The Social Network Analysis of Techno-Economic Systems: Comparing Results Based on Binary and Weighted Networks

  • Abdol S. SoofiEmail author
  • Mansoureh Abdi


The network analysis of a technological system combines the interindustry transactions with a matrix of sectoral innovative efforts as measured by R&D investment intensity. The matrixes of interindustry transactions of R&D-embodied products (innovations) are weighted matrixes where the interindustry flows measure the intensity of the innovation diffusion. In the past, studies using this approach in innovation studies have transformed weighted matrixes into binary matrixes of zero and one element where the flows less than a selected threshold value were considered to be zero and the flows greater than the threshold value were counted as one. Such matrix transformation leads to the loss of a great deal of information. In the present study, using degree and clustering coefficients for both binary direct as well as weighted direct techno-economic networks of the manufacturing sector of the German economy, we show that the binary directed network analysis is incapable of refined ranking of interindustry innovation transactions. The total degree index based on the weighted network of the German techno-economic system assigns a unique ranking to each sector, and clustering coefficients show that at least 75% of sectors in the network of Germany have two links with the other industries. However, the same indices based on the binary network are incapable of such refined ranking.


Innovation network complex systems social network analysis innovation management R&D intensity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



We thank the anonymous referees for their constructive comments on an earlier version of this paper.


  1. Acemoglu D (2009). Introduction to Modern Economic Growth. Princeton University Press, Princeton.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Boccaletti S V, Latora Y, Moreno M, Chavez D U (2006). Hwang complex networks: Structure and dynamics. Physics Reports 424:175–308.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Callon M (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination:132–165.Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  4. Carlsson B, R Stankiewics (1991). On the nature, function, and composition of technological systems. Evolutionary Economics 1:93–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fagiolo G (2007). Clustering in complex directed networks. Physical Review E 76:026107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Freeman C (1987). Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. Pinter, London.Google Scholar
  7. Garcia A, Morillas A, Ramos C (2010). Spanish and European innovation diffusion: A structural hole approach in the input-output filed. Annal of Regional Science 44:147–165, DOI: Scholar
  8. Hatzichronoglou T (1997). Revision of the high-technology sector and product classification. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers. Doi:
  9. Leoncini R M, Maggioni, S Montresor (1996). Intersectoral innovation flows and national technological systems: Network analysis for comparing Italy and Germany Research Policy 25:415–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Leoncini R, S Montresor (2000). Network analysis of eight technological systems. International Review of Applied Economics 14:213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leontief W (1986). Input-Output Economics (2ed). Oxford University Press, Oxford.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Montresor S, G V Marzetti (2008). Innovation clusters in technological systems: A network analysis of 15 OECD countries for the mid-1990s. Industry and Innovation 15:321–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Montresor S, G V Marzetti (2009). Applying social network analysis to input-output based innovation matrices: An illustrative application to six OECD technological systems for the middle 19990s. Economic Systems Research 21:129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. OECD (1992). Technology and the Economy: The Key Relationships. OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  15. Romer P (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy 94:1002–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Saramaki J, M Kievela, J Onnela, K Kaski, J Kertesz (2007). Generalizations of the clustering coefficient to weighted complex netwroks. Physical Review E 75:027105–1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Semitiel-Garcia M (2006). Social Capital, Networks and Economic Development. An Analysis of Regional Productive Systems. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.Google Scholar
  18. Semitiel-Garcia M, P Noguera-Mendez (2012). The structure of inter-industry systems and the diffusion of innovations: The case of Spain. Technological Forecasting and Social Change.Doi: Scholar
  19. Scherer F M (1982). Inter-industry technology flows and productivity growth. The Review of Economics and Statistics 64:627–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Soofi A, Saadat Moussavi (2004). Transmissions of real economic shocks across the Pacific Rim economies. Journal of Policy Modeling 26:9559972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Soofi A, S Ghazinoory (2011). The network of the Iranian techno-economic system. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 78:591–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. TSIIF (2003). Technological Systems and Intersectoral Innovation Flows Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  23. Verspagen B (1995). Measuring Inter-Sectoral Technology Spillovers: Estimates from the European and US Patent Office Databases. Merit Research Memorandum 2/95-007, Maastricht.Google Scholar
  24. Wasserman S, K Faust (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Systems Engineering Society of China and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of BusinessUniversity of WisconsinPlattevilleUSA
  2. 2.Tarbiat Modares UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations