The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 36, Issue 6, pp 587–604 | Cite as

National innovation systems and the globalization of nanotechnology innovation

Article

Abstract

While there has been much emphasis over the last decade on the science of nanotechnology and on the implications and risks of potential applications, it is now timely to increase attention to the emerging dynamics of nanotechnology commercialization. This paper examines, from a global perspective, where and how corporations are entering into nanotechnology innovation. The paper tests the proposition that a significant shift has occurred in recent years in the orientation of corporate nanotechnology activities—from research discovery to patented applications. It also examines the extent to which the character and structure of corporate nanotechnology activity by country initially reflects national innovation system characteristics and prior public research funding inputs in the stage when discovery is most emphasized. The results indicate that national innovation systems characteristics are significant factors in the commercialization shift of nanotechnology and highlight the importance of innovation system policy factors. We also observe the influence of cross-border international invention linkages, suggesting that national innovation policies also need to be open and international in orientation.

Keywords

Nanotechnology National innovation systems Corporate research Commercialization 

JEL classification

O3 O5 

References

  1. Acedo, F. J., & Jones, M. V. (2007). Speed of internationalization and entrepreneurial cognition: Insights and a comparison between international new ventures, exporters and domestic firms. Journal of World Business, 42(3), 236–252. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2007.04.012. [Review].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cairncross, F. (2001). The death of distance: How the communications revolution is changing our lives. Cambridge: Harvard Business Review.Google Scholar
  3. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, S. S., Di Minin, A., Motoyama, Y., & Palmberg, C. (2009). The persistence of home bias for important r&d in wireless telecom and automobiles. Review of Policy Research, 26(1/2), 55–76. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2008.00369.x. [Article].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edquist, C. (Ed.). (1997). Systems of innovation. Technologies, institutions and organizations. London, Washington: Pinter Publisher.Google Scholar
  6. Fernández-Ribas, A. (2009). Firms’ global patent strategies in an emerging technology. IEEE Xplore, October 2009. Google Scholar
  7. Fernández-Ribas, A., & Shapira, P. (2009). Technological diversity, scientific excellence and the location of inventive activities abroad: The case of nanotechnology. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(3), 286–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Freeman, C. (1982). The economics of industrial innovation. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
  9. Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar
  10. Gilbert, B. A., McDougall, P. P., & Audretsch, D. B. (2006). New venture growth: A review and extension. [Review]. Journal of Management, 32(6), 926-950, doi:10.1177/0149206306293860.Google Scholar
  11. Glanzel, W., Meyer, M., Plessis, M., Thijs, B., Magerman, T., Schlemmer, B., et al. (2003). Nano-technology, analysis of an emerging domain of scientific and technological endeavor. Leuven, Belgium: Report of Steunpunt O&O Statistieken.Google Scholar
  12. Headd, B. (2003). Redefining business success: Distinguishing between closure and failure. Small Business Economics, 21(1), 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Helfat, C. E., & Lieberman, M. B. (2002). The birth of capabilities: Market entry and the importance of pre-history. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(4), 725–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Laredo, P. (2008). Positioning the work done on nano s&t associated to prime. Manchester, UK: Paper presented at the Nanotechnology Science Mapping and Innovation Trajectories. September 9.Google Scholar
  15. Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. (1988). First-mover advantages. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. (1998). First-mover (dis)advantages: Retrospective and link with the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 1111–1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lundvall, B. Á. (Ed.). (1992). National systems of innovation. Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publ.Google Scholar
  18. Lux Research. (2007). The nanotech report 2006: Investment overview and market research for nanotechnology. New York, NY: Lux Research.Google Scholar
  19. Malerba, F. (2005). Sectoral systems of innovation. In J. Fabergerg, D. Mowery, & R. Nelson (Eds.), The oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 380–406). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. McDougall, P., Shane, S., & Oviatt, B. (1994). Explaining the formation of international new ventures: The limits of theories from international business research. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(6), 469–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mowery, D. (2010). Nanotechnology and the U.S. National innovation system: Continuity and change. Paper presented at the Transatlantic Workshop on Nanotechnology Innovation and Policy, Atlanta, Georgia USA, March 24–26.Google Scholar
  22. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Oviatt, B., & McDougall, P. (1994). Toward a theory of international ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Oviatt, B., & McDougall, P. (2005). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(1), 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1991). Large firms in the production of the world’s technology: An important case of “non-globalisation”. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13, 343–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. PEN (2009a). Consumer products inventory, project on emerging nanotechnologies. http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/. Accessed 28 August 2009.
  28. PEN. (2009b). Nanotech-enabled consumer products top the 1, 000 mark. Release no. 64–09. Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.Google Scholar
  29. Porter, A. L., & Youtie, J. (2009). How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology? Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11(5), 1023–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Schoeneck, D. (2008). Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(5), 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rennie, M. (1993). Global competitiveness: Born global. McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 45–52.Google Scholar
  32. Roco, M. C. (2004). Nanoscale science and engineering: Unifying and transforming tools. AIChE Journal, 50(5), 890–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rothaermel, F., & Thursby, M. (2007). The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: Sources of productivity in incumbent firm research. Research Policy, 36(6), 832–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in silicon valley and route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Schmoch, U. (2007). Double-boom cycles and the comeback of science-push and market-pull. Research Policy, 36(7), 1000–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shapira, P., & Wang, J. (2009). From lab to market: Strategies and issues in the commercialization of nanotechnology in china. Journal of Asian Business Management, 8(4), 461–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shapira, P., & Youtie, J. (2008). Nanodistricts in the United States. Economic Development Quarterly, 22(3), 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shapira, P., Youtie, J., & Mohapatra, S. (2003). Linking research production and development outcomes at the regional level. Research Evaluation, 12(1), 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Subramanian, V., Youtie, J., Porter, A. L., & Shapira, P. (2009). Is there a shift to “active nanostructures? Journal of Nanoparticle Research (in press). Available Online First, August 2009.Google Scholar
  40. Tang, L., Shapira, P., & Wang, J. (2009). China. In D. Guston (Ed.), Encyclopedia of nanoscience and society. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15, 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. UNESCO (2010). Gross domestic expenditures on R&D (GERD). http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=1781. Accessed 10 April 2010.
  43. VanderWerf, P. A., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). Meta-analysis of the impact of research methods on findings of firsts-mover advantage. Management Science, 43(11), 1510–1519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang, J., & Shapira, P. (2009). Partnering with universities: A good choice for nanotechnology start-up firms? Small Business Economics (Online First).Google Scholar
  45. World Bank (2010). Country and lending groups. http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications/country-and-lending-groups#High_income. Accessed 10 April 2010.
  46. Youtie, J., Iacopetta, M., & Graham, S. (2007). Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: Can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology? Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(6), 123–130.Google Scholar
  47. Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Porter, A. L. (2008). Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(6), 981–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business SchoolUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Enterprise Innovation Institute, Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations