- Email: [email protected]
The emergence of technological paradigms: The case of heat engines
Technology in Society 57 (2019) 135–141
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Technology in Society journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc
The emergence of technological paradigms: The case of heat engines
T
Keiichiro Suenaga Meiji University, Japan
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Emergence of technological paradigms Science and technology Innovation diagram Heat engine
While the long-term prospects of the global economy are unclear, the emergence of technological paradigms is expected. The emergence of technological paradigms is the most important phenomenon in innovation and economic development. However, it is negligent of economists, particularly neo-Schumpeterians and researchers of innovation, that the understanding of this process is still limited. The economic development considered in this paper is the emergence of technological paradigms. Moreover, the emergence of technological paradigms based on deeper layers generates new industries and economic development. The purpose of this paper is to examine the process by which the technological paradigm of the heat engine emerges and develops, based on a theory of the technological paradigms or economic development.
1. Introduction While the long-term prospects of the global economy are unclear, the emergence of technological paradigms is expected. The emergence of technological paradigms is the most important phenomenon in innovation and economic development and is one of the most significant themes in economics. The concept of ‘technological paradigms’ was introduced by Ref. [1]; and has been a great influence on the development of evolutionary economics, etc. (e.g. see the special section of Industrial and Corporate Change, 2008, vol. 17 (3),“Technological Paradigms: Past, Present and Future”). Thirty six years have passed since Dosi's paper was published, but the potential of this concept is not exhausted. In the meantime, while science has been playing an increasingly important role in the emergence of technological paradigms, the so-called ‘new economics of science’ has accomplished surprising advances during the last few decades. However, the factors and process involved in the emergence of technological paradigms has not yet been clarified. It is necessary for economists, particularly neo-Schumpeterian and evolutionary economists, to consider the factors and processes involved in the emergence of technological paradigms. However, some neo-Schumpeterians have discussed the emergence of technological paradigms. For example [3], talk about factors related to this emergence. It is ‘only when productivity along the old trajectories shows persistent limits to growth and future profits are seriously threatened that the high risks and costs of trying the new technologies appear as clearly justified’ (p.49). Moreover [1], discusses the economic, institutional and social factors through which technological paradigms are selected from existing
1
scientific knowledge. For example, the marketability, potential profitability and labour-saving capability of technological paradigms, as well as industrial and social conflict, can influence the process by which technological paradigms are selected. However, the actual factors related to the emergence of technological paradigms and advances in scientific knowledge are not discussed. Although some studies focus on the process after the emergence of a technological paradigm (e.g. Refs. [1,4–6]), few consider the process up to the emergence of such paradigms. Although one might not find anything close to a general theory of their emergence, as Cimoli and Dosi ([21], p. 254) point out, this paper attempts to build a basic theory. The most important factors in this paper's theory of economic development are the following: (1) ‘advances in scientific knowledge’ and (2) ‘advances in technological knowledge’. The chained evolution (coevolution) of scientific and technological knowledge generates new technological paradigms, new industries and economic development.1 The economic development considered in this paper is the emergence of technological paradigms. With regard to Ref. [1] definitions, this paper defines ‘technological paradigms’ as ‘a “model” and a “pattern” of a solution to selected technological problems, based on selected scientific knowledge’ and defines ‘technological trajectories’ as ‘the progress process of technological knowledge, based on a technological paradigm’. A new combination of scientific and technological knowledge generates new technological paradigms regardless of whether scientific knowledge precedes technological knowledge or vice versa. Therefore, the issue of which type of development occurs first is not important here. A chain of science and technology forms an evolutionary system, and its evolution generates economic development.
E-mail address: [email protected]. See Refs. [8,23,24,58] about the relationship between science and technology.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.12.010 Received 12 August 2016; Received in revised form 15 December 2018; Accepted 21 December 2018 Available online 24 December 2018 0160-791X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Technology in Society 57 (2019) 135–141
K. Suenaga
only when the innovation was realised, but also a chain of science and technology before the innovation. On the other hand, some studies that analyse the process of the heat engine's emergence evaluate the role of science properly. For example, Dickinson ([49], pp. 168–170) states that ‘an important step leading to the invention of the steam-engine was the discovery of the pressure of the atmosphere …. The discovery suggested the possibility of using atmospheric pressure to do work on a piston beneath which a vacuum could be created … [and this] culminated in the invention of the steamengine.’ In addition, ‘by combining the expansive properties of steam with the recently discovered pressure of the atmosphere’ ([11]; p.56), the steam engine could be brought into operation [12]. also describe the process of the heat engine's emergence and insist that ‘clearly, science played an important role in the development of the steam engine’ (p. 253).5 The purpose of this paper is to examine the process by which the technological paradigm of the heat engine emerges and develops, based on a theory of the technological paradigms or economic development.6
Although advances along a technological trajectory, diffusions of knowledge and increases of capital and labour are important for ‘economic growth’, this paper considers them to be supplementary factors for ‘economic development’. Existing technological paradigms have a limit (or a characteristic of diminishing returns), and the emergence of technological paradigms generates economic development. This paper pays particular attention to the process until new technological paradigms emerge. How do new technological paradigms emerge? [2] clarified the hierarchy of technological paradigms and the characteristics of each layer on the basis of the analysis by Ref. [7] with regard to the transistor and IC. In Ref. [8]; the discussion is refined and theorised, and the emergence of technological paradigms is discussed (see Ref. [8] for a more detailed survey of science and technology). Although [2] demonstrates that the theory in Ref. [8] can be applied to the semiconductor industry, can this theory be applied to other industries?2 This paper examines heat engines, which started to develop more than 300 years ago.3 Although a discussion on whether the theory in this paper can be applied to other industries should be held in future, it is significant now, when considering long-term economic development, to examine old and new industries such as heat engines and semiconductors. We have to build a theory of long-term economic development (including the pre-Industrial Revolution era) and not a theory that is only applicable to the Industrial Revolution era or recent industries. The evaluation of the relationship between science and technology that developed in the emergence of the technological paradigm of heat engines will differ depending on the researcher. For example [9], insists that ‘the growth of scientific knowledge owed much to the concerns and achievements of technology; there was far less flow of ideas or methods the other way’ (p. 61) and that ‘this was true even of the steam-engine, which is often put forward as the prime example of science-spawned innovation’ (p. 61, n. 1).4 Allen ([29], p.164) also insists that ‘[w]hile Newcomen's break through was based on seventeenth-century scientific discoveries, science did not provide useful new knowledge until far into the nineteenth century’. Furthermore, some studies that discuss the relationship between science and technology in heat engines do not sufficiently discuss the scientific advances made in the 17th century that impacted the development of the heat engine because they pay too much attention to the development process occurring after its emergence (e.g. Ref. [10]). Allen ([15], pp. 35–36) insists that ‘steam power was a spin-off of the Scientific Revolution … The science of the engine was pan-European, but the R&D was conducted in England because that was where it paid to use the steam engine … Despite the scientific breakthroughs, the steam engine would not have been developed had the British coal industry not existed’. However, this paper discusses a chain of science and technology before Newcomen's invention. In this process, not only the British coal industry, which Allen emphasises, but also various motivations for scientists and technologists, played an important role. For example, the Parisian Science Academy, which Jean Baptiste Colbert established in order to foster technological development, had a great effect on the emergence of the steam engine. In order to understand the essence of economic development, we have to consider not
2. Innovation diagram, technological paradigms and hierarchy7 Fig. 1 illustrates Dosi's ‘technological paradigms’ and ‘technological trajectories’ [1], based on the innovation diagram of [7].8 In Yamaguchi's diagram, existing scientific knowledge (S) advances through scientific research etc. (S1 → S2). Advances in scientific knowledge are indicated by a rightward arrow in the soil because they are not valued economically. Existing technological knowledge (T) advances through technological development etc. (T1 → T1‘). This is illustrated as the upward arrow above the soil.9 That they are valued economically means they achieve success as goods in the market. With regard to Ref. [1] definitions, this paper defines ‘technological paradigms’ as ‘a “model” and a “pattern” of a solution to selected technological problems, based on selected scientific knowledge’, and defines ‘technological trajectories’ as ‘the progress process of technological knowledge, based on a technological paradigm’. In Fig. 1, technological paradigms are expressed as a dotted line, and technological trajectories are illustrated as upward arrows within the technological paradigms. Although Dosi, given the stock of scientific knowledge, discusses the process whereby technology is selected from existing scientific knowledge, scientific progress such as progress from S1 to S2 is illustrated in this figure. Advanced scientific knowledge, S2, may induce new technological knowledge, T2, or may be triggered by existing technological knowledge, T2. Therefore, Fig. 1 includes both cases. Whether these advances are improvements along a technological trajectory or a paradigm shift causing new technological trajectories to emerge depends on whether or not the ‘selected scientific knowledge’ as the basis of the technological trajectory is new (regardless of whether 5
[28] discussion uses the concepts of propositional and prescriptive knowledge instead of science and technology. 6 It is more difficult for us to explain a complicated phenomenon via a simple theory than to illustrate intricate affairs in a complex theory. However, it is better to grasp the essence of long-term economic development by paying attention to the most significant factors. 7 About this section, see Ref. [8]. 8 However, some studies have tried to illustrate the relationship between S&T or the relationship between the technological paradigms and trajectories (e.g. Refs. [21–24,29]), see Ref. [8] about the characteristic and problem. 9 In Ref. [8]; the relationship between science and technology is discussed in terms of a number of models, based on Yamaguchi's innovation diagram. The models are the Price model, which pays attention to the autonomy of science and technology; the Bush (linear) model, which focuses on science-driven technological progress; the Rosenberg model, which is based on technologydriven scientific progress; and the Dosi model, which considers the relationship between science and technology from the viewpoint of technological paradigms and trajectories like those shown in Fig. 1.
2 See also [25] for the technological paradigms of recent cases such as the drug industry. In addition [26], discuss the relationship between science and technology in emerging fields such as DNA nanoscience and nanotechnology. 3 See also [55] and [27] for more information on the importance of steam engines in the Industrial Revolution era. 4 While Landes ([9], p. 104) insists that there ‘is no doubt some truth’ that Newcomen and Watt were affected by science, he states ‘how much is impossible to say. One thing is clear, however: once the principle of the separate condenser was established, subsequent advances owed little or nothing to theory’. However, it is significant for us to clarify the role of science in the emergence of new technological paradigms.
136
Technology in Society 57 (2019) 135–141
K. Suenaga technology
1
T1’ (advanced technological knowledge based on S1)
2
located in the deeper layer of soil (referred to here as the third layer), whereas smaller advances such as connection methods are considered as being produced in a shallower soil layer (referred to here as the first layer). Advances in scientific knowledge arising in the third layer form more extensive technological paradigms, and advances in scientific knowledge occurring in the first layer form smaller technological paradigms. Advances in scientific knowledge in the second layer are not as extensive as those occurring in the third layer, but are more extensive than those arising in the first layer. As a result, a hierarchy is also formed in technological paradigms when a hierarchy of scientific knowledge exists.13 In addition, the hierarchical development of scientific knowledge and technological paradigms results in industrial and economic development.14
T2’ (advanced technological knowledge based on S2)
T1 (technological knowledge based on S1)
T2 (technological knowledge based on S2)
S1 (existing sscientific sci cientific knowledge) knowl knowle edge) dge)
S2 (advanced scientific soil knowledge)
science
Fig. 1. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories, based on innovation diagram Source: Suenaga ([2], Figure 4) Note: This figure illustrates the view of [1]; based on Yamaguchi's innovation diagram [7].
3. Innovation diagram of thermodynamics and heat engines How do we illustrate the development of thermodynamics and heat engines based on the innovation diagram presented in Section 2? [13] describes his innovation diagram with regard to heat engines from a broad perspective, including factors such as Henry VIII and slavery, and [14] considers the development of thermodynamics.15 In this paper, his analysis is reconsidered in detail and the concept of hierarchy is introduced. Fig. 2 illustrates the chain of science and technology regarding thermodynamics and heat engines, as well as the hierarchy of scientific knowledge and technological paradigm. (A detailed explanation of technological paradigms will be given in the next section). Although a simple suction pump is limited in regard to the height to which it can raise liquid, an opportunity to overcome this limit was provided by Torricelli's discovery of atmospheric pressure in 1643. This advance in scientific knowledge induced the creation of various vacuum pumps by Guericke and Boyle and stimulated advances in science such as Boyle's law. In particular, the invention of the gunpowder engine and an illustration of its fundamental principles by Huygens in 1673 was the most significant advance in scientific knowledge in the development of the heat engine. A long time was needed to put Huygens' internal combustion engine into practice. Although Papin's invention, which used steam instead of gunpowder, was not an internal combustion engine like Huygens' gunpowder engine, it was an external combustion engine that used fire outside the cylinder. This technology then gained economic value, was commercialized, and generated a new industry through the inventions of Savery and Newcomen. In this process, the relative price of goods such as coal played an important role, as [15] found in his analysis. Newcomen's engine was an external combustion engine among heat engines and, in particular, was an engine that utilised atmospheric pressure. After that, although technologists such as Smeaton improved Newcomen's engine, it was Watt who perceived the limits of
scientific knowledge precedes technological knowledge or vice versa). For example, although William B. Shockley failed to put the amplification effects into practice on the solid body, semiconductor, using the principle of the triode valve, Walter H. Brattain and John Bardeen sought the reason for Shockley's failure and discovered the existence of amplification effects through their research of surface states. Then, the discovery immediately induced the invention of the point contact type transistor. The discovery of amplification effects based on research into surface states was an advance in scientific knowledge and the invention of the point contact transistor was an advance in technological knowledge. The technological knowledge, based on the new specific scientific knowledge, caused a paradigm shift with a new technological trajectory. In addition, Shockley theoretically advocated the concept of the junction type transistor by asking why the point type transistor had the amplification effects. Furthermore, his co-workers at the Bell laboratory succeeded in the invention of the junction type transistor by using the grown junction method. This success was due to a combination of the advances in scientific knowledge concerning the junction type transistor and the advances in technological knowledge about the grown junction method, which then gave rise to a new technological paradigm based on the new specific scientific knowledge.10 In addition, although advances in scientific knowledge have been located in the soil up to this point, the soil itself contains numerous layers.11 For example, while the academic framework itself changed, advances also occurred in science within the academic framework. Although the transformation of operating principles from current injection, which is the basis of bipolar transistor technology, to field effect, which is the basis of FET (Field Effect Transistor) technology, is based on the specific academic framework of quantum mechanics, it is less significant than the transformation of the academic framework. Moreover, the transformation of connection methods from point type to junction type is less significant than the transformation of the operating principles, because the point and junction types are based on a specific operating principle, current injection.12 With regard to the diagram above, advances in the academic framework are depicted as being
13
Therefore, it can be also interpreted as follows: If seen from the third layer, the shift in paradigm on the first or second layer will be an improvement along the technological trajectory in the technological paradigm of the third layer; If seen from the second layer, the shift in paradigm on the first layer will be an improvement along the technological trajectory in the technological paradigm of the second layer; If seen from the first layer, the change from the grown junction method to the alloy junction method will be an improvement along the technological trajectory in the technological paradigm of the first layer. According to this interpretation, whether a specific change is an improvement along a technological trajectory or a shift in paradigm, with new technological trajectories emerging, depends on the layer from which it is seen. Moreover, although the scientific knowledge can also still be classified in detail, it will be enough just to clarify the existence of the hierarchy of scientific knowledge, or a technological paradigm, since the purpose here is to discuss essentials. 14 [53] discuss similar processes from the viewpoint of ‘innovation cascades’. 15 Yamaguchi was originally a physicist and teaches management of technology at Kyoto University. His model could be further developed by utilizing neo-Schumpeterian viewpoints and research results.
10
See Ref. [2] for further discussion. [30] also mentions the discussion about the soil. ‘I like to think of phenomena as hidden underground …. Effects nearer the surface, say that wood rubbed together creates heat and thereby fire, are stumbled upon by accident or casual exploration and are harnessed in the earliest times. … The discovery of the most deeply hidden phenomena … require modern methods of discovery and recovery’ (p.57). ‘One effect leads to another, then to another, until eventually a whole vein of related phenomena has been mined into. A family of effects forms a set of chambers connected by seams and passageways, one leading to another …. Phenomena form a connected system of excavated chambers and passageways. The whole system underground is connected’ (pp. 58–59). 12 See Ref. [8] for the discussion in detail. 11
137
Technology in Society 57 (2019) 135–141
K. Suenaga
of heat engines had gradually been systematised as an academic framework according to research conducted later. Thermodynamics, the basis of the heat engine, is an academic framework that completely differs from simple dynamics, the basis of a suction pump. Although Huygens' internal combustion engine needed a long time before being put into practice because of technological difficulties, advances in scientific knowledge by researchers such as Boyle and Papin built the basis of a technological paradigm of external combustion engines (2-a). In addition, an advance in scientific knowledge concerning atmospheric pressure by Torricelli spurred the invention of Newcomen's atmospheric engine and formed a technological paradigm (1-a). Watt's double acting engine, based on a technological paradigm of the external combustion engine (2-a), was not based on atmospheric pressure but on a technological paradigm (1-b) influenced by Black's study of steam heat. Furthermore, although the internal combustion engine developed by many technologists such as Otto was based on a large-scale technological paradigm of heat engines (3-b), it was in itself a medium-scale technological paradigm (2-b) based on the scientific knowledge of thermal efficiency developed by scientists such as Carnot. Although the scientific knowledge that forms the basis of the heat engine is an academic framework of thermodynamics (3-b), some theories about steam heat and heat efficiency exist within thermodynamics. These theories are useful in developing the operating principles of a heat engine; the theory of steam contributed to development of the external combustion engine (2-a), and the theory of heat efficiency helped develop the internal combustion engine (2-b). With regard to the external combustion engine, the discovery of atmospheric pressure led to the invention of Newcomen's atmospheric engine (1-a), and the theory of steam heat contributed to Watt's invention, which separated the condenser from the cylinder (1-b). Although Arthur ([30], p. 101) insists that ‘Watt's steam engine … provides for a new component – a separate condenser – but uses no new principle,’ Watt's separate condenser could not have been properly developed without scientific knowledge of the temperature of steam. ‘Watt's invention of the condensing-engine … [was based] on scientific research and technological insight’ ([17]; pp.49–50). Carnot's theory did not affect the invention of Otto's internal combustion engines19 but greatly affected the technological development of engines coming afterwards. These relationships between science and technology cannot be explained using a linear model,20 as they emerged through interactions between science and technology. The hierarchy of scientific knowledge forms the hierarchy of technological paradigms, whilst the hierarchical evolution of technological paradigms generates economic development.
Fig. 2. Innovation diagram: Thermodynamics and heat engines.
atmospheric engines and separated the condenser from the cylinder in order to increase its thermal efficiency. While Watt was influenced by Black's scientific knowledge regarding the temperature of steam, he succeeded in covering this scientific knowledge into technological knowledge with an economic value. Watt continued to improve the efficiency of steam engines and took out a patent for double-acting engines in 1782. This new engine did not utilise atmospheric pressure but made use of steam power on both the ascent and descent of pistons within a cylinder; it was an external combustion engine that made use of the power of steam, using scientific knowledge concerning the temperature of steam. Moreover, steam engines were used in many ways.16 After that, although technology such as Trevithick's high-pressure engine saw advances,17 it was Carnot who perceived the limit of the external combustion engine and developed scientific knowledge in order to increase its thermal efficiency further. Although Carnot's theory emphasised the advantages of the internal combustion engine versus the external combustion engine, about 200 years passed before Huygens' scientific knowledge concerning internal combustion engines was put into practice as a technology, for example in Otto's engine; this interval was needed to allow related technology to accumulate. ‘With this new science, engineers were quickly able to bring the heat engine to the higher plateaus of development as we know it today’ ([16]; p.60).18 4. Hierarchical development of scientific knowledge and technological paradigms
5. The emergence of technological paradigms and the field of combining science and technology
In this section, the hierarchy of scientific and technological knowledge related to thermodynamics and heat engines is clarified (Table 1). Although the evolution of the heat engine forms a technological paradigm (3-b), a study by Huygens that clarified the principle
In addition, as we can see, the existence of a field of knowledge creation in which scientists and technologists studied collaboratively played a significant role in the emergence of technological paradigms. In Huygens' studies within the Parisian Science Academy, technologists like Papin, an assistant of Huygens, played an important role, and scientists such as Leibnitz, who studied the gunpowder engine as an assistant of Huygens, influenced the success of Huygens' studies. Although Papin's invention of the steam engine was not put into practice, his knowledge was influenced by Huygens, Leibnitz and Boyle (Papin was also an assistant of Boyle in England). The Parisian Science Academy, which was established in 1666, sought not only scientific knowledge but also technological results. For example, it pursued geometry, mechanics, optics, astronomy, geography, physics, medicine, chemistry and anatomy, as well as architecture, fortification, sculpture, painting and design, driving and
16 For example, ‘[i]n Britain, Cornish pumping engines dominated Cornwall, Newcomen pumping engines dominated the coalfield regions, and Watt engines dominated the manufacturing regions of Manchester and Lancaster’ ([57], p. 724). 17 Such technology may take the place of old (‘creative destruction’), or may co-exist with old (‘co-evolution’). See also [56] about the co-evolution of technology. 18 [31] states that ‘thus the gradual penetration of engineering practice by the maturing science of thermodynamics from the 1860s provided a framework of rational principles by which to appraise and correct existing design and practice. By directing attention to the various sources of waste and inefficiency science suggested the lines along which advances could most effectively be pursued and indicated the broad limits within which further improvement was unlikely or attainable only at unacceptable cost’ (pp. 447–448). Although the development of the heat engine after that is very interesting, it may be sufficient for us to discuss it only up to this point.
19 20
138
For example see Ref. [32]. This is Bush's model in Ref. [8].
Technology in Society 57 (2019) 135–141
K. Suenaga
Table 1 Technological paradigms/scientific knowledge: Thermodynamics and heat engines .
6. Conclusions and implications
elevating water, metallurgy, agriculture and navigation (Huygens, [51]; 1891, p.328). This was a result of combining the desires of scientists who aimed to elucidate scientific knowledge but had no research resources, with the desires of Louis XIV and Colbert, who pursued technological usefulness and had funds to spare.21 Within the field, which sought both science and technology, collaboration between scientists such as Huygens, who created new scientific knowledge in various areas, and technologists such as Papin, who had enormous technological and inventive capability, contributed remarkably to the emergence of technological paradigms offering great potential. In addition, within the Royal Society of London, which was established in 1660, scientific knowledge and practical technology were both pursued.22 Papin's digester was demonstrated in 1679, while his steam engine of 1690 was reviewed in the Society's Philosophical Transactions of 1697. This fusion of science and technology built the basis for a technological paradigm of steam engines, which led to a great leap after 1700. Watt, who was engaged as an instrument maker at Glasgow University, was greatly influenced by Professor Black at this university. Communication between scientists such as Black, who sought scientific knowledge, and technologists such as Watt, who wanted technological results (although he also had great capability as a scientist) also generated a great potential for technological development. Although various arguments have been made regarding the relationship between Black and Watt, ‘[w]hether or not Watt's crucial insight of the separate condenser was due to Black's theory of latent heat, there can be little doubt that the give-and-take between the scientific community in Glasgow and the creativity of men such as Watt was essential in smoothing the path of technological progress' ([18]; p.323). In the emergence of technological paradigms, although scientists and technologists did not necessarily study in the same field, there are many cases where collaborative research between scientists and technologists has been conducted.23 In these fields, ‘tacit knowledge’ shared by scientists and technologists also plays an important role.24 Because the emergence of a technological paradigm as new technological knowledge, based on new scientific knowledge, is a great innovation that surpasses the limit of existing technological paradigms, collaborative research between scientists and technologists is often needed for it to come about.
21 22
As shown in Section 2, the innovation diagram of [7] was developed from a neo-Schumpeterian viewpoint and the concept of hierarchy was introduced. The revised version of Yamaguchi's innovation diagram then clarified that a chained evolution (co-evolution) of science and technology generates a new technological paradigm and new industry, and the hierarchical evolution results in economic development [19]. indicates the importance of applying science to economic production as the main characteristic of modern economic growth. However, almost all theories of economic development, like that of [20]; treat science as an exogenous factor. Nevertheless, a true theory of economic development can be constructed by endogenising advances in science. In this sense, [20] theory of economic development and [1] theory of technological paradigms, which does not endogenise advances in science, have a limit to their ability to elucidate the essential factors of economic development. The hierarchical evolution of a chain of scientific and technological knowledge generates economic development. While traditional economic growth theory demonstrates the economic growth process by plotting the capital stock per capita on a horizontal axis and output per capita on a vertical axis, this paper considers economic development by plotting science and technology on these axes instead. The essential factors in economic development are advances in knowledge such as scientific and technological knowledge, rather than capital and labour, which are the focus of neoclassical economic growth theory. Moreover, the process of economic development is an evolutionary rather than an equilibrium process, and lock-in effects or path-dependency exert an important influence over this process [21]. illustrate these technological and technological trajectories by plotting two factors of production on vertical and horizontal axes. In addition, Allen ([29], pp.152–163) discusses the effects of innovation (Allen's own words were ‘macro-inventions’ and ‘micro-improvements’) by plotting capital and labour on both axes. Nevertheless, the current paper focuses not on the results of the change in technological paradigms and the inventions on the macro level, but rather on the processes and sources. Although the applicability of this theory to other industries needs to be examined in the future, the model is applicable to old and new industries such as heat engines and semiconductors and has great potential for clarifying economic development.25 The important factors in economic development are advances in scientific and technological knowledge. Even before the emergence of heat engines, advances in scientific and technological knowledge generated economic growth slowly; however scientific knowledge played only a slight role. The shift from slow to rapid growth through the Industrial Revolution, as [18] insists, may be related to the ‘Industrial Enlightenment’, which originated in the Baconian programme of the seventeenth century. With ‘Industrial Enlightenment’, science and technology affect each other intimately, and the ‘modern economic growth’
See also [33,34]. See also the Charter of the Royal Society of London (1662) and ([35]; ch.
16). 23
These cases can be seen in other industries (e.g. the semiconductor industry). See also [2,7] for a detailed discussion. 24 Although [36] discuss knowledge creation through cases such as ‘Homebakery’ and ‘Gaou’, the fields of collaborative research and tacit knowledge also play significant roles in knowledge creation's ability to generate new industries.
25
139
See also [37] about the emergence of modern steelmaking technology.
Technology in Society 57 (2019) 135–141
K. Suenaga
model of long-term economic development (including the pre-Industrial Revolution era) and not a model that is only applicable to the Industrial Revolution era or recent industries. Innovation researchers and neoSchumpeterians have to focus more seriously on the emergence of technological paradigms, which are the most fundamental phenomena in various innovations.
of [19] was generated. We have to build a theory of economic development that is equally applicable both before and after the Industrial Revolution (and even valid in relation to the modern era).26 In the case of the heat engine, a hierarchy of scientific knowledge exists in which the third layer is an academic framework, the second layer represents the operating principles and the first layer contains methods of connection. Each layer's characteristics may differ in other industries. However, the most important point is the existence of a hierarchy of scientific knowledge as well as the existence of a hierarchy of technological paradigms based on the hierarchy of scientific knowledge. The existence of these hierarchies is a factor that brings short-, middle- and long-term economic fluctuations. In addition, by clarifying the hierarchy of technological paradigms, the continuity and discontinuity of industrial development can be discussed.27 Furthermore, organisations like the Parisian Science Academy and the Royal Society of London, which pursue both science and technology, played an important role in the emergence of technological paradigms related to heat engines. This is similar to the case of semiconductors, where Bell Laboratories played a significant role. Although an organisation that focuses on technological development plays an important role in advances along a technological trajectory, a field that straddles science and technology often has a significant function in the emergence of technological paradigms with advances in scientific knowledge (even if scientific knowledge precedes technological knowledge or vice versa). [18] points out that organisations like the Parisian Science Academy and the Royal Society of London became institutional factors in reducing access costs to knowledge. However, knowledge creation that generates new industries needs discontinuous processes, such as new combinations of scientific and technological knowledge, through collaborative research of scientists and engineers, and does not occur naturally as a result of reduced access costs to knowledge.28 Moreover, this process of forging new combinations does not only happen in one direction from science to technology (the Bush model or linear model), but is formed by a chained evolution (co-evolution) of science and technology. Furthermore, the emergence of such new technological paradigms generates economic development. These facts are very important for creating new technological paradigms in corporate strategies or governmental policies. The last few decades are often called an era of open innovation [22]. Large central laboratories such as Bell Laboratories of AT&T used to play a significant role in the emergence of technological paradigms (in particular, based on deeper layers of soil). However, in an era of open innovation, it is difficult for a central laboratory in a large company to create new technological paradigms (based on the third layer). In particular, in an era of open innovation, it is necessary to develop a management framework and policies for producing new technological paradigms based on the third layer. This paper, although resurrecting an old case (heat engines), identifies the relationship between science and technology that is needed to generate a new industry and develop the economy, which is an important theme in any era. In addition, the model in this paper could be applied to the ‘Stone Age’ that featured ‘primitive science’ rather than ‘modern science’.29 We have to build a
References [1] Giovanni Dosi, Technological paradigms and technological trajectories, Res. Pol. 11 (1982) 147–162. [2] Keiichiro Suenaga, The hierarchy of technological paradigms: a case study of semiconductor industry, Josai University Bulletin, The Department of Economics 33 (2015) 1–13 (in Japanese). [3] Chris Freeman, C. Perez, Structural crises of adjustment, business cycles and investment behaviour, in: G. Dosi, et al. (Ed.), Technical Change and Economic Theory, Pinter Publishers, 1988, pp. 38–66 ch.3. [4] Wilfred Dolfsma, Loet Leydesdorff, Lock-in and break-out from technological trajectories: modeling and policy implications, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 76 (2009) 932–941. [5] Richard R. Nelson, Factors affecting the power of technological paradigms, Ind. Corp. Change 17 (3) (2008) 485–497. [6] Alexander Peine, Technological paradigms and complex technical systems: the case of smart homes, Res. Pol. 37 (2008) 508–529. [7] Eiichi Yamaguchi, Innovation: Paradigm Disruptions and Fields of Resonance, NTT publishing, 2006 (in Japanese). [8] Keiichiro Suenaga, The emergence of technological paradigms: the evolutionary process of science and technology in economic development, in: Pyka Andreas, Foster John (Eds.), The Evolution of Economic and Innovation Systems, Springer, 2015, pp. 211–227. [9] David S. Landes, The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present, Cambridge University Press, 1969. [10] J. Jewkes, D. Sawers, R. Stillerman, The Source of Invention, Macmillan & Co. Ltd., London, 1962. [11] Donald S.L. Cardwell, Technology, Science and History, Heinemann Educational Books, 1972. [12] Richard G. Lipsey, Kenneth I. Carlaw, Clifford T. Bekar, Economic Transformations: General Purpose Technologies and Long-term Economic Growth, Oxford University Press, 2005. [13] Eiichi Yamaguchi, Industrial revolution as paradigm disruptive innovations, Organ. Sci. 42 (1) (2008) 37–47 (in Japanese). [14] Eiichi Yamaguchi, Five Physics Theories to Learn before You Die, Tikuma Shobo, 2014 (in Japanese). [15] Robert C. Allen, Global Economic History: a Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2011. [16] John F. Sandfort, Heat Engines, Doubleday & Company, Inc, 1962. [17] D.S.L. Cardwell, From Watt to Clausius: the Rise of Thermodynamics in the Early Industrial Age, Heinemann Educational, 1971. [18] Joel Mokyr, The intellectual origins of modern economic growth, J. Econ. Hist. 65 (2005) 285–351. [19] Simon S. Kuznets, Modern Economic Growth: Rate, Structure and Spread, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1966. [20] Joseph A. Schumpeter, The Theory of Economic Development, Oxford University Press, 1934. [21] Mario Cimoli, Giovanni Dosi, Technological paradigms, patterns of learning and development: an introductory roadmap, J. Evol. Econ. 5 (1995) 243–268. [22] Henry Chesbrough, Open Innovation: a New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Harvard Business School Corporation, 2003. [23] Stephen Jay Kline, Innovation Style in Japan and the United States: Cultural Bases; Implications for Competitiveness, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1990. [24] Donald E. Stokes, Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation, Brookings Institution Press, 1997. [25] M. Coccia, Technological paradigms and trajectories as determinants of the R&D corporate change in drug discovery industry, Int. J. Knowl. Learn. 10 (1) (2015) 29–43. [26] Hanh Luong La, Rudi Bekkers, Önder Nomaler, The relation between scientific and technological knowledge in emerging fields: evidence from DNA nanoscience and DNA nanotechnology, Paper to Be Presented at the 17th Conference of the International Joseph A. Schumpeter Society, Seoul, South Korea, July 2, 2018, 2018. [27] Kristine Bruland, Keith Smith, Assessing the role of steam power in the first industrial revolution: the early work of nick von Tunzelmann, Res. Pol. 42 (2013) 1716–1723. [28] Joel Mokyr, The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy, Princeton University Press, 2002. [29] Robert C. Allen, The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective, Cambridge University Press, 2009. [30] W. Brian Arthur, The Nature of Technology: what it Is and How it Evolves, Free Press, New York, 2009.
26 Although the discussions of [15,38,39] are interesting, the discussion in this paper is similar to that of [18,28]. However [28], emphasises the reduction in costs of access to knowledge as a result of the ICT revolution, while [2] analyses the chained evolution of science and technology as generating an ICT revolution by using the same model in this paper. 27 See also discussions about techno-economic paradigms and long waves, such as [3]. 28 Moreover, ‘the chances of predicting possible outcomes of novelty are almost zero because novelty is unknown by definition’ ([40]; p. 67). See also [41,42]. Regarding knowledge transcendence [43], points out the importance of abstraction and abduction, and [44] discusses the importance of artificial scepticism.
29
140
See also [28,30,45–47,48,50,52,54].
Technology in Society 57 (2019) 135–141
K. Suenaga
January 2011. [44] Dengjian Jin, The Great Knowledge Transcendence: the Rise of Western Science and Technology Re-framed, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. [45] Robin Dunbar, The Trouble with Science: Science, Magic and Religion, Faber and Faber, 1995. [46] Claude Lévi-Strauss, La Pansée Sauvage, Librairie Plon, (1962). [47] Steven Mithen, The Prehistory of the Mind: a Search for the Origins of Art, Religion and Science, Thames and Hudson Ltd, 1996. [48] Rondo Cameron, Larry Neal, A Concise Economic History of the World: from Paleolithic Times to the Present, fourth ed., Oxford University Press, 2003. [49] H.W. Dickinson, The steam-engine to 1830, in: Charles Singer, et al. (Ed.), A History of Technology, ume IV Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1958, pp. 168–198 Ch. 6. [50] John F. Hoffecker, The evolutionary ecology of creativity, in: Elias Scott (Ed.), Origins of Human Innovation and Creativity, Elsevier, 2012, pp. 89–101 ch.7. [51] Huygens, Christiaan, 1663, (reprinted in Oeuvres Complètes de Christiaan Huygens, Tome IV, Correspondance 1662-1663, 1891, 325-329). [52] Richard G. Klein, The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins, third ed., The University of Chicago Press, 2009. [53] Jorge Niosi, Maureen McKelvey, relating business model innovations and innovation cascades: the case of biotechnology, J. Evol. Econ 28 (5) (2018) 1081–1109. [54] Suenaga, Keiichiro, forthcoming, “A theory of technological progress in the Paleolithic age,” mimeo. [55] G.N. Von Tunzelmann, Steam Power and British Industrialization to 1860, Clarendon Press, 1978. [56] Koen Frenken, Alessandro Nuvolari, The early development of the steam engine: an evolutionary interpretation using complexity theory, Ind. Corp. Change 13 (2004) 419–450. [57] Harlan I. Halsey, The choice between high-pressure and low-pressure steam power in America in the early nineteenth century, J. Econ. Hist. 41 (1981) 723–744. [58] Paul Nightingale, A cognitive model of innovation, Res. Pol. 27 (1998) 689–709.
[31] Louis C. Hunter, A History of Industrial Power in the United States 1780-1930, Volume Two: Steam Power, The University Press of Virginia, 1985. [32] C. Truesdell, Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics, Springer-Verlag, 1980, pp. 1822–1854. [33] René Taton, Les origines de l'Académie royale des sciences, Palais de la découverte, Université de Paris, 1966. [34] Alice Stroup, A Company of Scientists: Botany, Patronage, and Community at the Seventeenth-Century, Parisian Royal Academy of Sciences, University of California Press, 1990. [35] Robert J. Forbes, Eduard J. Dijksterhuis, A History of Science and Technology: Nature Obeyed and Conquered, Penguin Books, 1963. [36] Ikujiro Nonaka, Hirotaka Takeuchi, The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, 1995. [37] Keiichiro Suenaga, The influence of science and ‘industrial enlightenment’ on steelmaking, 1786-1856, Paper to Be Presented at the 17th Conference of the International Joseph A. Schumpeter Society, Seoul, South Korea, July 3, 2018, 2018. [38] Gregory Clark, A Farewell to Alms, Princeton University Press, 2007. [39] Kenneth Pomeranz, The Great Divergence, Princeton University Press, 2000. [40] Thomas Grebel, On the tradeoff between similarity and diversity in the creation of novelty in basic science, Struct. Change Econ. Dynam. 27 (2013) 66–78. [41] Kenneth J. Arrow, Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention, The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, Princeton University Press, 1962, pp. 609–625. [42] Martin L. Weitzman, Hybridizing growth theory, Am. Econ. Rev. 86 (2) (1996) 207–212. [43] Kazuo Sakai, The Love Theory of Innovation,” (In Japanese), the 33rd Seminar on University Education for the Next Generation, (2008) http://www.kisc.meiji.ac.jp/ ∼sakai/res/nextedu/ne33/ne33-03-sakai-innovation.pdf , Accessed date: 22
141
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Technology in Society journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc
The emergence of technological paradigms: The case of heat engines
T
Keiichiro Suenaga Meiji University, Japan
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Emergence of technological paradigms Science and technology Innovation diagram Heat engine
While the long-term prospects of the global economy are unclear, the emergence of technological paradigms is expected. The emergence of technological paradigms is the most important phenomenon in innovation and economic development. However, it is negligent of economists, particularly neo-Schumpeterians and researchers of innovation, that the understanding of this process is still limited. The economic development considered in this paper is the emergence of technological paradigms. Moreover, the emergence of technological paradigms based on deeper layers generates new industries and economic development. The purpose of this paper is to examine the process by which the technological paradigm of the heat engine emerges and develops, based on a theory of the technological paradigms or economic development.
1. Introduction While the long-term prospects of the global economy are unclear, the emergence of technological paradigms is expected. The emergence of technological paradigms is the most important phenomenon in innovation and economic development and is one of the most significant themes in economics. The concept of ‘technological paradigms’ was introduced by Ref. [1]; and has been a great influence on the development of evolutionary economics, etc. (e.g. see the special section of Industrial and Corporate Change, 2008, vol. 17 (3),“Technological Paradigms: Past, Present and Future”). Thirty six years have passed since Dosi's paper was published, but the potential of this concept is not exhausted. In the meantime, while science has been playing an increasingly important role in the emergence of technological paradigms, the so-called ‘new economics of science’ has accomplished surprising advances during the last few decades. However, the factors and process involved in the emergence of technological paradigms has not yet been clarified. It is necessary for economists, particularly neo-Schumpeterian and evolutionary economists, to consider the factors and processes involved in the emergence of technological paradigms. However, some neo-Schumpeterians have discussed the emergence of technological paradigms. For example [3], talk about factors related to this emergence. It is ‘only when productivity along the old trajectories shows persistent limits to growth and future profits are seriously threatened that the high risks and costs of trying the new technologies appear as clearly justified’ (p.49). Moreover [1], discusses the economic, institutional and social factors through which technological paradigms are selected from existing
1
scientific knowledge. For example, the marketability, potential profitability and labour-saving capability of technological paradigms, as well as industrial and social conflict, can influence the process by which technological paradigms are selected. However, the actual factors related to the emergence of technological paradigms and advances in scientific knowledge are not discussed. Although some studies focus on the process after the emergence of a technological paradigm (e.g. Refs. [1,4–6]), few consider the process up to the emergence of such paradigms. Although one might not find anything close to a general theory of their emergence, as Cimoli and Dosi ([21], p. 254) point out, this paper attempts to build a basic theory. The most important factors in this paper's theory of economic development are the following: (1) ‘advances in scientific knowledge’ and (2) ‘advances in technological knowledge’. The chained evolution (coevolution) of scientific and technological knowledge generates new technological paradigms, new industries and economic development.1 The economic development considered in this paper is the emergence of technological paradigms. With regard to Ref. [1] definitions, this paper defines ‘technological paradigms’ as ‘a “model” and a “pattern” of a solution to selected technological problems, based on selected scientific knowledge’ and defines ‘technological trajectories’ as ‘the progress process of technological knowledge, based on a technological paradigm’. A new combination of scientific and technological knowledge generates new technological paradigms regardless of whether scientific knowledge precedes technological knowledge or vice versa. Therefore, the issue of which type of development occurs first is not important here. A chain of science and technology forms an evolutionary system, and its evolution generates economic development.
E-mail address: [email protected]. See Refs. [8,23,24,58] about the relationship between science and technology.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.12.010 Received 12 August 2016; Received in revised form 15 December 2018; Accepted 21 December 2018 Available online 24 December 2018 0160-791X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Technology in Society 57 (2019) 135–141
K. Suenaga
only when the innovation was realised, but also a chain of science and technology before the innovation. On the other hand, some studies that analyse the process of the heat engine's emergence evaluate the role of science properly. For example, Dickinson ([49], pp. 168–170) states that ‘an important step leading to the invention of the steam-engine was the discovery of the pressure of the atmosphere …. The discovery suggested the possibility of using atmospheric pressure to do work on a piston beneath which a vacuum could be created … [and this] culminated in the invention of the steamengine.’ In addition, ‘by combining the expansive properties of steam with the recently discovered pressure of the atmosphere’ ([11]; p.56), the steam engine could be brought into operation [12]. also describe the process of the heat engine's emergence and insist that ‘clearly, science played an important role in the development of the steam engine’ (p. 253).5 The purpose of this paper is to examine the process by which the technological paradigm of the heat engine emerges and develops, based on a theory of the technological paradigms or economic development.6
Although advances along a technological trajectory, diffusions of knowledge and increases of capital and labour are important for ‘economic growth’, this paper considers them to be supplementary factors for ‘economic development’. Existing technological paradigms have a limit (or a characteristic of diminishing returns), and the emergence of technological paradigms generates economic development. This paper pays particular attention to the process until new technological paradigms emerge. How do new technological paradigms emerge? [2] clarified the hierarchy of technological paradigms and the characteristics of each layer on the basis of the analysis by Ref. [7] with regard to the transistor and IC. In Ref. [8]; the discussion is refined and theorised, and the emergence of technological paradigms is discussed (see Ref. [8] for a more detailed survey of science and technology). Although [2] demonstrates that the theory in Ref. [8] can be applied to the semiconductor industry, can this theory be applied to other industries?2 This paper examines heat engines, which started to develop more than 300 years ago.3 Although a discussion on whether the theory in this paper can be applied to other industries should be held in future, it is significant now, when considering long-term economic development, to examine old and new industries such as heat engines and semiconductors. We have to build a theory of long-term economic development (including the pre-Industrial Revolution era) and not a theory that is only applicable to the Industrial Revolution era or recent industries. The evaluation of the relationship between science and technology that developed in the emergence of the technological paradigm of heat engines will differ depending on the researcher. For example [9], insists that ‘the growth of scientific knowledge owed much to the concerns and achievements of technology; there was far less flow of ideas or methods the other way’ (p. 61) and that ‘this was true even of the steam-engine, which is often put forward as the prime example of science-spawned innovation’ (p. 61, n. 1).4 Allen ([29], p.164) also insists that ‘[w]hile Newcomen's break through was based on seventeenth-century scientific discoveries, science did not provide useful new knowledge until far into the nineteenth century’. Furthermore, some studies that discuss the relationship between science and technology in heat engines do not sufficiently discuss the scientific advances made in the 17th century that impacted the development of the heat engine because they pay too much attention to the development process occurring after its emergence (e.g. Ref. [10]). Allen ([15], pp. 35–36) insists that ‘steam power was a spin-off of the Scientific Revolution … The science of the engine was pan-European, but the R&D was conducted in England because that was where it paid to use the steam engine … Despite the scientific breakthroughs, the steam engine would not have been developed had the British coal industry not existed’. However, this paper discusses a chain of science and technology before Newcomen's invention. In this process, not only the British coal industry, which Allen emphasises, but also various motivations for scientists and technologists, played an important role. For example, the Parisian Science Academy, which Jean Baptiste Colbert established in order to foster technological development, had a great effect on the emergence of the steam engine. In order to understand the essence of economic development, we have to consider not
2. Innovation diagram, technological paradigms and hierarchy7 Fig. 1 illustrates Dosi's ‘technological paradigms’ and ‘technological trajectories’ [1], based on the innovation diagram of [7].8 In Yamaguchi's diagram, existing scientific knowledge (S) advances through scientific research etc. (S1 → S2). Advances in scientific knowledge are indicated by a rightward arrow in the soil because they are not valued economically. Existing technological knowledge (T) advances through technological development etc. (T1 → T1‘). This is illustrated as the upward arrow above the soil.9 That they are valued economically means they achieve success as goods in the market. With regard to Ref. [1] definitions, this paper defines ‘technological paradigms’ as ‘a “model” and a “pattern” of a solution to selected technological problems, based on selected scientific knowledge’, and defines ‘technological trajectories’ as ‘the progress process of technological knowledge, based on a technological paradigm’. In Fig. 1, technological paradigms are expressed as a dotted line, and technological trajectories are illustrated as upward arrows within the technological paradigms. Although Dosi, given the stock of scientific knowledge, discusses the process whereby technology is selected from existing scientific knowledge, scientific progress such as progress from S1 to S2 is illustrated in this figure. Advanced scientific knowledge, S2, may induce new technological knowledge, T2, or may be triggered by existing technological knowledge, T2. Therefore, Fig. 1 includes both cases. Whether these advances are improvements along a technological trajectory or a paradigm shift causing new technological trajectories to emerge depends on whether or not the ‘selected scientific knowledge’ as the basis of the technological trajectory is new (regardless of whether 5
[28] discussion uses the concepts of propositional and prescriptive knowledge instead of science and technology. 6 It is more difficult for us to explain a complicated phenomenon via a simple theory than to illustrate intricate affairs in a complex theory. However, it is better to grasp the essence of long-term economic development by paying attention to the most significant factors. 7 About this section, see Ref. [8]. 8 However, some studies have tried to illustrate the relationship between S&T or the relationship between the technological paradigms and trajectories (e.g. Refs. [21–24,29]), see Ref. [8] about the characteristic and problem. 9 In Ref. [8]; the relationship between science and technology is discussed in terms of a number of models, based on Yamaguchi's innovation diagram. The models are the Price model, which pays attention to the autonomy of science and technology; the Bush (linear) model, which focuses on science-driven technological progress; the Rosenberg model, which is based on technologydriven scientific progress; and the Dosi model, which considers the relationship between science and technology from the viewpoint of technological paradigms and trajectories like those shown in Fig. 1.
2 See also [25] for the technological paradigms of recent cases such as the drug industry. In addition [26], discuss the relationship between science and technology in emerging fields such as DNA nanoscience and nanotechnology. 3 See also [55] and [27] for more information on the importance of steam engines in the Industrial Revolution era. 4 While Landes ([9], p. 104) insists that there ‘is no doubt some truth’ that Newcomen and Watt were affected by science, he states ‘how much is impossible to say. One thing is clear, however: once the principle of the separate condenser was established, subsequent advances owed little or nothing to theory’. However, it is significant for us to clarify the role of science in the emergence of new technological paradigms.
136
Technology in Society 57 (2019) 135–141
K. Suenaga technology
1
T1’ (advanced technological knowledge based on S1)
2
located in the deeper layer of soil (referred to here as the third layer), whereas smaller advances such as connection methods are considered as being produced in a shallower soil layer (referred to here as the first layer). Advances in scientific knowledge arising in the third layer form more extensive technological paradigms, and advances in scientific knowledge occurring in the first layer form smaller technological paradigms. Advances in scientific knowledge in the second layer are not as extensive as those occurring in the third layer, but are more extensive than those arising in the first layer. As a result, a hierarchy is also formed in technological paradigms when a hierarchy of scientific knowledge exists.13 In addition, the hierarchical development of scientific knowledge and technological paradigms results in industrial and economic development.14
T2’ (advanced technological knowledge based on S2)
T1 (technological knowledge based on S1)
T2 (technological knowledge based on S2)
S1 (existing sscientific sci cientific knowledge) knowl knowle edge) dge)
S2 (advanced scientific soil knowledge)
science
Fig. 1. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories, based on innovation diagram Source: Suenaga ([2], Figure 4) Note: This figure illustrates the view of [1]; based on Yamaguchi's innovation diagram [7].
3. Innovation diagram of thermodynamics and heat engines How do we illustrate the development of thermodynamics and heat engines based on the innovation diagram presented in Section 2? [13] describes his innovation diagram with regard to heat engines from a broad perspective, including factors such as Henry VIII and slavery, and [14] considers the development of thermodynamics.15 In this paper, his analysis is reconsidered in detail and the concept of hierarchy is introduced. Fig. 2 illustrates the chain of science and technology regarding thermodynamics and heat engines, as well as the hierarchy of scientific knowledge and technological paradigm. (A detailed explanation of technological paradigms will be given in the next section). Although a simple suction pump is limited in regard to the height to which it can raise liquid, an opportunity to overcome this limit was provided by Torricelli's discovery of atmospheric pressure in 1643. This advance in scientific knowledge induced the creation of various vacuum pumps by Guericke and Boyle and stimulated advances in science such as Boyle's law. In particular, the invention of the gunpowder engine and an illustration of its fundamental principles by Huygens in 1673 was the most significant advance in scientific knowledge in the development of the heat engine. A long time was needed to put Huygens' internal combustion engine into practice. Although Papin's invention, which used steam instead of gunpowder, was not an internal combustion engine like Huygens' gunpowder engine, it was an external combustion engine that used fire outside the cylinder. This technology then gained economic value, was commercialized, and generated a new industry through the inventions of Savery and Newcomen. In this process, the relative price of goods such as coal played an important role, as [15] found in his analysis. Newcomen's engine was an external combustion engine among heat engines and, in particular, was an engine that utilised atmospheric pressure. After that, although technologists such as Smeaton improved Newcomen's engine, it was Watt who perceived the limits of
scientific knowledge precedes technological knowledge or vice versa). For example, although William B. Shockley failed to put the amplification effects into practice on the solid body, semiconductor, using the principle of the triode valve, Walter H. Brattain and John Bardeen sought the reason for Shockley's failure and discovered the existence of amplification effects through their research of surface states. Then, the discovery immediately induced the invention of the point contact type transistor. The discovery of amplification effects based on research into surface states was an advance in scientific knowledge and the invention of the point contact transistor was an advance in technological knowledge. The technological knowledge, based on the new specific scientific knowledge, caused a paradigm shift with a new technological trajectory. In addition, Shockley theoretically advocated the concept of the junction type transistor by asking why the point type transistor had the amplification effects. Furthermore, his co-workers at the Bell laboratory succeeded in the invention of the junction type transistor by using the grown junction method. This success was due to a combination of the advances in scientific knowledge concerning the junction type transistor and the advances in technological knowledge about the grown junction method, which then gave rise to a new technological paradigm based on the new specific scientific knowledge.10 In addition, although advances in scientific knowledge have been located in the soil up to this point, the soil itself contains numerous layers.11 For example, while the academic framework itself changed, advances also occurred in science within the academic framework. Although the transformation of operating principles from current injection, which is the basis of bipolar transistor technology, to field effect, which is the basis of FET (Field Effect Transistor) technology, is based on the specific academic framework of quantum mechanics, it is less significant than the transformation of the academic framework. Moreover, the transformation of connection methods from point type to junction type is less significant than the transformation of the operating principles, because the point and junction types are based on a specific operating principle, current injection.12 With regard to the diagram above, advances in the academic framework are depicted as being
13
Therefore, it can be also interpreted as follows: If seen from the third layer, the shift in paradigm on the first or second layer will be an improvement along the technological trajectory in the technological paradigm of the third layer; If seen from the second layer, the shift in paradigm on the first layer will be an improvement along the technological trajectory in the technological paradigm of the second layer; If seen from the first layer, the change from the grown junction method to the alloy junction method will be an improvement along the technological trajectory in the technological paradigm of the first layer. According to this interpretation, whether a specific change is an improvement along a technological trajectory or a shift in paradigm, with new technological trajectories emerging, depends on the layer from which it is seen. Moreover, although the scientific knowledge can also still be classified in detail, it will be enough just to clarify the existence of the hierarchy of scientific knowledge, or a technological paradigm, since the purpose here is to discuss essentials. 14 [53] discuss similar processes from the viewpoint of ‘innovation cascades’. 15 Yamaguchi was originally a physicist and teaches management of technology at Kyoto University. His model could be further developed by utilizing neo-Schumpeterian viewpoints and research results.
10
See Ref. [2] for further discussion. [30] also mentions the discussion about the soil. ‘I like to think of phenomena as hidden underground …. Effects nearer the surface, say that wood rubbed together creates heat and thereby fire, are stumbled upon by accident or casual exploration and are harnessed in the earliest times. … The discovery of the most deeply hidden phenomena … require modern methods of discovery and recovery’ (p.57). ‘One effect leads to another, then to another, until eventually a whole vein of related phenomena has been mined into. A family of effects forms a set of chambers connected by seams and passageways, one leading to another …. Phenomena form a connected system of excavated chambers and passageways. The whole system underground is connected’ (pp. 58–59). 12 See Ref. [8] for the discussion in detail. 11
137
Technology in Society 57 (2019) 135–141
K. Suenaga
of heat engines had gradually been systematised as an academic framework according to research conducted later. Thermodynamics, the basis of the heat engine, is an academic framework that completely differs from simple dynamics, the basis of a suction pump. Although Huygens' internal combustion engine needed a long time before being put into practice because of technological difficulties, advances in scientific knowledge by researchers such as Boyle and Papin built the basis of a technological paradigm of external combustion engines (2-a). In addition, an advance in scientific knowledge concerning atmospheric pressure by Torricelli spurred the invention of Newcomen's atmospheric engine and formed a technological paradigm (1-a). Watt's double acting engine, based on a technological paradigm of the external combustion engine (2-a), was not based on atmospheric pressure but on a technological paradigm (1-b) influenced by Black's study of steam heat. Furthermore, although the internal combustion engine developed by many technologists such as Otto was based on a large-scale technological paradigm of heat engines (3-b), it was in itself a medium-scale technological paradigm (2-b) based on the scientific knowledge of thermal efficiency developed by scientists such as Carnot. Although the scientific knowledge that forms the basis of the heat engine is an academic framework of thermodynamics (3-b), some theories about steam heat and heat efficiency exist within thermodynamics. These theories are useful in developing the operating principles of a heat engine; the theory of steam contributed to development of the external combustion engine (2-a), and the theory of heat efficiency helped develop the internal combustion engine (2-b). With regard to the external combustion engine, the discovery of atmospheric pressure led to the invention of Newcomen's atmospheric engine (1-a), and the theory of steam heat contributed to Watt's invention, which separated the condenser from the cylinder (1-b). Although Arthur ([30], p. 101) insists that ‘Watt's steam engine … provides for a new component – a separate condenser – but uses no new principle,’ Watt's separate condenser could not have been properly developed without scientific knowledge of the temperature of steam. ‘Watt's invention of the condensing-engine … [was based] on scientific research and technological insight’ ([17]; pp.49–50). Carnot's theory did not affect the invention of Otto's internal combustion engines19 but greatly affected the technological development of engines coming afterwards. These relationships between science and technology cannot be explained using a linear model,20 as they emerged through interactions between science and technology. The hierarchy of scientific knowledge forms the hierarchy of technological paradigms, whilst the hierarchical evolution of technological paradigms generates economic development.
