Literature Review

Chapter
Part of the Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management book series (ITKM, volume 8)

Abstract

Over the last half-century, the technology revolution has replaced the industrial revolution as the source of comparative and competitive strength for the US economy. This is a paradigm shift of immense proportion. Product manufacturing know-how, once the premier domain of US firms, now competes globally with strong international rivals. Knowledge, in the form of science and technology, is viewed as the key driver of future economic power. Firms that understand these concepts will grow and succeed. Nations that support these concepts through effective policy will enable their economies to prosper.

Keywords

Foreign Direct Investment Gross Domestic Product Total Factor Productivity Technical Change Tacit Knowledge 
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.

References

  1. Abernathy, W. J., & Utterback, J. M. (1978, June/July). Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review, 80(7), 40–47.Google Scholar
  2. Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation management; strategies, implementation, and profits. New York: Oxford University Press, 82–102.Google Scholar
  3. Aiyar, S., & Dalgaard, C.-J. (2005). Total factor productivity revisited: A dual approach to development accounting. IMF Staff Papers, 25(1).Google Scholar
  4. Amidon, D. M. (2003). The innovation superhighway; harnessing intellectual capital for sustainable collaborative advantage. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (1990, December). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological designs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(4), 604–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 51, 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertinelli, L. (2005). R&D investments and the spatial dimension: Evidence from firm level data. The Review of Regional Studies, 35(2), 206–230.Google Scholar
  8. Brandenburger, A., & Barry, N. (1998). Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, H., & Hertzfeld, C. (1996). Global innovation/national competitiveness: A report of the CSIC senior policy group on national challenges. Washington: Center for Strategic and International Studies.Google Scholar
  10. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2006, October) Survey of current business, 86(10). Available from http://www.bea.gov/bea/pub/1006cont.htm.
  11. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2006, November). Available from http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2006/11November/1106_gdpandeconomy.pdf.
  12. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007). Available from http://www.bls.gov/mfp/home.htm.
  13. Carayannis, E. G., & Alexander, J. (1998). Achieving success and managing failure in technology transfer and commercialization: Lessons learned from US government R&D laboratories. International Journal of Technology Management , 17(3), 203–216.Google Scholar
  14. Carayannis, E. G., & Alexander, J. (2001). Is technological learning a firm core competence, when how and why? A longitudinal, multi-industry study of firm technological learning and market performance. Technovation, 22, 625–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carayannis, E. G., & Provance, M. (2007). Measuring firm innovativeness: Towards a composite innovation index built on firm innovative posture, propensity and performance attributes. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development. Google Scholar
  16. Carayannis, E., & Roy, S. (2000, June). Davids vs. Goliaths in the small satellite industry: The role of technological innovation dynamics in firm competitiveness. International Journal of Technovation , 20(6), 287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carayannis, E. G., & Wetter, J. (2004, April 3). The nature and dynamics of discontinuous vs. disruptive innovations and the S-curve. Paper presented at the 13th International Conference on Management of Technology. Washington: IAMOT.Google Scholar
  18. Christensen, C. M., Suarez, F. F., & Utterback, J. M. (1998, December). Strategies for survival in fast-changing industries. Management Science , 44(12), 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chuang, Y.-C. (1999). Foreign direct investment, R&D and spillover efficiency: Evidence from Taiwan’s manufacturing firms. The Journal of Development Studies , 35(4), 117–139, 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cooper, J. R. (1998). A multidimensional approach to the adoption of innovation. Management Decision, 36(8), 493–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Danzon, P. M. (2005). Productivity in pharmaceutical – biotechnology R&D: The role of experience and alliances. Journal of Health Economics, 24(2), 317–339, 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Diwan, R. K., & Chakraborty, C. (1991). High technology and international competitiveness. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  23. Doz, Y. L. (1985). Strategic management in multinational companies. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  24. Drejer, A. (2002). Situations for innovation management: Towards a contingency model. European Journal of Innovation Management , 5(1), 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Evangelista, R., Iammarino, S., Mastrotefano, V., & Silvani, A. (2001). Measuring the regional dimension of innovation: Lessons from the Italian innovation survey. Technovation , 21, 733–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fisher, J., & Pry, R. (1971). A simple substitution model of technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 3, 75–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Florida, R. L., & Kenney, M. (1990). The breakthrough illusion: Corporate America’s failure to move from innovation to mass production. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  28. Halal, W. E. (2004, August). The life cycle of evolution: A macro-technical analysis of civilization’s progress. Journal of Futures Studies, 9(1), 59–74.Google Scholar
  29. Hamel, G., & Prehalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hindle, B., & Lubar, S. D. (1986). Engines of change: The American industrial revolution, 1790–1860. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  31. Howes, C., & Singh, A. (2000). Competitiveness matters: Industry and economic performance in the U.S. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  32. Ibrahim, S. (2005). Drivers of innovation and influence of technological clusters. Engineering Management Journal, 17(3), 33–41.Google Scholar
  33. Jonash, R. S., & Sommerlatte, T. (1999). The innovation premium. Boston: Perseus.Google Scholar
  34. Jovanovic, B. (2002). Knowledge spillovers and inequality. The American Economic Review, 92(5), 1290–1308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krugman, P. (1992). Geography and trade. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  36. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Leifer, R., McDermott, C. M., O’Connor, G. C., Peters, L. S., Rice, M. P., Veryzer, R. W., et al. (2000). Radical innovation: How mature companies can outsmart upstarts. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  38. López-Bazo, E. (2006). Complementarity between local knowledge and the internationalization in regional technological progress. Journal of Regional Science , 46(5), 901–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mansfield, E., Rapport, A. R., Wagner, S., & Beardsley, G. (1977, May). Social and private rates of return from industrial innovations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91(2), 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marx, K. (1906). Capital: A critique of political economy. Chicago: C. H. Kerr.Google Scholar
  41. Meagher, K. (2004). Network density and R&D spillovers. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 53(2), 237–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moore, J. F. (1996). The death of competition: Leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar
  43. Moreno, R. (2005). Spatial spillovers and innovation activity in European regions. Environment and Planning, 37(10), 1793–1812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. National Science Board (2006). Science and engineering indicators, 2006. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  45. National Science Foundation (2007a). Retrieved on January 4, 2007. Available from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/randdef/fedgov.cfm.
  46. Nelson, R. R. (1977). In search of useful theory of innovation. New Holland Research Policy, 6, 37–76.Google Scholar
  47. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Belkknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Persons, W. M. (1921, May). Fisher’s formula for index numbers. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 3(5), 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  50. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  51. Porter, M. E. (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Prescott, E. C. (1998, August). Lawrence R. Klein lecture, 1997: Needed: A theory of total factor productivity. International Economic Review, 39(3), 525–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  54. Rolfe, I. (1999). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A review of the implications for training and development. Journal of European Industrial Training, 23(4/5), 224–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rosenberg, N. (1976, September). On technological expectations. The Economic Journal, 86(343), 523–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sakakibara, M. (2003). Strategic research partnerships: Empirical evidence from Asia. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(2), 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper Brothers.Google Scholar
  59. Scott, R. W. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  60. Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. (1999). Innovation rules; A strategic guide to the network economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  61. Solow, R. M. (1957, August). Technical change and the aggregate production function. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3), 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Solow, R. M. (1988). Growth theory: An exposition. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Sternberg, R. (2002). Internet domains and the innovativeness of cities/regions – Evidence from Germany and Munich. European Planning Studies, 10(2), 251–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tidd, J. (2001). Innovation management in context: Environmental organization & performance. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(3), 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1997). Managing strategic innovation and change; A collection of readings. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Utterback, J. M. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation; How companies can seize opportunities in the face of technological change. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Verspagen, B. (1999). Large firms and knowledge flows in the Dutch R&D system: A case study of Philips Electronics. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 11(2), 211–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. von Braun, C.-F. (1997). The innovation war. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  69. Wallace, D. (1995). Environmental policy and industrial innovation: Strategies in Europe, the USA, and Japan. Washington, DC: Energy and Environmental Programme, Earthscan Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer New York 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MarylandFairfaxUSA
  2. 2.AdelphiUSA

Personalised recommendations