Abstract
In this chapter, Jan Youtie and Philip Shapira leave the world of economic theory and plunge into the economic realities of the regional distribution of nanotechnology activities today in the United States. Some emerging technologies in the past have developed in specific locations, with the best known being Silicon Valley in California, Research Triangle Park in North Carolina, and Route 128 near Boston. Such “technology districts” can be a great boon for local economies, but they inherently open up inequalities with other areas. Youtie and Shapira explore how current nanotechnology research is distributed among regions in the United States.
Keywords
- Gini Coefficient
- Nanotechnology Research
- Government Laboratory
- Patent Cooperation Treaty
- Nanotechnology Patent
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Originally presented at the Workshop on Nanotechnology, Equity, and Equality at Arizona State University on November 21, 2008.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Atkinson, Anthony. 1970. On the measurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory 2: 244–263.
Bürgi, Birgit, and T. Pradeep. 2006. Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology in developing countries. Current Science 90(5): 645–658.
Feldman, Maryann P., and Richard Florida. 1994. The geographic sources of innovation: Technological infrastructure and product innovation in the United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 84(2): 210–229.
Fernandez-Ribas, Andrea. 2008. Analysis of small businesses international patent strategies: Preliminary results. Presented at The Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Tempe, Arizona, January 14–16, 2009.
Fernandez-Ribas, Andrea, and Philip Shapira. 2009. Technological diversity, scientific excellence and the location of inventive activities abroad: The case of nanotechnology. Journal of Technology Transfer 34(3): 286–303.
Florida, Richard. 2002. The rise of the creative Class. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Florida, Richard. 2005. The world is spiky. The Atlantic Monthly October: 48–51.
Fuchs, Gerhard and Philip Shapira, eds. 2005. Rethinking regional innovation and change. Path dependency or regional breakthrough? Boston, MA: Springer.
Gatchair, Sonia. 2007. Representation and reward in high technology industries and occupations: The influence of race and ethnicity. Doctoral Dissertation, Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology.
Graham, Stuart, and Maurizio Iacopetta. 2008. Nanotechnology and the emergence of a general purpose technology. Paper presented at the NBER Conference on Emerging Industries: Nanotechnology and NanoIndicators, May 1–2, 2008, Cambridge, MA.
Huang, Zan, Hsinchun Chen, Lijun Yan and Mihail C. Roco. 2005. Longitudinal nanotechnology development (1991–2002): National Science Foundation funding and its impact on patents. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7: 343–376.
Huang Zan, Hsinchun Chen, Alan Yip, Gavin Ng, Fei Guo, Zhi-Kai Chen and Mihail C. Roco. 2003. Longitudinal patent analysis for nanoscale science and engineering: Country, institution and technology field. Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 5: 333–363.
Jaffe, Adam, Manuel Trajtenberg, and Rebecca Henderson. 1993. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics 108 (3): 557–598.
Kay, Luciano, and Philip Shapira. 2009. Developing nanotechnology in Latin America. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 11, 259–278.
Kostoff, Ronald N., Jesse A. Stump, Dustin Johnson, James S. Murday, Clifford G.Y. Lau and William M. Tolles. 2006. The structure and infrastructure of global nanotechnology literature. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 8: 301–321.
Krugman, Paul. 1991. Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy 99(3): 483–499.
Laredo, Philippe. 2008. Positioning the work done on nano S&T associated to PRIME. Paper presented at Nanotechnology Science Mapping and Innovation Trajectories, Manchester, UK, September 9, 2008.
Lewenstein, Bruce. 2005. What counts as a ‘social and ethical issue’ in nanotechnology? HYLE—International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry 11(1): 5–18.
Lux, 2005. Benchmarking U.S. states for economic development from nanotechnology. New York, NY: Lux Research.
Lux, 2007. The nanotech report. Investment overview and market research for nanotechnology, 5th ed. New York, NY: Lux Research.
Malecki, Edward J. 1997. Technology and Economic Development, 2nd ed. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.
Mangematin, Vincent. 2006. Emergence of science districts and divergent technology: The case of nanotechnologies. Paper presented at workshop on Mapping the Emergence of Nanotechnologies and Understanding the Engine of Growth and Development, Grenoble, France, March 1–3, 2006.
Marshall, Alfred. 1890. Principles of economics. London: Macmillan.
Office of Management and Budget. 2006. Update of statistical area definitions and guidance on their uses (OMB Bulletin No. 07–01). Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.
Porter, Alan L., and Jan Youtie. 2008. How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology? Journal of Nanoparticle Research 11, 1023–1041.
Porter, Alan L., Jan Youtie, Philip Shapira, and Dave Schoeneck. 2008. Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 10: 715–728.
Porter, Michael. 1990. The competitive advantage of nations. New York, NY: Free.
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. 2009. Consumer products, Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www.nanotechproject.org/topics/consumer_products/. (accessed December 2009).
Rafols, Ismael, and Martin Meyer. 2009. Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics 81 (2), Online First.
Roco, Mihail C. 2004. Nanoscale science and engineering: Unifying and transforming tools. AIChE Journal 50(5): 890–897.
Rothaermel, Frank, and Marie Thursby. 2007. The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: Sources of productivity in incumbent firm research. Research Policy 36(6): 832–849.
Saxenian, Annalee. 1994. Regional advantage. Cambridge: Harvard.
Schummer, Joachim. 2004, Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics 59: 425–465.
Shapira, Philip, and Jan Youtie. 2008. Emergence of nanodistricts in the United States: Path dependency or new opportunities? Economic Development Quarterly 22(3): 187–199.
Shapira, Philip, Jan Youtie, and Stephen Carley. 2009. Prototypes of emerging nanodistricts in the US and Europe. Les Annales d’Economie et de Statistique. In Press.
Shapira, Philip, Jan Youtie, and Sushanta Mohapatra. 2003. Linking research production and development outcomes at the regional level. Research Evaluation, 12(1): 105–116.
Shapira, Philip, and Jue Wang. 2009. From lab to market: Strategies and issues in the commercialization of nanotechnology in China. Journal of Asian Business Management 8(4): 461–485.
Street, Paul. 1992. Politics and technology. New York, NY: Guilford.
Tang, Li, and Philip Shapira. 2007. Networks of research collaboration in China: Evidence from nanotechnology publication activities, 1990–2006. Working Paper. Program on Nanotechnology Research and Innovations Assessment, Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology.
Youtie, Jan, Maurizio Iacopetta, and Stuart Graham. 2008. Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: Can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology? Journal of Technology Transfer 32 (6): 123–130.
Youtie, Jan, Philip Shapira, and Alan Porter. 2008. Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs. Journal of Nanotechnology Research, 10(6): 981–986.
Wang, Jue. 2007. Resource spillover from academia to high tech industry: Evidence from New nanotechnology-based firms in the U.S. Doctoral Dissertation, Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology.
Zucker, Lynne G., and Michael R. Darby. 2005. Socio-economic impact of nanoscale science: Initial results and nanobank, (Working Paper 11181). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Zucker, Lynne, Michael Darby, Jonathan Furner, Robert Lieu, and Hongyan Ma. 2007. Minerva unbound: Knowledge stocks, knowledge flows and new knowledge production. Research Policy 36: 850–863.
Acknowledgements
This study uses data from the large-scale global nanotechnology publication and patent datasets developed by the group on Nanotechnology Research and Innovation Systems at Georgia Institute of Technology—a component of the Center for Nanotechnology in Society (CNS-ASU). Support for the research was provided through CNS-ASU with sponsorship from the National Science Foundation (Award No. 0531194). The findings and observations contained in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Youtie, J., Shapira, P. (2010). Metropolitan Development of Nanotechnology: Concentration or Dispersion?. In: Cozzens, S., Wetmore, J. (eds) Nanotechnology and the Challenges of Equity, Equality and Development. Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9615-9_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9615-9_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9614-2
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9615-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)