Fig. 2. Innovation diagram: Thermodynamics and heat engines.
atmospheric engines and separated the condenser from the cylinder in order to increase its thermal efficiency. While Watt was influenced by Black's scientific knowledge regarding the temperature of steam, he succeeded in covering this scientific knowledge into technological knowledge with an economic value. Watt continued to improve the efficiency of steam engines and took out a patent for double-acting engines in 1782. This new engine did not utilise atmospheric pressure but made use of steam power on both the ascent and descent of pistons within a cylinder; it was an external combustion engine that made use of the power of steam, using scientific knowledge concerning the temperature of steam. Moreover, steam engines were used in many ways.16 After that, although technology such as Trevithick's high-pressure engine saw advances,17 it was Carnot who perceived the limit of the external combustion engine and developed scientific knowledge in order to increase its thermal efficiency further. Although Carnot's theory emphasised the advantages of the internal combustion engine versus the external combustion engine, about 200 years passed before Huygens' scientific knowledge concerning internal combustion engines was put into practice as a technology, for example in Otto's engine; this interval was needed to allow related technology to accumulate. ‘With this new science, engineers were quickly able to bring the heat engine to the higher plateaus of development as we know it today’ ([16]; p.60).18 4. Hierarchical development of scientific knowledge and technological paradigms
5. The emergence of technological paradigms and the field of combining science and technology
In this section, the hierarchy of scientific and technological knowledge related to thermodynamics and heat engines is clarified (Table 1). Although the evolution of the heat engine forms a technological paradigm (3-b), a study by Huygens that clarified the principle
In addition, as we can see, the existence of a field of knowledge creation in which scientists and technologists studied collaboratively played a significant role in the emergence of technological paradigms. In Huygens' studies within the Parisian Science Academy, technologists like Papin, an assistant of Huygens, played an important role, and scientists such as Leibnitz, who studied the gunpowder engine as an assistant of Huygens, influenced the success of Huygens' studies. Although Papin's invention of the steam engine was not put into practice, his knowledge was influenced by Huygens, Leibnitz and Boyle (Papin was also an assistant of Boyle in England). The Parisian Science Academy, which was established in 1666, sought not only scientific knowledge but also technological results. For example, it pursued geometry, mechanics, optics, astronomy, geography, physics, medicine, chemistry and anatomy, as well as architecture, fortification, sculpture, painting and design, driving and
16 For example, ‘[i]n Britain, Cornish pumping engines dominated Cornwall, Newcomen pumping engines dominated the coalfield regions, and Watt engines dominated the manufacturing regions of Manchester and Lancaster’ ([57], p. 724). 17 Such technology may take the place of old (‘creative destruction’), or may co-exist with old (‘co-evolution’). See also [56] about the co-evolution of technology. 18 [31] states that ‘thus the gradual penetration of engineering practice by the maturing science of thermodynamics from the 1860s provided a framework of rational principles by which to appraise and correct existing design and practice. By directing attention to the various sources of waste and inefficiency science suggested the lines along which advances could most effectively be pursued and indicated the broad limits within which further improvement was unlikely or attainable only at unacceptable cost’ (pp. 447–448). Although the development of the heat engine after that is very interesting, it may be sufficient for us to discuss it only up to this point.
19 20
138
For example see Ref. [32]. This is Bush's model in Ref. [8].
Technology in Society 57 (2019) 135–141
K. Suenaga
Table 1 Technological paradigms/scientific knowledge: Thermodynamics and heat engines .
6. Conclusions and implications
elevating water, metallurgy, agriculture and navigation (Huygens, [51]; 1891, p.328). This was a result of combining the desires of scientists who aimed to elucidate scientific knowledge but had no research resources, with the desires of Louis XIV and Colbert, who pursued technological usefulness and had funds to spare.21 Within the field, which sought both science and technology, collaboration between scientists such as Huygens, who created new scientific knowledge in various areas, and technologists such as Papin, who had enormous technological and inventive capability, contributed remarkably to the emergence of technological paradigms offering great potential. In addition, within the Royal Society of London, which was established in 1660, scientific knowledge and practical technology were both pursued.22 Papin's digester was demonstrated in 1679, while his steam engine of 1690 was reviewed in the Society's Philosophical Transactions of 1697. This fusion of science and technology built the basis for a technological paradigm of steam engines, which led to a great leap after 1700. Watt, who was engaged as an instrument maker at Glasgow University, was greatly influenced by Professor Black at this university. Communication between scientists such as Black, who sought scientific knowledge, and technologists such as Watt, who wanted technological results (although he also had great capability as a scientist) also generated a great potential for technological development. Although various arguments have been made regarding the relationship between Black and Watt, ‘[w]hether or not Watt's crucial insight of the separate condenser was due to Black's theory of latent heat, there can be little doubt that the give-and-take between the scientific community in Glasgow and the creativity of men such as Watt was essential in smoothing the path of technological progress' ([18]; p.323). In the emergence of technological paradigms, although scientists and technologists did not necessarily study in the same field, there are many cases where collaborative research between scientists and technologists has been conducted.23 In these fields, ‘tacit knowledge’ shared by scientists and technologists also plays an important role.24 Because the emergence of a technological paradigm as new technological knowledge, based on new scientific knowledge, is a great innovation that surpasses the limit of existing technological paradigms, collaborative research between scientists and technologists is often needed for it to come about.
21 22
As shown in Section 2, the innovation diagram of [7] was developed from a neo-Schumpeterian viewpoint and the concept of hierarchy was introduced. The revised version of Yamaguchi's innovation diagram then clarified that a chained evolution (co-evolution) of science and technology generates a new technological paradigm and new industry, and the hierarchical evolution results in economic development [19]. indicates the importance of applying science to economic production as the main characteristic of modern economic growth. However, almost all theories of economic development, like that of [20]; treat science as an exogenous factor. Nevertheless, a true theory of economic development can be constructed by endogenising advances in science. In this sense, [20] theory of economic development and [1] theory of technological paradigms, which does not endogenise advances in science, have a limit to their ability to elucidate the essential factors of economic development. The hierarchical evolution of a chain of scientific and technological knowledge generates economic development. While traditional economic growth theory demonstrates the economic growth process by plotting the capital stock per capita on a horizontal axis and output per capita on a vertical axis, this paper considers economic development by plotting science and technology on these axes instead. The essential factors in economic development are advances in knowledge such as scientific and technological knowledge, rather than capital and labour, which are the focus of neoclassical economic growth theory. Moreover, the process of economic development is an evolutionary rather than an equilibrium process, and lock-in effects or path-dependency exert an important influence over this process [21]. illustrate these technological and technological trajectories by plotting two factors of production on vertical and horizontal axes. In addition, Allen ([29], pp.152–163) discusses the effects of innovation (Allen's own words were ‘macro-inventions’ and ‘micro-improvements’) by plotting capital and labour on both axes. Nevertheless, the current paper focuses not on the results of the change in technological paradigms and the inventions on the macro level, but rather on the processes and sources. Although the applicability of this theory to other industries needs to be examined in the future, the model is applicable to old and new industries such as heat engines and semiconductors and has great potential for clarifying economic development.25 The important factors in economic development are advances in scientific and technological knowledge. Even before the emergence of heat engines, advances in scientific and technological knowledge generated economic growth slowly; however scientific knowledge played only a slight role. The shift from slow to rapid growth through the Industrial Revolution, as [18] insists, may be related to the ‘Industrial Enlightenment’, which originated in the Baconian programme of the seventeenth century. With ‘Industrial Enlightenment’, science and technology affect each other intimately, and the ‘modern economic growth’
See also [33,34]. See also the Charter of the Royal Society of London (1662) and ([35]; ch.
16). 23
These cases can be seen in other industries (e.g. the semiconductor industry). See also [2,7] for a detailed discussion. 24 Although [36] discuss knowledge creation through cases such as ‘Homebakery’ and ‘Gaou’, the fields of collaborative research and tacit knowledge also play significant roles in knowledge creation's ability to generate new industries.
25
139
See also [37] about the emergence of modern steelmaking technology.
Technology in Society 57 (2019) 135–141
K. Suenaga
model of long-term economic development (including the pre-Industrial Revolution era) and not a model that is only applicable to the Industrial Revolution era or recent industries. Innovation researchers and neoSchumpeterians have to focus more seriously on the emergence of technological paradigms, which are the most fundamental phenomena in various innovations.
