Search

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are pushed to introduce new technologies due to different requirements and changes in the business setting. The SMEs' transformation to exploit new technologies is challenging given their lack of resources and the complexity of technological transformation, which encompasses technology assimilation and business model innovation (BMI). Although studies recognize the complementarity of technology assimilation and BMI for benefiting from technology, the literature is fragmented, and the technological transformation phenomenon remains abstract, especially in the SMEs' context. To improve understanding of technological transformation in SMEs, a systematic literature review was performed on 165 peer-reviewed papers published from 1999 to 2022, building upon BMI and technology assimilation constructs. The descriptive analysis outlines the field's evolution in terms of research and technological trends. The content analysis shows that: most papers focus on factors; the literature falls short of providing theoretical conceptualization and guidelines for the technological transformation process; only a few studies are dedicated to assessing the outcomes of technological transformation in SMEs; and the papers suggest that SMEs present a low transformation level. Finally, we inductively built a framework for technological transformation and suggest five research avenues.

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.08.009 Byline: Wilfred Dolfsma (a), Gerben van der Panne (b) Keywords: Innovation; New-product announcements; Innovation sub-currents; Schumpeter Mark I Abstract: The creation of new knowledge is a haphazard process: not every sector in an economy is equally involved. The effect of industry structure on innovativeness has been a focus of attention for a long time by both academics and policymakers. In a much quoted article, using unique data - new-product announcements - Acs and Audretsch [Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B., 1988. Innovation in large and small firms: an empirical analysis. American Economic Review 78(4), 678-690] identified several characteristics of industry structure and their effects on innovativeness. By analyzing a new and more consciously compiled database, we re-examine their original claims. Our results largely support their findings: industry concentration and degree of unionization for instance hamper innovation; skilled labor promotes it. Our findings diverge in one significant respect from theirs: we suggest that the large firms do not contribute more to an industry's innovativeness than small firms. At the industry level, we find strong support for the Schumpeter Mark I perspective of creative destruction by small firms rather than creative accumulation by large firms. In addition, we show that less dedicated innovators prove more susceptible to firm-external industry factors than more committed innovators. An unfavorable competitive environment decreases the likelihood that less successful innovators will announce new products. Author Affiliation: (a) University of Groningen, School of Economics and Business, Innovation Management & Strategy, PO Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, Netherlands (b) Delft University of Technology, Economics of Innovation, Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX Delft, Netherlands

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.09.001 Byline: Loet Leydesdorff (a), Wilfred Dolfsma (b)(c), Gerben Van der Panne (d) Keywords: Knowledge base; Probabilistic entropy; Services; Medium and high-tech; Triple helix Abstract: Can the knowledge base of an economy be measured? In this study, we combine the perspective of regional economics on the interrelationships among technology, organization, and territory with the triple-helix model, and offer the mutual information in three dimensions as an indicator of the configuration. When this probabilistic entropy is negative, the configuration reduces the uncertainty that prevails at the systems level. Data about more than a million Dutch companies are used for testing the indicator. The data contain postal codes (geography), sector codes (proxy for technology), and firm sizes in terms of number of employees (proxy for organization). The configurations are mapped at three levels: national (NUTS-1), provincial (NUTS-2), and regional (NUTS-3). The levels are cross-tabled with the knowledge-intensive sectors and services. The results suggest that medium-tech sectors contribute to the knowledge base of an economy more than high-tech ones. Knowledge-intensive services have an uncoupling effect, but less so at the high-tech end of these services. Author Affiliation: (a) Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, NL-1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands (b) Erasmus University Rotterdam, FBK, PO Box 1738, NL-3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands (c) MERIT, Maastricht University, The Netherlands (d) Delft University of Technology, Economics of Innovation, Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands Article History: Received 14 May 2005; Revised 17 August 2005; Accepted 26 September 2005

Technological innovations in developed economies is measured by focusing on regional development model.

Knowledge base and effective communication is an important factor in shaping a dynamic welfare economy. The recent intellectual property law are analyzed to find the extend to which they affect communication costs and the welfare economy of the place.

Several issues crucial to the discussion of commitments and interests were disregarded, such as many aspects of the gift, the choice/rule debate and the conception of gifts as rewards. The conceptualization of symbolic utility as a by-product of substantive utility does not contribute to the elucidation of commitments and gifts. The issue of commitment and interest is seen as parallel to the gifts/grants dichotomy. Interests are suggested to provide 'substantive utility,' while commitments accord 'symbolic utility.'

David Throsby's review of the kind of research performed in the field of cultural economics, which was published in the Journal of Economic Literature, is biased. Throsby, president of the Assn of Cultural Economics International, seems to argue that there is a status quo in theoretical matters in the field. Economists have always focused on the peculiar features of the arts rather than imposing existing economic theories on them.

Abstract:Research on institutional change has flourished ever since the debate on agency and structure has moved away from the previously uncompromising positions in which either agency or structure was emphasized. A conceptual compromise is sought here in a focus on the processes of institutionalization, which allows one to move beyond the idea that institutions are mere mental constructs or the point of view that behavior is the mere reproduction of institutional patterns. Contributing to an understanding of the processes of institutional change, this paper analyzes institutional change as instigated by tensions, triggered by agents’ discrepancies berween concrete institutional settings and the socio-economic values these are to represent. The Social Value Nexus that is presented introduces an emphasis on the perceived legitimacy of institutions. Describing (types of) tensions berween socio-cultural values and institutional settings, the paper explores how structure, agency and values interact in processes of institutional change.

AbstractNew Institutional Economics (NIE) claims that Silent Trade exists. Indeed, it would constitute the first step ‘as trade moves beyond the border of the village’ (North). In this brief article we show both that Silent Trade – trade between parties who have only the most minimal of a shared frame of reference, without direct contact – has not existed and that NIE cannot account for the representational re-description and change in governance structure that it would entail. At least on the issue of language and learning, NIE is categorically different from Original Institutional Economics (OIE).

In recent years, economics has paid increasing attention to the phenomenon of consumption. Insights from outside of the mainstream and from outside of economics proper have found inroads as well. Largely neglected in previous decades, consumption theory in economics was the exclusive domain for technical discussions only for a long time, as the articles selected by the late Kevin Lancaster show. Consumption of many goods is, however, highly symbolic—consumption behavior is in large part about institutionalized communication where instrumental considerations do not necessarily play an important role. Some of the most promising ideas that can be developed further in economics to better understand consumption behavior are presented.

Economists can reflect on their own field of research and themselves in a number of ways. The philosophy of science has long been the dominant way to reflect on the work of scientists, to be joined in more recent times by both the sociology of science and the rhetoric of science. In this paper I do not argue that these approaches are wrong, but I do argue that they should be complemented with a study of the individual scientist. A psychology of economists, in other words, is called for. One important theory in recent psychological literature (social learning/cognitive theory) is introduced as an instance to indicate what kind of suggestions concerning the reflective position of individual scientists might be derived. It would be preferable from this perspective that scientists set high standards for themselves, have an open mind to what happens in different disciplines, and set high standards by which to judge others. Then follows a discussion where some potential objections to the approach in general, or to the specific psychological theory in particular, are refuted.