How Path Dependency Affects Innovative Behavior of Firms

  • Elias G. Carayannis
  • Kadri Ukrainski
  • Jaan Masso
  • Urmas Varblane
Part of the Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management book series (ITKM)


The aim of the paper is to analyse the extent to which path-dependency is shaping innovative activities and their outcomes by considering the composite indicators of input, process, output and environment. We try to capture some dynamic aspects of path dependency by assessing it through the level and dynamics of value added in production in different industries. This work reveals path dependency by comparing different industries in a single country, and develops theoretical framework rooted in the resource-based theory of the firm, which sees firms as knowledge reservoirs, and in evolutionary economics, which sees innovation as an outcome of (path-dependent) knowledge production and use.


Process Innovation Product Innovation Path Dependency Innovative Activity Composite Indicator 
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.


  1. Breschi, S., Malerba, F. & Orsenigo, L. (2000). ‘Technological regimes and Schumpeterian ­patterns of innovation’, Economic Journal, 110, 388–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carayannis, E.G., Provance, M. (2008). ‘Measuring Firm Innovativeness: Towards a Composite Innovation Index Built on Firm Innovative Posture, Propensity and Performance Attributes’, International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development. Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 90–107.Google Scholar
  3. Chandler, A.D. (1990). The Enduring Logic of Industrial Success, Harward Business Review, Vol. 68, March-April: 132–140.Google Scholar
  4. Coombs, R., Hull, R. (1998). “Knowledge management practices” and path-dependency in innovation. Research Policy, 27: 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dhanani, S., Scholtès, P. (2002). Thailand’s Manufacturing Competitiveness: Promoting Technology, Productivity and Linkages, UNIDO SME Technical Working Paper Series, 8.Google Scholar
  6. Dosi, G. (1988), Sources, Procedures and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation, Journal of Economic Literature, 26: 1120–1171.Google Scholar
  7. Fagreberg, J., Godinho, M. (2003). Innovation and catching-up. Paper presented at the Workshop “The Many Guises of Innovation: What we have learnt and where we are heading”, Ottawa, October 23–24.2003.Google Scholar
  8. Fransman, M. (1998). Information, Knolwedge, Vison and Theories of the Firm, pp. 147–191 in Dosi, G., Teece, D. (Eds.) Technology, Organization, and Competitiveness: Perspectives on Industrial and corporate Change, Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Gerschenkron, A. (1962). Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective, Cambridge: The Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hagedoorn, J., Cloodt, M. (2003). “Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators”, Research Policy, Vol. 32, pp. 1365–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heinlo, A. (2006). ’Ettevõtete innovatsiooniuuringu tulemuste esialgne analüüs (aastad 2002-2004)’, Tallinn: Statistikaamet.Google Scholar
  12. Hobday, M. (1995). East Asian latecomer firms: learning the technology of electronics, World Development, Vol. 23, 7: 1171–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hollenstein, H. (1996). “A composite indicator of a firm’s innovativeness. An empirical analysis based on survey data for Swiss manufacturing”, Research Policy, Vol. 25, pp. 633–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaplinsky, R., Morris, M. (2001). A Handbook for Value Chain Research. Report prepared for the IDRC.Google Scholar
  15. Kay, A. (2005). A Critique of the Use of Path Dependency in Policy Studies, Public Administration, 83, 3: 553–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kleinknecht, A., Montfort, K. van, E. Brouwer (2000). ‘How consistent are innovation indicators? A factor analysis of CIS data’, University of Amsterdam, SERIE Research Memorandum No. 2000–28.Google Scholar
  17. Klepper, S., Simons, K. (1997). Technological Extinctions of Industrial Firms: An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes, Industrial and Corporate Change, 6, 379–460.Google Scholar
  18. Malerba, F. & Orsenigo, L. (1996). Schumpeterian patterns of innovation, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19, 1: 47–65.Google Scholar
  19. Mathews J.A. (2002). Competitive Advantages of the Latecomer Firm: A Resource-Based Account of Industrial Catch-Up Strategies, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol.19, 467–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mathews J.A. (2007). Latecomer strategies for catching-up. The cases of Renewable energies and the LED program. International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, Vol.1, 1: 34–42.Google Scholar
  21. Meade, D.S., (2007). Why Real Value Added is Not My Favorite Concept, unpublished manuscript, available at Accessed 19 June 2011.
  22. Mokyr, J. (1990). The Lever of Riches, Technological Creativity and Economic Progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Nelson, R.R. (ed) (1993). National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  25. Nicoletti, G., Scarpetta, S. and Boylaud, O. (2000). ‘Summary Indicators of Product Market Regulation with an Extension to Employment Protection Legislation’, OECD ECO/WKP No. 329.Google Scholar
  26. Pavitt, K. (2002). Knowledge about knowledge since Nelson and Winter: a mixed record, SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series, Paper No. 83.Google Scholar
  27. Penrose, E.T. (1959). The Theory of the growth of the Firm. Basil Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
  28. Sen, A. (1985), Commodities and Capabilities, Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  29. Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management, Strategic Management Journal, 18, 7: 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Terk, E., Viia, A., Lumiste, R., Heinlo, A. etc. (2007). ‘Innovation in Estonian Enterprises. Based on the Estonian results of the Fourth Community Innovation Survey (CIS4)’, Innovation Studies 7/2007, Enterprise Estonia.Google Scholar
  31. Von Tunzelmann, N., Wang, Q. (2007). Capabilities and production theory, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 18: 192–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elias G. Carayannis
    • 1
  • Kadri Ukrainski
    • 2
  • Jaan Masso
    • 2
  • Urmas Varblane
    • 2
  1. 1.Global and Entrepreneurial Finance Research Institute (GEFRI), School of BusinessGeorge Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations