In search of a useful measure of technological innovation (to make economists happy without) discontenting technologists)

Abstract

This article presents an exploration of the methology and measurement of technological innovation. It is based upon already available surveys and especially upon the SPRU data bank of innovations in Britain. The methodology proposed could be applied to the joint CNR-ISTAT survey being carried out on innovation diffusion in the Italian manufacturing industry. It is suggested that the empirical investigations already available or in progress should be exploited in order to develop a satisfactory theory of technological innovation. The article is also a contribution to the OECD move debate in order to reach aninternational standardization of methodologies and classifications of innovative activity. The author introduces a distinction between the objects and the subjects of technological change, and on this basis he makes a comparison between the two approaches, which emphasize alternatively “evolutionary” or “revolutionary” characteristics of technological change. It is argued that many of the present-day controversies arise from misunderstandings between those working in this field on the concepts and measurement methods employed. As a consequence, the debate has been continuing on different and noncomparable topics. It is argued that a standarization and a more accurate methodological precision on measuring technological innovation could have the salutory effect of removing the suspicion of heresy, which has so far kept the economics of technological change out of thoroughbred economic theory. It would be absolutely superflous to state the nature and number of the advantages of an instrument so excellent for the observation on both land and sea. But, leaving aside earthly considerations, I turned to heavenly speculation; and clearly saw the moon as near as though but two earthly radii distant. After this, to my spirit's incredible delight, I many times observed both the fixed and wandering stars. Since I saw they were very thick, I began to study a way to measure thier distance, which I finally found. On this point it is well that all those wishing to devote themselves to similar observations should be forewarned. In the first place, it is necessary to prepare a most accurate telescope, which represents the objects clearly and distinctly, not covered by any haze, […] in fact, if the instruments is not so, one will try in vain to see all the things I saw in the heavens.