of [19] was generated. We have to build a theory of economic development that is equally applicable both before and after the Industrial Revolution (and even valid in relation to the modern era).26 In the case of the heat engine, a hierarchy of scientific knowledge exists in which the third layer is an academic framework, the second layer represents the operating principles and the first layer contains methods of connection. Each layer's characteristics may differ in other industries. However, the most important point is the existence of a hierarchy of scientific knowledge as well as the existence of a hierarchy of technological paradigms based on the hierarchy of scientific knowledge. The existence of these hierarchies is a factor that brings short-, middle- and long-term economic fluctuations. In addition, by clarifying the hierarchy of technological paradigms, the continuity and discontinuity of industrial development can be discussed.27 Furthermore, organisations like the Parisian Science Academy and the Royal Society of London, which pursue both science and technology, played an important role in the emergence of technological paradigms related to heat engines. This is similar to the case of semiconductors, where Bell Laboratories played a significant role. Although an organisation that focuses on technological development plays an important role in advances along a technological trajectory, a field that straddles science and technology often has a significant function in the emergence of technological paradigms with advances in scientific knowledge (even if scientific knowledge precedes technological knowledge or vice versa). [18] points out that organisations like the Parisian Science Academy and the Royal Society of London became institutional factors in reducing access costs to knowledge. However, knowledge creation that generates new industries needs discontinuous processes, such as new combinations of scientific and technological knowledge, through collaborative research of scientists and engineers, and does not occur naturally as a result of reduced access costs to knowledge.28 Moreover, this process of forging new combinations does not only happen in one direction from science to technology (the Bush model or linear model), but is formed by a chained evolution (co-evolution) of science and technology. Furthermore, the emergence of such new technological paradigms generates economic development. These facts are very important for creating new technological paradigms in corporate strategies or governmental policies. The last few decades are often called an era of open innovation [22]. Large central laboratories such as Bell Laboratories of AT&T used to play a significant role in the emergence of technological paradigms (in particular, based on deeper layers of soil). However, in an era of open innovation, it is difficult for a central laboratory in a large company to create new technological paradigms (based on the third layer). In particular, in an era of open innovation, it is necessary to develop a management framework and policies for producing new technological paradigms based on the third layer. This paper, although resurrecting an old case (heat engines), identifies the relationship between science and technology that is needed to generate a new industry and develop the economy, which is an important theme in any era. In addition, the model in this paper could be applied to the ‘Stone Age’ that featured ‘primitive science’ rather than ‘modern science’.29 We have to build a
References [1] Giovanni Dosi, Technological paradigms and technological trajectories, Res. Pol. 11 (1982) 147–162. [2] Keiichiro Suenaga, The hierarchy of technological paradigms: a case study of semiconductor industry, Josai University Bulletin, The Department of Economics 33 (2015) 1–13 (in Japanese). [3] Chris Freeman, C. Perez, Structural crises of adjustment, business cycles and investment behaviour, in: G. Dosi, et al. (Ed.), Technical Change and Economic Theory, Pinter Publishers, 1988, pp. 38–66 ch.3. [4] Wilfred Dolfsma, Loet Leydesdorff, Lock-in and break-out from technological trajectories: modeling and policy implications, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 76 (2009) 932–941. [5] Richard R. Nelson, Factors affecting the power of technological paradigms, Ind. Corp. Change 17 (3) (2008) 485–497. [6] Alexander Peine, Technological paradigms and complex technical systems: the case of smart homes, Res. Pol. 37 (2008) 508–529. [7] Eiichi Yamaguchi, Innovation: Paradigm Disruptions and Fields of Resonance, NTT publishing, 2006 (in Japanese). [8] Keiichiro Suenaga, The emergence of technological paradigms: the evolutionary process of science and technology in economic development, in: Pyka Andreas, Foster John (Eds.), The Evolution of Economic and Innovation Systems, Springer, 2015, pp. 211–227. [9] David S. Landes, The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present, Cambridge University Press, 1969. [10] J. Jewkes, D. Sawers, R. Stillerman, The Source of Invention, Macmillan & Co. Ltd., London, 1962. [11] Donald S.L. Cardwell, Technology, Science and History, Heinemann Educational Books, 1972. [12] Richard G. Lipsey, Kenneth I. Carlaw, Clifford T. Bekar, Economic Transformations: General Purpose Technologies and Long-term Economic Growth, Oxford University Press, 2005. [13] Eiichi Yamaguchi, Industrial revolution as paradigm disruptive innovations, Organ. Sci. 42 (1) (2008) 37–47 (in Japanese). [14] Eiichi Yamaguchi, Five Physics Theories to Learn before You Die, Tikuma Shobo, 2014 (in Japanese). [15] Robert C. Allen, Global Economic History: a Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2011. [16] John F. Sandfort, Heat Engines, Doubleday & Company, Inc, 1962. [17] D.S.L. Cardwell, From Watt to Clausius: the Rise of Thermodynamics in the Early Industrial Age, Heinemann Educational, 1971. [18] Joel Mokyr, The intellectual origins of modern economic growth, J. Econ. Hist. 65 (2005) 285–351. [19] Simon S. Kuznets, Modern Economic Growth: Rate, Structure and Spread, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1966. [20] Joseph A. Schumpeter, The Theory of Economic Development, Oxford University Press, 1934. [21] Mario Cimoli, Giovanni Dosi, Technological paradigms, patterns of learning and development: an introductory roadmap, J. Evol. Econ. 5 (1995) 243–268. [22] Henry Chesbrough, Open Innovation: a New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Harvard Business School Corporation, 2003. [23] Stephen Jay Kline, Innovation Style in Japan and the United States: Cultural Bases; Implications for Competitiveness, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1990. [24] Donald E. Stokes, Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation, Brookings Institution Press, 1997. [25] M. Coccia, Technological paradigms and trajectories as determinants of the R&D corporate change in drug discovery industry, Int. J. Knowl. Learn. 10 (1) (2015) 29–43. [26] Hanh Luong La, Rudi Bekkers, Önder Nomaler, The relation between scientific and technological knowledge in emerging fields: evidence from DNA nanoscience and DNA nanotechnology, Paper to Be Presented at the 17th Conference of the International Joseph A. Schumpeter Society, Seoul, South Korea, July 2, 2018, 2018. [27] Kristine Bruland, Keith Smith, Assessing the role of steam power in the first industrial revolution: the early work of nick von Tunzelmann, Res. Pol. 42 (2013) 1716–1723. [28] Joel Mokyr, The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy, Princeton University Press, 2002. [29] Robert C. Allen, The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective, Cambridge University Press, 2009. [30] W. Brian Arthur, The Nature of Technology: what it Is and How it Evolves, Free Press, New York, 2009.
26 Although the discussions of [15,38,39] are interesting, the discussion in this paper is similar to that of [18,28]. However [28], emphasises the reduction in costs of access to knowledge as a result of the ICT revolution, while [2] analyses the chained evolution of science and technology as generating an ICT revolution by using the same model in this paper. 27 See also discussions about techno-economic paradigms and long waves, such as [3]. 28 Moreover, ‘the chances of predicting possible outcomes of novelty are almost zero because novelty is unknown by definition’ ([40]; p. 67). See also [41,42]. Regarding knowledge transcendence [43], points out the importance of abstraction and abduction, and [44] discusses the importance of artificial scepticism.
29
140
See also [28,30,45–47,48,50,52,54].
Technology in Society 57 (2019) 135–141
K. Suenaga
January 2011. [44] Dengjian Jin, The Great Knowledge Transcendence: the Rise of Western Science and Technology Re-framed, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. [45] Robin Dunbar, The Trouble with Science: Science, Magic and Religion, Faber and Faber, 1995. [46] Claude Lévi-Strauss, La Pansée Sauvage, Librairie Plon, (1962). [47] Steven Mithen, The Prehistory of the Mind: a Search for the Origins of Art, Religion and Science, Thames and Hudson Ltd, 1996. [48] Rondo Cameron, Larry Neal, A Concise Economic History of the World: from Paleolithic Times to the Present, fourth ed., Oxford University Press, 2003. [49] H.W. Dickinson, The steam-engine to 1830, in: Charles Singer, et al. (Ed.), A History of Technology, ume IV Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1958, pp. 168–198 Ch. 6. [50] John F. Hoffecker, The evolutionary ecology of creativity, in: Elias Scott (Ed.), Origins of Human Innovation and Creativity, Elsevier, 2012, pp. 89–101 ch.7. [51] Huygens, Christiaan, 1663, (reprinted in Oeuvres Complètes de Christiaan Huygens, Tome IV, Correspondance 1662-1663, 1891, 325-329). [52] Richard G. Klein, The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins, third ed., The University of Chicago Press, 2009. [53] Jorge Niosi, Maureen McKelvey, relating business model innovations and innovation cascades: the case of biotechnology, J. Evol. Econ 28 (5) (2018) 1081–1109. [54] Suenaga, Keiichiro, forthcoming, “A theory of technological progress in the Paleolithic age,” mimeo. [55] G.N. Von Tunzelmann, Steam Power and British Industrialization to 1860, Clarendon Press, 1978. [56] Koen Frenken, Alessandro Nuvolari, The early development of the steam engine: an evolutionary interpretation using complexity theory, Ind. Corp. Change 13 (2004) 419–450. [57] Harlan I. Halsey, The choice between high-pressure and low-pressure steam power in America in the early nineteenth century, J. Econ. Hist. 41 (1981) 723–744. [58] Paul Nightingale, A cognitive model of innovation, Res. Pol. 27 (1998) 689–709.
[31] Louis C. Hunter, A History of Industrial Power in the United States 1780-1930, Volume Two: Steam Power, The University Press of Virginia, 1985. [32] C. Truesdell, Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics, Springer-Verlag, 1980, pp. 1822–1854. [33] René Taton, Les origines de l'Académie royale des sciences, Palais de la découverte, Université de Paris, 1966. [34] Alice Stroup, A Company of Scientists: Botany, Patronage, and Community at the Seventeenth-Century, Parisian Royal Academy of Sciences, University of California Press, 1990. [35] Robert J. Forbes, Eduard J. Dijksterhuis, A History of Science and Technology: Nature Obeyed and Conquered, Penguin Books, 1963. [36] Ikujiro Nonaka, Hirotaka Takeuchi, The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, 1995. [37] Keiichiro Suenaga, The influence of science and ‘industrial enlightenment’ on steelmaking, 1786-1856, Paper to Be Presented at the 17th Conference of the International Joseph A. Schumpeter Society, Seoul, South Korea, July 3, 2018, 2018. [38] Gregory Clark, A Farewell to Alms, Princeton University Press, 2007. [39] Kenneth Pomeranz, The Great Divergence, Princeton University Press, 2000. [40] Thomas Grebel, On the tradeoff between similarity and diversity in the creation of novelty in basic science, Struct. Change Econ. Dynam. 27 (2013) 66–78. [41] Kenneth J. Arrow, Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention, The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, Princeton University Press, 1962, pp. 609–625. [42] Martin L. Weitzman, Hybridizing growth theory, Am. Econ. Rev. 86 (2) (1996) 207–212. [43] Kazuo Sakai, The Love Theory of Innovation,” (In Japanese), the 33rd Seminar on University Education for the Next Generation, (2008) http://www.kisc.meiji.ac.jp/ ∼sakai/res/nextedu/ne33/ne33-03-sakai-innovation.pdf , Accessed date: 22
141