The Market for Knowledge in the Chemical Sector

  • Fabrizio Cesaroni
  • Myriam Mariani
Part of the Economics of Science, Technology and Innovation book series (ESTI, volume 22)


Few industries epitomize the market for knowledge as the chemical industry. Large and small companies, universities, and research laboratories are heterogeneous sources of scientific and technological knowledge. Market and non-market interactions are the means through which knowledge diffuses among them, and enhance the potential complementarities.


Chemical Industry Polymer Chemistry Union Carbide License Agreement Chemical Sector 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aftalion, FrançoisHistory of the International Chemical Industry.Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. Albach H., Audretsch D.B., Fleischer M., Greb R., Hofs E., Roller L. and Schulz I. Innovation in the European Chemical Industry. Research Unit Market Processes and Corporate Development. International Conference on Innovation Measurement and Policies; 1996 20–21 May; Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  3. Ananad B.N., Khanna T. Intellectual Property Rights and Contract Structure. Working Paper, 97–016. Harvard Business School. 1997.Google Scholar
  4. Arora A. Licensing Tacit Knowledge: Intellectual Property Rights and the Market for Know-how. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 1995; 4:41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arora A., Fosfuri A. Licensing the Market for Technology. CEPR Discussion Paper Series 1999; 2284.Google Scholar
  6. Arora A., Fosfuri A., Gambardella A. Markets for Technology (Why do we see them, why don’t we see more of them, and why we should care). Unpublished manuscript.2000a.Google Scholar
  7. Arora A., Fosfuri A., Gambardella A. Markets for Technology and their Implications for Corporate Strategies. Working Paper. University “Carlos III”, Madrid.2000b.Google Scholar
  8. Arora, AshishGambardella, Alfonso “Evolution of industry Structure in the Chemical Industry.” InChemicals and Long-term Economic Growth: Insights from the Chemical IndustryAshish Arora, Ralph Landau, Nathan Rosenberg, eds. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. Arora, Ashish, Landau, Ralph, Rosenberg, NathanChemicals and Long-term Economic Growth: Insights from the Chemical Industry.New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. Arrow, Kenneth. “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention.” InThe Rate and Direction of Inventive ActivityNational Bureau of Economic Research, Princeton, NJ: University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  11. Bresnahan T.F., Trajtenberg M. General Purpose Technologies `Engines of Growth’?. Journal of Econometrics 1995; 65:83–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bresnahan, Timothy, Gambardella, Alfonso. “The Division of Inventive Labor and the Extent of the Market.” InGeneral Purpose Technologies and Economic GrowthElhanan Helpman, ed. Cambridge, MASS: MIT Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. Chapman, KeithThe International Petrochemical Industry.Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991. Chemical Week, “Turning Process Know-how into Profits.” 1997 July 23; p. 45. Chem-Intell, Reed Elsevier Ltd. London, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. Cook, P.Lesley., Sharp, Margaret. “The Chemical Industry.” InTechnology and the Future of EuropeChris Freeman, Margaret Sharp, William Walfer, eds. London: Pinter Publishers, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. Freeman C, Young A, Fulker J. The Plastics Industry: A Comparative Study of Research and Innovation. National Institute Economic Review 1963; 26, 22–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freeman C. Chemical Process Plant: Innovation and the World Market. National Institute Economic Review 1968; 45:29–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freeman, ChrisThe Economics of Industrial Innovation.London: Francis Pinter, 1982.Google Scholar
  18. Granstrand O., Patel P., Pavit K. Multi-Technology Corporations: Why They Have `Distributed’ rather than `Distinctive Core’ Competencies. California Management Review 1997; 39:8–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson, James A.The Kaiser’s Chemists.Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  20. Kline, Stephen, Rosenberg, Nathan. “An Overview of Innovation.” InThe Positive Sum StrategyR Landau, Nathan Rosenberg, eds. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  21. Landau, Ralph, Rosenberg, Nathan. “Successful Commercialisation in the Chemical Process Industries.” InTechnology and the Wealth of Nations.R Landau, David C. Mowery, Nathan Rosenberg, eds. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  22. Murmann, Johann Peter, Landau, Ralph. “On the Making of Competitive Advantage: The Development of the Chemical Industries in Britain and Germany Since 1850.” InChemicals and Long-term Economic Growth: Insights from the Chemical Industry.Ashish Arora, Ralph Landau, Nathan Rosenberg, eds. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1998.Google Scholar
  23. Porter, MichaelCompetitive Strategy.New York: The Free Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  24. Rosenberg, Nathan. “Technological Change in the Chemicals: The Role of university-industry Relationships.” InChemicals and Long-term Economic Growth: Insights from the Chemical Industry.Ashish Arora, Ralph Landau, Nathan Rosenberg, eds. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1998.Google Scholar
  25. Spitz Peter H.Petrochemicals: The Rise of an Industry.New York, NY: Wiley, 1988.Google Scholar
  26. Teece D.J. Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implication for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy. Research Policy 1986; 15:285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Teece, David J. “Technological Change and the Nature of the Firm.” InTechnical Change and Economic Theory.Giovanni Dosi, Richard Nelson, Gerald Silverberg, Luc Soete, eds. London: Francis Pinter, 1988.Google Scholar
  28. Von Hippel E. Task Partitioning: An Innovation Process Variable. Research Policy 1990;19:407–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wise G. A New Role for Professional Scientists in Industry. Technology and Culture 1980; 21:408–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wright Gavin. “Can a Nation Learn? American Technology as a Network Phenomenon.” InLearning by Doing in Firms Markets and Countries.Raff D. Lamoreaux, Peter Temin, eds. Chicago: NBER, 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabrizio Cesaroni
    • 1
  • Myriam Mariani
    • 2
  1. 1.Scuola Superiore “Sant’ Anna”PisaItaly
  2. 2.University of Camerino (Italy), and MERIT, University of MaastrichtMaastrichtThe Nederlands

Personalised recommendations