|
||||
|
||||
Was Electricity a General Purpose Technology?
Petra Moser Stanford University - Department of Economics; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Tom Nicholas Harvard University - Entrepreneurial Management Unit The American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, Vol.94, No. 2, pp. 388-394. May 2004 Abstract: This paper uses historical patent citation data to test whether electricity, as the canonical example of a General Purpose Technology (GPT), matches the current citations-based criteria of GPTs. We use a sample of 1,867 American patents assigned to publicly traded companies in the 1920s and 3,400 forward citations to these patents to check which of four industry categories - electricity, chemicals, mechanical and other - most closely matches the key elements of GPTs. Our results suggest that electricity patents were broader in scope than other categories of patents at their grant date, and that they were more "original" than their counterparts. However, we also show that electricity patents had lower generality scores, fewer citations per patent (a measure of technological importance), and shorter citation lags (i.e., faster rates of knowledge depreciation). We argue that technological change, even in the 1920's, was much broader than has previously been considered.
Keywords: Innovation, Patents, General Purpose Technology, U.S. Economic History JEL Classifications: N00, O30, O31, O34 Accepted Paper SeriesDate posted: September 18, 2006 ; Last revised: September 18, 2006Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
© 2009 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was served by apollo6 in 0.235 seconds.