Metropolitan Development of Nanotechnology: Concentration or Dispersion?

Chapter
Part of the Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society book series (YNTS, volume 2)

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.

Notes

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.

References

  1. Atkinson, Anthony. 1970. On the measurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory 2: 244–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bürgi, Birgit, and T. Pradeep. 2006. Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology in developing countries. Current Science 90(5): 645–658.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Florida, Richard. 2002. The rise of the creative Class. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  7. Florida, Richard. 2005. The world is spiky. The Atlantic Monthly October: 48–51.Google Scholar
  8. Fuchs, Gerhard and Philip Shapira, eds. 2005. Rethinking regional innovation and change. Path dependency or regional breakthrough? Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kay, Luciano, and Philip Shapira. 2009. Developing nanotechnology in Latin America. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 11, 259–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krugman, Paul. 1991. Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy 99(3): 483–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Lewenstein, Bruce. 2005. What counts as a ‘social and ethical issue’ in nanotechnology? HYLE—International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry 11(1): 5–18.Google Scholar
  19. Lux, 2005. Benchmarking U.S. states for economic development from nanotechnology. New York, NY: Lux Research.Google Scholar
  20. Lux, 2007. The nanotech report. Investment overview and market research for nanotechnology, 5th ed. New York, NY: Lux Research.Google Scholar
  21. Malecki, Edward J. 1997. Technology and Economic Development, 2nd ed. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Marshall, Alfred. 1890. Principles of economics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. Porter, Alan L., and Jan Youtie. 2008. How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology? Journal of Nanoparticle Research 11, 1023–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Porter, Alan L., Jan Youtie, Philip Shapira, and Dave Schoeneck. 2008. Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 10: 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Porter, Michael. 1990. The competitive advantage of nations. New York, NY: Free.Google Scholar
  28. 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).Google Scholar
  29. Rafols, Ismael, and Martin Meyer. 2009. Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics 81 (2), Online First.Google Scholar
  30. Roco, Mihail C. 2004. Nanoscale science and engineering: Unifying and transforming tools. AIChE Journal 50(5): 890–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Saxenian, Annalee. 1994. Regional advantage. Cambridge: Harvard.Google Scholar
  33. Schummer, Joachim. 2004, Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics 59: 425–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. Shapira, Philip, Jan Youtie, and Sushanta Mohapatra. 2003. Linking research production and development outcomes at the regional level. Research Evaluation, 12(1): 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar
  38. Street, Paul. 1992. Politics and technology. New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. 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.Google Scholar
  43. 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.Google Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations