortonGoogle Scholar

Moore, G., 1965. “Cramming More Components onto Integrated Circuits,” Electronics, 38(8): 114–117Google Scholar

Nelson, R. and Winter, S., 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), 1997. Oslo Manual (revised), at http://www1.oecd.org/dsti/sti/stat-ana/prod/eas_oslo.htm

Rochester and Genesee Valley Museum, 2002. “Statement,” at http://www1.rgvrrm.mus.ny.us/diesels.htm

Romer, P., 1994. “The Origins of Endogenous Growth,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1): 3–22CrossRef Google Scholar

Saxenian, A., 1991. “The Origins and Dynamics of Production Networks in Silicon Valley,” Research Policy, 20: 423–437CrossRef Google Scholar

Schemo, D. J., 1996. “Is VW's New Plant Lean or Just Mean?,” New York Times, December 19Google Scholar

Scherer, F. M., 1982. “Inter-industry Technology Flows and Productivity Growth,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 64(4): 627–634CrossRef Google Scholar

Schmookler, J., 1961. “Changes in Industry and in the State of Knowledge as Determinants of Industrial Invention,” in Nelson, R. (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Change in Economic Activity, New York: Universities-National Bureau of Economic Research: 195–228Google Scholar

Schumpeter, J., 1926. The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Smaglik, P., 2002. “New York: Building Cooperation,” Nature, 419: 4–5Google Scholar PubMed

Solow, R. M., 1957. “Technological Change and the Aggregate Production Function.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3): 312–320CrossRef Google Scholar

Hippel, E., 1986. The Sources of Innovation, New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar