2. Theoretical Background: General Purpose Technology, Pattern of Innovation, and Spin-Out

About the definition of general purpose technologies, see the followings. Bresnahan, T. F. (2010): “General Purpose Technologies,” in Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Volume 2, ed. by B. H. Hall, and N. Rosenberg. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 761–791, Bresnahan, T. F., and M. Trajtenberg (1995): “General Purpose Technologies ‘Engines of Growth’?,” Journal of Econometrics, 65, 83–108, Grossman, G. M., and E. Helpman (1991): Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, Lipsey, R. G., C. Bekar, and K. Carlaw (1998): “What Requires Explanation?,” in General Purpose Technologies and Economic Growth, ed. by E. Helpman. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 15–54.

However, there have been studies that show that some technologies that have been generally considered as a general purpose technology do not actually fit the bill. For example, a general purpose technology naturally becomes a source of knowledge for other technologies. However, Moser and Nicholas point out that the citation frequency of patent of electricity is not always high. In other words, although it has been widely used in other areas, it has clearly not been a source of other technologies. Moser, P., and T. Nicholas (2004): “Was Electricity a General Purpose Technology? Evidence from Historical Patent Citations,” American Economic Review, 94, 388–394.

Helpman, E. (1998): General Purpose Technologies and Economic Growth. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, Lipsey, R. G., K. Carlaw, and C. Bekar (2005): Economic Transformations: General Purpose Technologies and Long-Term Economic Growth. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Bresnahan, T. F., and M. Trajtenberg (1995): “General Purpose Technologies ‘Engines of Growth’?,” Journal of Econometrics, 65, 83–108.

It has been pointed out that the proliferation process of general purpose technology temporarily stagnates productivity and increases relative wage disparity as side effects of creative destruction. This is well illustrated by Brynjolfsson, E., and A. McAfee (2011): Race against the Machine: How the Digital Revolution Is Accelerating Innovation, Driving Productivity, and Irreversibly Transforming Employment and the Economy. Lexington, Mass.: Digital Frontier Press.

Rosenberg, N., and M. Trajtenberg (2004): “A General-Purpose Technology at Work: The Corliss Steam Engine in the Late-Nineteenth-Century United States,” Journal of Economic History, 64, 61–99.

Aghion, P., P. Howitt, and G. L. Violante (2002): “General Purpose Technology and Wage Inequality,” Journal of Economic Growth, 7, 315–345.

Crafts, N. (2004): “Steam as a General Purpose Technology: A Growth Accounting Perspective,” Economic Journal, 114, 338–351.

Brynjolfsson, E., and A. McAfee (2011): Race against the Machine: How the Digital Revolution Is Accelerating Innovation, Driving Productivity, and Irreversibly Transforming Employment and the Economy. Lexington, Mass.: Digital Frontier Press.

David, P. A. (1991): “The Dynamo and the Computer: An Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity Paradox,” American Economic Review, 80, 355–361, Lipsey, R. G., C. Bekar, and K. Carlaw (1998): “What Requires Explanation?,” in General Purpose Technologies and Economic Growth, ed. by E. Helpman. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 15–54.

Nuvolari, A. (2004): “Collective Invention During the British Industrial Revolution: The Case of the Cornish Pumping Engine,” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28, 347–363.

Allen, R. C. (2009): The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, Mokyr, J. (1990): The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress. New York: Oxford University Press, Rosenberg, N. (1979): “Technological Interdependence in the American Economy,” Technology and Culture, 25–50.

This regularity is merely an empirical and statistical regularity, and it is not based on the assumption that there is a law behind it that is similar to laws that are generally assumed in natural science. It is necessary to carefully distinguish between these two: statistical regularity and law. Ian Hacking, who analyzed how modern probabilities and statistical methods appeared and spread throughout society, describes the process by which statistical regularity is separated from general laws. He poses that the discovery of statistical regularity and the fact that human beings possess the power to transform reality by using them is the point at which it diverted from science, which presupposes deterministic nomotheticism. In other words, statistical regularity is sometimes identified as a law, but in the dissemination process of probability and statistics in the society, these two have rather diverged away from each other. Hacking, I. (1990): The Taming of Chance. Cambridge England; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962): The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Murayama, Nirei and Shimizu conducted a survey on Japanese and American scientists and analyzed the relationship between management and serendipity. Murayama, K., M. Nirei, and H. Shimizu (2015): “Management of Science, Serendipity, and Research Performance: Evidence from Suvey of Scientists,” Research Policy, 44, 862–873.

Constant, E. W. (1973): “A Model for Technological Change Applied to the Turbojet Revolution,” Technology and Culture, 14, 553–572, — (1980): The Origins of the Turbojet Revolution. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

For an overview of the U.K. Industrial Revolution, refer to Ashton, T. S. (1948): The Industrial Revolution 1760–1830. [S.l.]: Oxford University press, Mokyr, J. (1993): The British Industrial Revolution: An Economic Perspective. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press.

Allen, R. C. (2011): Global Economic History: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, Brozen, Y. (1953): “Determinants of the Direction of Technological Change,” American Economic Review, 43, 288–302, Hicks, J. R. (1932): The Theory of Wages. London: Macmillan.

Rosenberg, N. (1969): “The Direction of Technological Change: Inducement Mechanism and Focusing Devices,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, 18, 1–24.

MacKenzie, D. (1987): “Missile Accuracy: A Case Study in the Social Processes of Technological Change,” in The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, ed. by W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, and T. J. Pinch. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 195–222, Mackenzie, D. A. (1990): Inventing Accuracy: An Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Numagami, T. (1996): “Flexibility Trap: A Case Analysis of U.S. And Japanese Technological Choice in the Digital Watch Industry,” Research Policy, 25, 133–162.

Kaplan, S., and M. Tripsas (2008): “Thinking About Technology: Applying a Cognitive Lens to Technical Change,” ibid., 37, 790–805.

Ibid., p.148

It is important to note here that although previous literature such as Fontana, Nuvolari, and Verspagen (2009), Mina, Ramlogan, Tampubolon, and Metcalfe (2007), Verspagen (2007) uses Dosi’s term of technological trajectory, their operation (linking the patent citations) does not necessarily reflect Dosi’s concept. What they are analyzing is more so the flow of knowledge rather than Dosi’s technological trajectory. Fontana, R., A. Nuvolari, and B. Verspagen (2009): “Mapping Technological Trajectories as Patent Citation Networks. An Application to Data Communication Standards,” Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 4, 311–336, Mina, A., R. Ramlogan, G. Tampubolon, and J. S. Metcalfe (2007): “Mapping Evolutionary Trajectories: Applications to the Growth and Transformation of Medical Knowledge,” Research Policy, 36, 789–806, Verspagen, B. (2007): “Mapping Technological Trajectories as Patent Citation Networks: A Study on the History of Fuel Cell Research,” Advances in Complex Systems, 10, 93–115.

For details on the relationship between Dosi’s paradigm, technological trajectory and organizational capabilities, refer to Teece, D. J. (2008): “Dosi’s Technological Paradigms and Trajectories: Insights for Economics and Management,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 17, 507–512.

Dosi, G., R. R. Nelson, and S. G. Winter (2001): The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Dosi, G., D. J. Teece, and J. Chytry (1998): “Technology, Organization, and Competitiveness: Perspectives on Industrial and Corporate Change,” Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mowery, D. C., and N. Rosenberg (1981): “Technical Change in the Commercial Aircraft Industry, 1925–1975,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 20, 347–358.

Abernathy, W. J. (1978): The Productivity Dilemma: Roadblock to Innovation in the Automobile Industry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Abernathy, W. J., and J. M. Utterback (1987): “Patterns of Industrial Innovation,” Technology Review, June–July, 40–47, Utterback, J. M., and W. J. Abernathy (1975): “A Dynamic Model of Process and Product Innovation,” Omega, 3, 639–656.

