Advertisement

Competition and Complementarity in Diffusion: The Case of Octane

  • Robert U. Ayres
  • Ike Ezekoye
Conference paper

Abstract

The standard ontogenic (life-cycle) model of technological evolution can be characterized briefly as follows (Ayres, 1987): (1) a radical invention (birth) creates a new technology; (2) it is commercialized on the basis of performance and rapidly developed by a series of improvements and modifications (infancy); (3) it is successful enough in the marketplace to attract many variants and imitators who hope to exploit a growing market (adolescence); (4) the pace of technological change finally slows down enough to permit standardization and exploitation of economies of scale, and competition on the basis of price rather than performance (maturity); and finally a new and better technology supplants it (senescence).

Keywords

Natural Gasoline Motor Fuel High Octane Base Fuel Research Octane Number 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arthur, W.B., 1983, Competing Technologies and Lock-in by Historical Events: The Dynamics of Allocation Under Increasing Returns, Center for Economic Policy Research, Paper 43, Stanford University, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Arthur, W.B., 1988a, Competing technologies: An overview, in G. Dosi et al,eds., Technical Change and Economic Theory,Pinter Publishers, London and New York.Google Scholar
  3. Arthur, W.B., 1988b, Self-reinforcing mechanisms in economics, in P.W. Anderson et al,eds., The Economy as an Evolving Complex System (Proceedings of the Evolutionary Paths of the Global Economy Workshop, September 1987, Santa Fe, NM, USA.), Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Ayres, R.U., 1987, The Industry-Technology Life Cycle: An Integrating Meta-Model RR-87–3, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.Google Scholar
  5. Crutchfield, J., Farmer, J.D., Packard, N.H., and Shaw, R.S., 1986, Chaos, Scientific American 255:46–57, December.Google Scholar
  6. Enos, J.L., 1962, Petroleum Progress and Profits, A History of Process Innovation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Fisher, J.C. and Pry, R.H., 1971, A simple substitution model of technological change, Technological Forecasting Social Change 3 (1): 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lakhani, H., 1975, Diffusion of environment-saving technological change: A petroleum refining case, Technological Forecasting 4 Social Change 7: 33–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Linstone, H. and Sahal, D., eds., 1976, Technological Substitution, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  10. Mahajan, V. and Peterson, R.A., 1985, Models for Innovation Diffusion, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Mahajan, V. and Wind, Y., 1986, Innovation Diffusion Models of New Product Acceptance, Ballinger Publishing Co., Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Raymond, L., 1980, Today’s fuels and lubricants — and how they got that way, Automotive Engineering, pp. 27–32, October.Google Scholar
  13. US Bureau of Mines, US Department of the Interior, Minerals Yearbook,various volumes, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  14. US Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transport, Highway Statistics,various volumes, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Williamson, H.F. and Daum, A.R., 1959, The American Petroleum Industry, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert U. Ayres
  • Ike Ezekoye

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations