Search results

This article considers the relationship between consumers’ valuation of performance improvements and technology development over the technology life cycle. Presenting a demand-based perspective, it explores how the character of life cycle maturity, the nature of competitive threats, and firms’ innovation incentives all change when consumer demand for performance matures in advance of a technology’s performance trajectories. It characterizes demand maturity by introducing the idea of a demand S curve as a complement to the traditional technology S curve. In doing so, it offers a new lens for assessing firms’ prospects of achieving superior performance through the commercialization of new technologies.

The debate about university technology transfer policy would benefit from increased attention to two parts of the technology transfer equation: the societal purpose of basic scientific research and the characteristics of scientific researchers.11This Chapter was prepared for the Colloquium on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer hosted by the Karl Eller Center of the University of Arizona and sponsored by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. I am grateful to them for their support. I am also grateful to the participants in the Colloquium for helpful comments. Finally, I thank my research assistant, David Zelner, for assistance with this project. One purpose of curiosity-driven research is to provide a demand function that can serve as a proxy for the socially optimal (but unknowable) demand function for the unpredictable research that is necessary for long-term technological progress. Preserving the curiosity-driven research peer review “market” is thus important for that progress. This analysis highlights the importance of adequate funding for curiosity-driven research. A model of typical university scientists’ preferences can be used to assess how technology transfer policies may affect the social norms of the research community and the long-term viability of the curiosity-driven research endeavor. The analysis suggests that patenting will be an ineffective technology transfer mechanism unless researchers are precluded from using patenting to maintain control over follow-on research.

In this chapter, I explore the impacts of international capital movements on income distribution within countries and the value of trade in goods. Jones (1980) introduces sector-specific capital into a simple Ricardian setting and examines the role of comparative and absolute advantage in determining the allocation of capital between countries. I introduce a simple structure of the demand for commodities into Jones (1980) so that commodity prices are determined endogenously in commodity markets. This extension allows us to show how the pattern of demand plays a crucial role in the effects of capital movements on income distribution and goods trade.

The notes reproduced here were taken by Glenn Johnson in Lloyd Mints’ course on Money and Banking at the University of Chicago in the fall of 1946. Several additional sets of course notes taken by Glenn Johnson have been published in the archival volumes of Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology. These included notes from Frank Knight's course on economic theory (Volume 24C) and Albert L. Meyer's course entitled elements of modern economics (appearing in this volume). A brief biography of Glenn Johnson is provided in Volume 24C, along with notes from his course on Agricultural Economics Methodology taught at Michigan State University.