Murmann, J. P., and K. Frenken (2006): “Toward a Systematic Framework for Research on Dominant Designs, Technological Innovations, and Industrial Change,” Research Policy, 35, 925–952.

Abernathy, W. J., and J. M. Utterback (1987): “Patterns of Industrial Innovation,” Technology Review, June–July, 40–47.

The study of Utterback and Suárez also presents interesting discoveries in the competitive strategies of Japanese firms. Regarding the competitive strategy of Japanese firms, it has been pointed out that they tend to begin R&D for new technology at an earlier timing compared to American firms. For example, Numagami (1996) has pointed out that Japanese firms have low flexibility in business transactions, so they start R&D of alternative technologies at an earlier stage and prepare for future technological changes than American firms. However, Utterback and Suárez observed that Japanese firms were actually not quick in R&D of new technologies, but were rather late comers (Utterback and Suárez, 1993). They suggest that this late entrance may be due to the high learning capability of the Japanese firms (due to high learning capability of the organization, they can maintain a low hazard rate even with late entrance). However, this point requires further studies. Numagami, T. (1996): “Flexibility Trap: A Case Analysis of U.S. And Japanese Technological Choice in the Digital Watch Industry,” Research Policy, 25, 133–162, Utterback, J. M., and F. F. Suárez (1993): “Innovation, Competition, and Industry Structure,” ibid., 22, 1–21.

Klepper, S. (1996): “Entry, Exit, Growth, and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle,” American Economic Review, 86, 562–583.

Klepper, S., and K. L. Simons (1997): “Technological Extinctions of Industrial Firms: An Inquiry into Their “Industrial and Corporate Change, 6, 379–460, — (2005): “Industry Shakeout and Technological Change,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23, 23–43.

Foster, R. N. (1986): Innovation: The Attacker’s Advantage. New York: Summit Books.

However, Paul M. Romer argues that the progress obtained from resource inputs into R&D will not gradually diminish, but rather will gradually increase. Knowledge, which is the outcome of R&D, becomes an important input for subsequent R&D by other firms and research institutes. Knowledge is also an asset that is characterized with non-competitiveness. Therefore, as knowledge is stock piled as public goods, positive externalities are born between innovations of firms, and the obtainable profit increases. In other words, he argues that as the volume of knowledge stocks increase, innovation will be accelerated from the ripple effect. For details, see Romer, P. M. (1986). “Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth.” Journal of Political Economy 94, 1002–1037, — (1990). “Endogenous Technological Change.” Journal of Political Economy 98, 71–102.

Christensen discusses about applying the industrial-level S-curve to strategies of individual firms. Refer to Christensen, C. M. (1992): “Exploring the Limits of the Technologi S-Curve. Part I: Component Technologies,” Production and Operations Management, 1, 334–357, — (1992): “Exploring the Limits of the Technology S-Curve: Part II: Architectural Technologies,” Production and Operations Management, 1, 358–366.

Abernathy, W. J., K. B. Clark, and A. M. Kantrow (1983): Industrial Renaissance: Producing a Competitive Future for America. New York: Basic Books.

Abernathy, W. J., and K. B. Clark (1985): “Mapping the Winds of Creative Destruction,” Research Policy, 14, 3–22, Abernathy, W. J., K. B. Clark, and A. M. Kantrow (1983): Industrial Renaissance: Producing a Competitive Future for America. New York: Basic Books.

Abernathy, et al. (1983) call this the design concept rather than the dominant design. Abernathy, W. J., K. B. Clark, and A. M. Kantrow (1983): Industrial Renaissance: Producing a Competitive Future for America. New York: Basic Books.

Tushman, M., and P. Anderson (1986): “Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439–465.

Christensen, C. M. (1997): The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press, Christensen, C. M., and J. L. Bower (1996): “Customer Power, Strategic Investment, and the Failure of Leading Firms,” Strategic Management Journal, 17, 197–218.

Block, F. L., and M. R. Keller (2011): State of Innovation: The U.S. Government’s Role in Technology Development. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers., p.12–13

Lazonick, W. (2009): Sustainable Prosperity in the New Economy?: Business Organization and High-Tech Employment in the United States. Kalamazoo, Michigan: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

Saxenian, A. (1994): Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press, — (1999): Silicon Valley’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.

Garnsey, E., and P. Heffernan (2010): “High-Technology Clustering through Spin-out and Attraction: The Cambridge Case,” Regional Studies, 39, 1127–1144, Wiggins, J., and D. V. Gibson (2003): “Overview of Us Incubators and the Case of the Austin Technology Incubator,” International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 3, 56–66.

Agarwal, R., R. Echambadi, A. M. Franco, and M. Sarkar (2004): “Knowledge Transfer through Inheritance: Spin-out Generation, Development, and Survival,” Academy of Management Journal, 47, 501–522, Campbell, B. A., M. Ganco, A. M. Franco, and R. Agarwal (2012): “Who Leaves, Where to, and Why Worry? Employee Mobility, Entrepreneurship and Effects on Source Firm Performance,” Strategic Management Journal, 33, 65–87, Chatterji, A. K. (2009): “Spawned with a Silver Spoon? Entrepreneurial Perrofmance and Innovation in the Medical Device Industry,” ibid., 30, 185–206, Franco, A. M., and D. Filson (2006): “Spin-Outs: Knowledge Diffusion through Employee Mobility,” RAND Journal of Economics, 37, 841–860, Klepper, S., and S. Sleeper (2005): “Entry by Spinoffs,” Management Science, 51, 1291–1306.

Agarwal, R., R. Echambadi, A. M. Franco, and M. Sarkar (2004): “Knowledge Transfer through Inheritance: Spin-out Generation, Development, and Survival,” Academy of Management Journal, 47, 501–522.

Franco, A. M., and D. Filson (2006): “Spin-Outs: Knowledge Diffusion through Employee Mobility,” RAND Journal of Economics, 37, 841–860.

Klepper, S., and S. Sleeper (2005): “Entry by Spinoffs,” Management Science, 51, 1291–1306.

Chatterji, A. K. (2009): “Spawned with a Silver Spoon? Entrepreneurial Perrofmance and Innovation in the Medical Device Industry,” Strategic Management Journal, 30, 185–206.

Semadeni, M., and A. A. Cannella Jr. (2011): “Examining the Performance Effects of Post Spin-Off Links to Parent Firms: Should the Apron Strings Be Cut?,” ibid., 32, 1083–1098.

Rosenfeld, J. D. (1984): “Additional Evidence on the Relation between Divestiture Announcements and Shareholder Wealth,” Journal of Finance, 39, 1437–1448, Schipper, K., and A. Smith (1983): “Effects of Recontracting on Shareholder Weath: The Case of Voluntary Spin-Offs,” Journal of Financial Economics, 12, 437–467.

Klepper, S., and P. Thompson (2010): “Disagreements and Intra-Industry Spinoffs,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 28, 526–538, Thompson, P., and J. Chen (2011): “Disagreement, Employee Spinoffs and the Choice of Technology,” Review of Economic Dynamics, 14, 455–474.

Agarwal, R., and D. B. Audretsch (2001): “Does Entry Size Matter? The Impact of the Life Cycle and Technology on Firm Survival,” Journal of Industrial Economics, 49, 21–46.

Phillips, D. J. (2002): “A Genealogical Approach to Organizational Life Chances: The Parent-Progeny Transfer among Silicon Valley Law Firms, 1946–1996,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 474–506.

Campbell, B. A., M. Ganco, A. M. Franco, and R. Agarwal (2012): “Who Leaves, Where to, and Why Worry? Employee Mobility, Entrepreneurship and Effects on Source Firm Performance,” Strategic Management Journal, 33, 65–87.

Woo, C. Y., G. E. Willard, and U. S. Daellenbach (1992): “Sipin-Off Performance: A Case of Overstated Expectations?,” ibid., 13, 433–447.

Hippel, E. v. (1994): ““Sticky Information” and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation,” Management Science, 40, 429–439.

For details on tacit knowledge and organizational capability, refer to the followings. Barley, S. R., and J. E. Orr (1997): Between Craft and Science: Technical Work in U.S. Settings. Ithaca, N.Y.: IRL Press, Dosi, G., R. R. Nelson, and S. G. Winter (2000): “The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities,” Oxford: Oxford University Press, Dosi, G., D. J. Teece, and J. Chytry (1998): “Technology, Organization, and Competitiveness: Perspectives on Industrial and Corporate Change,” Oxford: Oxford University Press, Leonard-Barton, D. (1992): “Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities: A Paradox in Managing New Product Development,” Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111–125, Nelson, R. R., and S. G. Winter (1982): An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Nonaka, I., and H. Takeuchi (1995): The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Florida, R. L., and M. Kenney (1990): The Breakthrough Illusion: Corporate America’s Failure to Move from Innovation to Mass Production. New York: Basic Books.

Edquist, C. (1997): Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London: Pinter, Lundvall, B.-A. A. (1992): National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter, Nelson, R. R. (1993): “National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis,” New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Regarding the external numerical flexibility of R&D resources in Japan, Murakami (2003) has conducted an excellent analysis based on a survey. The analysis has shown that private enterprises and national research institutions have different attitudes toward changes in career of human resources partaking in R&D. For example, human resources with high academic research performance tend to desire changing career to work at national research institutions, whereas those with comparatively low performance tend to desire changing career to work for private enterprises. It further suggested that changing career to work for national research institution is motivated by the more unrestricted research environment that is provided, more so than the offered income, whereas changing career to work for private enterprise is motivated by dissatisfaction in how they are being treated at their existing firms, R&D policies, etc. Murakami, Y. (2003): Engineer Career Change and Labor Market (Gijyutsusha no Tenshoku to Rodo Shijyo). Tokyo: Hakuto Shobo.

Ariga, K., G. Brunello, and Y. Ohkusa (2000): Internal Labor Markets in Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Ariga, K., G. Brunello, Y. Ohkusa, and Y. Nishiyama (1992): “Corporate Hierarchy, Promotion, and Firm Growth: Japanese Internal Labor Market in Transition,” Journal of Japanese and International Economics, 6, 440–471.

There may be differences in the accumulation of knowledge of workers and the formation of skills, depending on whether labor market is constructed internally or externally. When the labor market mobility is high, the incentive for a worker to invest in acquiring firm-specific knowledge is not that high. Instead, the incentive to acquire versatile knowledge that can be used across multiple organizations increases. On the other hand, if the labor market mobility is low, and the internal labor market develops well, a worker’s life time income level will depend heavily on their firm’s performance.

Shimizu, H., and N. Wakutsu (2017): “Spin-Outs and Patterns of Subsequent Innoavtion: Technological Development of Laser Diodes in the U.S. And Japan,” IIR Working Paper, WP#17–14.

Almeida, P., and B. Kogut (1997): “The Exploration of Technological Diversity and Geographic Localization in Innovation: Start-up Firms in the Semiconductor Industry,” Small Business Economics, 9, 21–31.

— (1999): “Localization of Knowledge and the Mobility of Engineers in Regional Networks,” Management Science, 45, 905–917, Casper, S. (2007): “How Do Technology Clusters Emerge and Become Sustainable?: Social Netowrk Formation and Inter-Firm Mobility within the San Diego Biotechnology Cluster,” Research Policy, 36, 438–455, Castilla, E., K. Hwang, E. Granovetter, and M. Granovetter (2000): “Social Networks in Silicon Valley,” in The Silicon Valley Edge: A Habitat for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, ed. by C.-M. Lee. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press; [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press] [distributor], 218–247, Cohen, S. S., and G. Fields (2000): “Social Capital and Capital Gains: An Examination of Social Capital in Silicon Valley,” in Understanding Silicon Valley: The Anatomy of an Entrepreneurial Region, ed. by M. Kenney. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 190–217.

Almeida, P., G. Dokko, and L. Rosenkopf (2003): “Startup Size and the Mechanisms of External Learning: Increasing Opportunity and Decreasing Ability?,” Research Policy, 32, 301–315.

Chesbrough, H. W. (1999): “The Organizational Impact of Technological Change: A Comparative Theory of National Institutional Factors,” Industrial & Corporate Change, 8, 447–485.

Bresnahan, T. F., and P.-L. Yin (2010): “Reallocating Innovative Resources around Growth Bottlenecks,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 19, 1589–1627.

Cohen, W. M., and R. C. Levin (1989): “Empirical Studies of Innovation and Market Structure,” Handbook of Industrial Organization, 2, 1059–1107.

Bygrave, W. D., and J. A. Timmons (1992): Venture Capital at the Crossroads. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press, Florida, R., and M. Kenney (1988): “Venture Capital-Financed Innovation and Technological-Change in the USA,” Research Policy, 17, 119–137, — (1988): “Venture Capital and High Technology Entrepreneurship,” Journal of Business Venturing, 3, 301–319, Gompers, P. A. (1994): “The Rise and Fall of Venture Capital,” Business and Economic History, 23, 1–26, Timmons, J. A., and W. D. Bygrave (1986): “Venture Capital’s Role in Financing Innovation for Economic Growth,” Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 161–176.

Lazonick, W. (2009): Sustainable Prosperity in the New Economy?: Business Organization and High-Tech Employment in the United States. Kalamazoo, Michigan: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.p.73.

Jeng, L. A., and P. C. Wells (2000): “The Determinants of Venture Capital Funding: Evidence across Countries,” Journal of Corporate Finance, 6, 241–289.

Bozkaya, A., and W. R. Kerr (2014): “Labor Retulations and European Venture Capital,” Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 23, 776–810.

Da Rin, M., G. Nicodano, and A. Sembenelli (2006): “Public Policy and the Creation of Active Venture Capital Markets,” Journal of Public Economics, 90, 1699–1723.

Sutton, J. (1998): Technology and Market Structure:Theory and History. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Buenstorf, G., and S. Klepper (2010): “Submarket Dynamics and Innovation: The Case of the US Tire Industry,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 19, 1563–1587, Klepper, S. (2006): “Submarkets and the Evolution of Market Structure,” RAND Journal of Economics, 37, 861–886, Sutton, J. (1998): Technology and Market Structure:Theory and History. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Buenstorf, G., and S. Klepper (2010): “Submarket Dynamics and Innovation: The Case of the US Tire Industry,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 19, 1563–1587.

Sutton, J. (1998): Technology and Market Structure:Theory and History. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Buenstorf, G., and S. Klepper (2010): “Submarket Dynamics and Innovation: The Case of the US Tire Industry,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 19, 1563–1587.

ibid., Klepper, S. (2006): “Submarkets and the Evolution of Market Structure,” RAND Journal of Economics, 37, 861–886.

Sutton, J. (1998): Technology and Market Structure:Theory and History. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Klepper, S. (2006): “Submarkets and the Evolution of Market Structure,” RAND Journal of Economics, 37, 861–886.

Rosenberg, N. (1963): “Technological Change in the Machine Tool Industry, 1840–1910,” Journal of Economic History, 23, 414–443.

Arthur, W. B. (2009): The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. New York: Free Press.

Economic historians such as North (1990, 2005) and Rosenberg (1982) have conducted numerous studies that posit that the evolution of technology is largely regulated by the economic system.North, D. C. (1990): Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, North, D. C. (2005): Understanding the Process of Economic Change. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, Rosenberg, N. (1982): Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, M. R., and L. Marx (1994): “Does Technology Drive History?: The Dilemma of Technological Determinism,” Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press.

If a journal/book does not provide a title in English, the title is translated into English and the original title in Japanese is in the bracket.