Luigi Orsenigo

TL;DR: In this paper, Arcangeli, Paul David, Frank Engelman, Christopher Freeman, Massimo Moggi, Richard Nelson, Luigi Orsenigo, Nathan Rosenberg, Michele Salvati, G. N. von Tunzelman, two anonymous referees, and the participants at the meeting of the Committee on Distribution, Growth, and Technical Progress of the Italian National Research Council (CNR), Rome, November 16, 1985, have helped with various redraftings.

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors proposed that the specific pattern of innovative activities in an industry can be explained as the outcome of different technological (learning) regimes, and provided empirical estimates of the relationships between indicators of the Schumpeterian patterns of innovation (concentration of innovative activity, stability in the hierarchy of innovators and importance of new innovators).

TL;DR: In this article, the authors focus on the relationships between observed patterns of innovative activities within a sector and the related context and underlying microeconomic processes that might account for them, and propose that the specific pattern of innovative activity of a sector can be explained as the outcome of different technological regimes that are implied by the nature of technology and knowledge.

TL;DR: Using patent data for four countries (Germany, France, United Kingdom and Italy) for the period 1968-1986, this paper found that the patterns of innovative activities differ systematically across technological classes, while remarkable similarities emerge across countries in the patterns for each technological class.

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined the patterns of innovative activities at the technological and country levels, using patent data for 49 technological classes in six countries (USA, Japan, Germany, France, United Kingdom and Italy).