Advertisement

The New Knowledge Intensive Direction of Technological Change

  • Cristiano AntonelliEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter elaborates a unifying approach to the determinants of technological change that brings together the frameworks of the Schumpeterian creative response, the induced technological change, the demand pull and the localized technological change. The integrated framework enables to explore the effects of absolute and relative technological congruence on the direction of technological change and to unveil its knowledge and labor intensive and fixed capital saving bias. The correct account of the role of knowledge as both an input and an output enables to understand that the actual direction of technological change at work in the knowledge growth regime is biased toward the use of creative labor that is capitalized as an intangible asset.

Keywords

Creative response Localized technological change Induced technological change Direction of technological change Technological congruence Knowledge intensity 

References

  1. Abramovitz, M., & David, P. A. (1996). Convergence and delayed catch-up: Productivity leadership and the waning of American exceptionalism. In R. Landau, T. Taylor, & G. Wright (Eds.), The mosaic of economic growth (pp. 21–62). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abramovitz, M., & David, P. A. (2001). Two centuries of American macroeconomic growth: From exploitation of resource abundance to knowledge-driven development (Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper No. 01–05).Google Scholar
  3. Acemoglu, D. K. (1998). Why do new technologies complement skills? Directed technical change and wage inequality. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, 1055–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Acemoglu, D. K. (2002). Directed technical change. Review of Economic Studies, 69, 781–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Acemoglu, D. K. (2003). Labor- and capital-augmenting technical change. Journal of European Economic Association, 1, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Acemoglu, D. K. (2010). When does labor scarcity encourage innovation? Journal of Political Economy, 118, 1037–1078.Google Scholar
  7. Acemoglu, D. K. (2015). Localized and biased technologies: Atkinson and Stiglitz’s new view, induced innovations, and directed technological change. Economic Journal, 125(3), 443–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (2006). Appropriate growth theory: A unifying framework. Journal of the European Economic Association, 4, 269–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Antonelli, C. (1995). The economics of localized technological change and industrial dynamics. Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Antonelli, C. (2003). The economics of innovation new technologies and structural change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Antonelli, C. (2008). Localized technological change: Towards the economics of complexity. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Antonelli, C. (2016a). The bumpy road to the knowledge economy. Economia e Politica Industriale, 43(3), 337–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Antonelli, C. (2016b). Technological congruence and the economic complexity of technological change. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 38, 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Antonelli, C. (2017). Digital knowledge generation and the appropriability trade-off. Telecommunications Policy, 40, 991–1002.Google Scholar
  15. Antonelli, C. (2018a). Knowledge exhaustibility and Schumpeterian growth. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(3), 779–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Antonelli, C. (2018b). The evolutionary complexity of endogenous innovation: The engines of the creative response. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Antonelli, C., & Colombelli, A. (2011). Globalization and directed technological change at the firm level: The European evidence. In G. Libecap (Ed.), Advances in the study of entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth (Vol. 22, pp. 1–20). Cambridge: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Antonelli, C., & Fassio, C. (2014). The economics of the light economy: Globalization, skill biased technological change and slow growth. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 87, 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Antonelli, C., & Fassio, C. (2016). Globalization and the knowledge economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 30(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Arrow, K. J. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. Review of Economic Studies, 29, 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Atkinson, A. B., & Stiglitz, J. E. (1969). A new view of technological change. Economic Journal, 79, 573–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Autor, D. H., Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2003). The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1279–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. David, P. A. (1975). Technological choice, innovation and economic growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Habakkuk, H. J. (1962). American and British technology in the nineteenth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hicks, J. R. (1932). The theory of wages. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Kaldor, N. (1966). Causes of the slow rate of growth in the United Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kaldor, N. (1967). Strategic factors in economic development. New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, Ithaca.Google Scholar
  28. Kaldor, N. (1972). The irrelevance of equilibrium economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaldor, N. (1981). The role of increasing returns technical progress and cumulative causation. Economie Appliquee, 34, 593–617.Google Scholar
  30. Marx, K. (1867). Das kapital: Kritik der politischen oekonomie. Hamburg: Verlag Von Otto Meissner.Google Scholar
  31. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1974). Neoclassical vs. evolutionary theories of economic growth: Critique and prospectus. Economic Journal, 84(336), 886–905.Google Scholar
  32. Pagano, U., & Rossi, M. A. (2009). The crash of the knowledge economy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33(4), 665–683.Google Scholar
  33. Rodrik, D. (2013). Unconditional convergence in manufacturing. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(1), 165–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ruttan, V. W. (1997). Induced innovation evolutionary theory and path dependence: Sources of technical change. Economic Journal, 107, 1520–1529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ruttan, V. W. (2001). Technology growth and development: An induced innovation perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Schmookler, J. (1966). Invention and economic growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schumpeter, J. A. (1947). The creative response in economic history. Journal of Economic History, 7, 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stiglitz, J. E. (1974). Alternative theories of wage determination and unemployment in LDCs: The labor turnover model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 88(2), 194–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stiglitz, J. E. (1987). Learning to learn, localized learning and technological progress. In P. Dasgupta & P. Stoneman (Eds.), Economic policy and industrial performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento Di Economia E Statistica Cognetti De Martiis, Collegio Carlo AlbertoUniversity of TurinTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations