2023
Journal Articles
Rikap, Cecilia
Intellectual monopolies as a new pattern of innovation and technological regime Journal Article
In: Industrial and Corporate Change, 2023.
@article{Rikap2023b,
title = {Intellectual monopolies as a new pattern of innovation and technological regime},
author = {Cecilia Rikap},
url = {https://academic.oup.com/icc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/icc/dtad077/7462137},
doi = {/10.1093/icc/dtad077},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-12-07},
journal = {Industrial and Corporate Change},
abstract = {Building on Schumpeter Mark I and Mark II, I propose an additional pattern of innovation and technological regime called the intellectual monopoly (IM) to explain the co-habitation of large incumbent firms with high entry and exit rates and provide evidence for pharmaceuticals and information technologies. I associate the IM pattern and technological regime with corporate innovation systems and illustrate that patterns not only evolve after changes in technological regimes but also due to economic, political, and institutional transformations.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Online
Bensussan, Hannah; Durand, Cédric; Rikap, Cecilia
100 years of Corporate Planning. From Industrial Capitalism to Intellectual Monopoly Capitalism through the lenses of the Harvard Business Review (1922-2021) Online
2023.
@online{Bensussan2023,
title = {100 years of Corporate Planning. From Industrial Capitalism to Intellectual Monopoly Capitalism through the lenses of the Harvard Business Review (1922-2021)},
author = {Hannah Bensussan and Cédric Durand and Cecilia Rikap},
url = {https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:171107},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-08-30},
school = {University of Geneva},
abstract = {This paper reopens the question of Corporate Planning (CP) from a political economy perspective by analyzing its evolving role in capitalism. To account for the evolution yet persistent relevance of CP, we analyze the content of Harvard Business Review (HBR) since its foundation in 1922 until 2021 included, using text mining and network analysis techniques.
Our results show that CP found new venues but remains crucial in the process of capital circulation and accumulation. Through Industrial Capitalism, CP used to be conditioned by two types of means of planning identified as means of information and knowledge appropriation (MIKA) and means of spatio-temporal projection (MSTP). The former was used to capture relevant intangibles for the construction and assessment of the plan while the latter were used to deploy the plan and concretely control and organize the activity from production to consumption. From the 1980s on, in a context of ample socioeconomic changes, the spread of digital technologies and the growing relevance of (and capacity to capture) intangibles for large corporations led to a transformation in the temporal orientation of the plan and contributed to change not only the how managers plan but also the immediate purpose of planning. },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
Our results show that CP found new venues but remains crucial in the process of capital circulation and accumulation. Through Industrial Capitalism, CP used to be conditioned by two types of means of planning identified as means of information and knowledge appropriation (MIKA) and means of spatio-temporal projection (MSTP). The former was used to capture relevant intangibles for the construction and assessment of the plan while the latter were used to deploy the plan and concretely control and organize the activity from production to consumption. From the 1980s on, in a context of ample socioeconomic changes, the spread of digital technologies and the growing relevance of (and capacity to capture) intangibles for large corporations led to a transformation in the temporal orientation of the plan and contributed to change not only the how managers plan but also the immediate purpose of planning.
Rikap, Cecilia
Same End By Different Means: Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Meta’s Strategies to Organize Their Frontier AI Innovation Systems Online
2023, visited: 31.03.2023, (CITYPERC).
@online{Rikap2023,
title = {Same End By Different Means: Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Meta’s Strategies to Organize Their Frontier AI Innovation Systems},
author = {Cecilia Rikap},
url = {https://www.cdh.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/8.-Rikap-2023-Same-end-different-means-longer-version-CITYPERC.pdf},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-03-31},
urldate = {2023-03-31},
school = {University of London},
abstract = {I combine quantitative methodologies and in-depth interviews to analyse United States Big Tech different strategies to organize and profit from their AI corporate innovation systems (CIS). I propose 1) “frenemies” for Microsoft, because even Chinese organizations and direct competitors integrate its CIS. 2) “University” for Google, whose AI strategy included leaving DeepMind autonomous to explore more fundamental AI but appropriation mechanisms are not translating into a clear business advantage. 3) “Secrecy” for Amazon, given its large concern with secrecy to profit from AI. 4) And “application-centred” for Facebook; its AI CIS is the narrowest, mostly attached to its platforms.},
howpublished = {CITYPERC},
note = {CITYPERC},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
2022
Journal Articles
Rikap, Cecilia
The expansionary strategies of intellectual monopolies: Google and the digitalization of healthcare Journal Article
In: Economy and Society, 2022.
@article{Rikap2022b,
title = {The expansionary strategies of intellectual monopolies: Google and the digitalization of healthcare},
author = {Cecilia Rikap},
url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03085147.2022.2131271
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/03085147.2022.2131271?needAccess=true&role=button},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2022.2131271},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-11-01},
urldate = {2022-11-01},
journal = {Economy and Society},
abstract = {As big tech companies are entering new industrial sectors, an open question concerns the drivers of their expansionary strategies. This paper proposes that these companies are currently entering sectors based on their data-driven intellectual monopoly power, thereby complementing the preliminary answer provided by political economy research which has argued that expansion is driven by their infrastructural power. This approach is developed through a historical analysis of tech giants as companies that systematically turn knowledge and data into intangible assets, showing their expansionary strategies in the healthcare sector to be mainly driven by insights obtained from those intangible assets (a monopolized intangibles driver) and by a quest for conquering new knowledge and data to perpetuate their intellectual monopolies (an intangibles prospecting driver). The paper further illustrates its arguments through a case study of Google’s expansionary strategy and its prioritized incursion into healthcare.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Carrillo, Mercedes García; Testoni, Federico; Gagnon, Marc-André; Rikap, Cecilia; Blaustein, Matías
Academic dependency: the influence of the prevailing international biomedical research agenda on Argentina’s CONICET Journal Article
In: Heliyon, vol. 8, 2022.
@article{Carrillo2022,
title = {Academic dependency: the influence of the prevailing international biomedical research agenda on Argentina’s CONICET},
author = {Mercedes García Carrillo and Federico Testoni and Marc-André Gagnon and Cecilia Rikap and Matías Blaustein},
url = {https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2405844022027694
https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2405-8440%2822%2902769-4},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11481},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-09-01},
urldate = {2022-09-01},
journal = {Heliyon},
volume = {8},
abstract = {Background
The prevailing health and biomedical sciences (HBMS) research agenda, not only determined by leading academic institutions but also by large pharmaceutical companies, has been shown to prioritize the exploration of novel pharmacological interventions over the study of the socio-environmental factors influencing illness onset and progression. The aim of this investigation is to quantitatively explore whether and to what extent the prevailing international HBMS research agenda and the key actors setting this agenda influence research in non-core countries.
Methods
We used the Web of Science database and the CorText platform to proxy the HBMS research agenda of a prestigious research institution from Latin America: Argentina’s National Research Council (CONICET). We conducted a bibliometric and lexical analysis of 16,309 HBMS academic articles whereby CONICET was among the authors' affiliations. The content of CONICET’s agenda was represented through co-occurrence network maps of the most frequent concatenation of terms found in titles, keywords, and abstracts. We compared our findings with previous reports on the international HBMS research agenda.
Results
In line with the results previously reported for the prevailing international agenda, we found that terms linked to molecular biology and cancer research hegemonize CONICET’s HBMS research agenda, whereas terms connecting HBMS research with socio-environmental cues are marginal. However, we also found differences with the international agenda: CONICET's HBMS agenda shows a marginal presence of terms linked to translational medicine, while terms associated with categories such as pathogens, plant research, agrobiotechnology, and food industry are more represented than in the prevailing agenda.
Conclusions
CONICET’s HBMS research agenda shares topics, priorities, and methodologies with the prevailing HBMS international research agenda. However, CONICET's HBMS research agenda is internally heterogeneous, appearing to be mostly driven by a combination of elements that not only reflect academic dependency (the adoption of the prevailing research agenda by non-core research institutions) but also local economic determinants associated with Argentina’s place in the international division of labor as an exporter of primary goods.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The prevailing health and biomedical sciences (HBMS) research agenda, not only determined by leading academic institutions but also by large pharmaceutical companies, has been shown to prioritize the exploration of novel pharmacological interventions over the study of the socio-environmental factors influencing illness onset and progression. The aim of this investigation is to quantitatively explore whether and to what extent the prevailing international HBMS research agenda and the key actors setting this agenda influence research in non-core countries.
Methods
We used the Web of Science database and the CorText platform to proxy the HBMS research agenda of a prestigious research institution from Latin America: Argentina’s National Research Council (CONICET). We conducted a bibliometric and lexical analysis of 16,309 HBMS academic articles whereby CONICET was among the authors' affiliations. The content of CONICET’s agenda was represented through co-occurrence network maps of the most frequent concatenation of terms found in titles, keywords, and abstracts. We compared our findings with previous reports on the international HBMS research agenda.
Results
In line with the results previously reported for the prevailing international agenda, we found that terms linked to molecular biology and cancer research hegemonize CONICET’s HBMS research agenda, whereas terms connecting HBMS research with socio-environmental cues are marginal. However, we also found differences with the international agenda: CONICET's HBMS agenda shows a marginal presence of terms linked to translational medicine, while terms associated with categories such as pathogens, plant research, agrobiotechnology, and food industry are more represented than in the prevailing agenda.
Conclusions
CONICET’s HBMS research agenda shares topics, priorities, and methodologies with the prevailing HBMS international research agenda. However, CONICET's HBMS research agenda is internally heterogeneous, appearing to be mostly driven by a combination of elements that not only reflect academic dependency (the adoption of the prevailing research agenda by non-core research institutions) but also local economic determinants associated with Argentina’s place in the international division of labor as an exporter of primary goods.
Franco, Sebastián Fernández; Graña, Juan M; Flacher, David; Rikap, Cecilia
Producing and using artificial intelligence: What can Europe learn from Siemens’s experience? Journal Article
In: Competition & Change, vol. 0, pp. 1–30, 2022.
@article{Franco2022,
title = {Producing and using artificial intelligence: What can Europe learn from Siemens’s experience?},
author = {Sebastián Fernández Franco and Juan M Graña and David Flacher and Cecilia Rikap},
url = {https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juan-Grana-2/publication/360759657_Producing_and_using_artificial_intelligence_What_can_Europe_learn_from_Siemens's_experience/links/62a739f955273755ebe9963b/Producing-and-using-artificial-intelligence-What-can-Europe-learn-from-Siemenss-experience.pdf},
doi = {10.1177/10245294221097066},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-06-10},
urldate = {2022-06-10},
journal = {Competition & Change},
volume = {0},
pages = {1–30},
abstract = {This paper examines the innovation strategy of Siemens, a key player in Europe’s digital economy, by performing network and lexical analyses using data derived from Siemens’s patents and scientific publications since 1998. We observe that the company’s innovation efforts evolved from a broader attempt to develop internal information and communication technology (ICT) capabilities – alongside its historical industrial priorities – to a strategy focused on developing artificial intelligence (AI) for sector-specific and niche applications (such as life and medical sciences). As a result, it became dependent on tech giants’ clouds for accessing more general AI services and digital infrastructure. We build on the intellectual monopoly literature focusing on the effects of tech giants on other leading corporations, to analyse Siemens’s experience. By abandoning the development of general ICT and given the emergence of tech giants as digital economy intellectual monopolies, we show that Siemens is risking its technological autonomy towards these big tech companies. Our results provide clues to understand the challenges faced by Europe and its firms in relation to US and Chinese tech giants.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Rikap, Cecilia
Becoming an intellectual monopoly by relying on the national innovation system: the State Grid Corporation of China's experience Journal Article
In: Research Policy, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 104472, 2022, ISSN: 0048-7333.
@article{Rikap2022,
title = {Becoming an intellectual monopoly by relying on the national innovation system: the State Grid Corporation of China's experience},
author = {Cecilia Rikap},
url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004873332100264X},
doi = {10.1016/j.respol.2021.104472},
issn = {0048-7333},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-05-01},
urldate = {2022-05-01},
journal = {Research Policy},
volume = {51},
number = {4},
pages = {104472},
abstract = {This paper examines the origins of global leaders under intellectual monopoly capitalism. State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC), the leading firm in artificial intelligence applications for the energy sector, became an intellectual monopoly relying heavily on China's national innovation system –particularly public research organizations and public funding, and innovation and energy policies. SGCC is unique because it did not rely on technology transfer from global leaders, unlike other national champions from developing or emerging countries. We provide evidence that contributes to thinking that SGCC first became a national intellectual monopoly and only afterwards expanded that monopoly globally. We empirically study SGCC's innovation networks. We proxy them using big data techniques to analyze the content, co-authors and co-owners of its publications and patents. Results also suggest that SGCC is capturing intellectual rents from its increasingly transnational and technologically diverse innovation networks by leveraging its national innovation system.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Lundvall, Bengt-Åke; Rikap, Cecilia
China's catching-up in artificial intelligence seen as a co-evolution of corporate and national innovation systems Journal Article
In: Research Policy, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 104395, 2022, ISSN: 0048-7333.
@article{Lundvall2022,
title = {China's catching-up in artificial intelligence seen as a co-evolution of corporate and national innovation systems},
author = {Bengt-Åke Lundvall and Cecilia Rikap},
url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733321001918},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104395},
issn = {0048-7333},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-01-01},
urldate = {2022-01-01},
journal = {Research Policy},
volume = {51},
number = {1},
pages = {104395},
abstract = {Inspired by Christopher Freeman's work on how radical technical change opens up for shifts in world leadership and on the role of innovation systems in this process, this paper explores China's emergence as a lead country in artificial intelligence as reflecting a co-evolution of Corporate and National Innovation Systems. Taking Freeman's (1987) work on Japan as our lead, we focus on the domestic interaction within and on the openness of China's national innovation system. To follow up on his prediction of the increasing importance of big companies as network leaders, we introduce the concept “corporate innovation system” with special attention to two Chinese tech giants: Alibaba and Tencent.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
2021
Journal Articles
Testoni, Federico E.; Carrillo, Mercedes García; Gagnon, Marc-André; Rikap, Cecilia; Blaustein, Matías
Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda Journal Article
In: PLoS ONE, 2021.
@article{Testoni2021,
title = {Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda},
author = {Federico E. Testoni and Mercedes García Carrillo and Marc-André Gagnon and Cecilia Rikap and Matías Blaustein
},
editor = {Quinn Grundy},
url = {https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0249661},
doi = { https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249661},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-04-07},
urldate = {2021-04-07},
journal = {PLoS ONE},
abstract = {Conflicts of interest in biomedical research can influence research results and drive research agendas away from public health priorities. Previous agenda-setting studies share two shortfalls: they only account for direct connections between academic institutions and firms, as well as potential bias based on researchers’ personal beliefs. This paper’s goal is to determine the key actors and contents of the prevailing health and biomedical sciences (HBMS) research agenda, overcoming these shortfalls.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Books
Rikap, Cecilia; Lundvall, Bengt-Åke
The Digital Innovation Race : Conceptualizing the Emerging New World Order Book
2021, ISBN: 978-3-030-89442-9.
@book{Rikap2021b,
title = {The Digital Innovation Race : Conceptualizing the Emerging New World Order},
author = {Cecilia Rikap and Bengt-Åke Lundvall},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-89443-6},
isbn = {978-3-030-89442-9},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-12-01},
urldate = {2021-12-01},
abstract = {This book develops new theoretical perspectives on the economics and politics of innovation and knowledge in order to capture new trends in modern capitalism. It shows how giant corporations establish themselves as intellectual monopolies and how each of them builds and controls its own corporate innovation system. It presents an analysis of a new form of production where Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft, and their counterparts in China, extract value and appropriate intellectual rents through privileged access to AI algorithms trained by data from organizations and individuals all around the world.
These companies’ specific form of production and rent-seeking takes place at the global level and challenges national governments trying to regulate intellectual monopolies and attempting to build stronger national innovation systems. It is within this context that the authors provide new insights on the complex interplay between corporate and national innovation systems by looking at the US-China conflict, understood as a struggle for global technological supremacy. The book ends with alternative scenarios of global governance and advances policy recommendations as well as calls for social activism.
This book will be of interest to students, academics and practitioners (both from national states and international organizations) and professionals working on innovation, digital capitalism and related topics. },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
These companies’ specific form of production and rent-seeking takes place at the global level and challenges national governments trying to regulate intellectual monopolies and attempting to build stronger national innovation systems. It is within this context that the authors provide new insights on the complex interplay between corporate and national innovation systems by looking at the US-China conflict, understood as a struggle for global technological supremacy. The book ends with alternative scenarios of global governance and advances policy recommendations as well as calls for social activism.
This book will be of interest to students, academics and practitioners (both from national states and international organizations) and professionals working on innovation, digital capitalism and related topics.
Rikap, Cecilia
Capitalism, Power and Innovation: Intellectual Monopoly Capitalism Uncovered (1st ed.) Book
London, 2021, ISBN: 9780429341489.
@book{Rikap2021,
title = {Capitalism, Power and Innovation: Intellectual Monopoly Capitalism Uncovered (1st ed.)},
author = {Cecilia Rikap},
url = {https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780429341489/capitalism-power-innovation-cecilia-rikap},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429341489},
isbn = {9780429341489},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-03-29},
urldate = {2021-03-29},
address = {London},
abstract = {In contemporary global capitalism, the most powerful corporations are innovation or intellectual monopolies. The book’s unique perspective focuses on how private ownership and control of knowledge and data have become a major source of rent and power. The author explains how at the one pole, these corporations concentrate income, property and power in the United States, China, and in a handful of intellectual monopolies, particularly from digital and pharmaceutical industries, while at the other pole developing countries are left further behind.
The book includes detailed empirical mappings of how intellectual monopolies develop and transform knowledge from universities and open-source collaborations into intangible assets. The result is a strategy that combines undermining the commons through privatization with harvesting from the same commons. The book ends with provoking reflections to tilt the scale against intellectual monopoly capitalism and arguing that desired changes require democratic mobilization of workers and citizens at large.
This book represents one of the first attempts to capture the contours of an emerging new era where old perspectives lead us astray, and the old policy toolbox is hopelessly inadequate. This is true for the idea that the best, or only, way to promote innovation is to transform knowledge into private property. It is also true for anti-trust policies focusing exclusively on consumer prices. The formation of global infrastructures that lead to natural monopolies calls for public rather than private ownership.
Scholars and professionals from the social sciences and humanities (in particular economics, sociology, political science, geography, educational science and science and technology studies) will enjoy a clear and all-embracing depiction of innovation dynamics in contemporary capitalism, with a particular focus on asymmetries between actors, regions and topics. In fact, its topical issue broadens the book’s scope to those curious about how innovation networks shape our world.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
The book includes detailed empirical mappings of how intellectual monopolies develop and transform knowledge from universities and open-source collaborations into intangible assets. The result is a strategy that combines undermining the commons through privatization with harvesting from the same commons. The book ends with provoking reflections to tilt the scale against intellectual monopoly capitalism and arguing that desired changes require democratic mobilization of workers and citizens at large.
This book represents one of the first attempts to capture the contours of an emerging new era where old perspectives lead us astray, and the old policy toolbox is hopelessly inadequate. This is true for the idea that the best, or only, way to promote innovation is to transform knowledge into private property. It is also true for anti-trust policies focusing exclusively on consumer prices. The formation of global infrastructures that lead to natural monopolies calls for public rather than private ownership.
Scholars and professionals from the social sciences and humanities (in particular economics, sociology, political science, geography, educational science and science and technology studies) will enjoy a clear and all-embracing depiction of innovation dynamics in contemporary capitalism, with a particular focus on asymmetries between actors, regions and topics. In fact, its topical issue broadens the book’s scope to those curious about how innovation networks shape our world.
2020
Journal Articles
Rikap, Cecilia; Flacher, David
Who collects intellectual rents from knowledge and innovation hubs? questioning the sustainability of the singapore model Journal Article
In: Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, vol. 55, pp. 59-73, 2020.
@article{Rikap2020b,
title = {Who collects intellectual rents from knowledge and innovation hubs? questioning the sustainability of the singapore model},
author = {Cecilia Rikap and David Flacher},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2020.06.004},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-12-01},
urldate = {2020-12-01},
journal = {Structural Change and Economic Dynamics},
volume = {55},
pages = {59-73},
abstract = {While knowledge and innovation are produced in networks involving diverse actors, associated rents are greatly appropriated by global leaders, mostly coming from core countries, that become intellectual monopolies. This raises the question on emerging or peripheral countries companies’ capacity to catch-up, innovate and compete for intellectual rents. The article considers the case of Singapore who has pursued a knowledge hub strategy aimed at: 1) creating world class universities inserted in global knowledge networks of defined fields; and 2) capturing intellectual rents through those institutions’ research and contributing to local firms’ catching up. We show that research universities caught-up. However, we find that foreign companies, particularly multinationals, capture most of Singapore's intellectual rents at the expense of local companies and research institutions. Overall, our findings point to the limitations of Singapore's knowledge hub as a catching-up strategy. The article ends discussing the relevancy of these findings for emerging countries in general.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Rikap, Cecilia
Amazon: A story of accumulation through intellectual rentiership and predation Journal Article
In: Competition & Change, 2020.
@article{Rikap2020,
title = {Amazon: A story of accumulation through intellectual rentiership and predation },
author = {Cecilia Rikap},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1024529420932418},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-06-17},
journal = {Competition & Change},
abstract = {This article elaborates on intellectual monopoly theory as a form of predation and rentiership using Amazon as a case study. By analysing Amazon’s financial statements, scientific publications and patents, we show that Amazon’s economic power heavily relies on its systematic innovations and capacity to centralize and analyse customized data that orients its business and innovations. We demonstrate how Amazon’s innovation activities have evolved over time with growing importance of technologies related to data and machine learning. We also map Amazon’s innovation networks with academic institutions and companies. We show how Amazon appropriates intellectual rents from these networks and from technological cooperation with other intellectual monopolies. We argue that Amazon, as other data-driven monopolies, predates value from suppliers and third-party companies participating in its platform. One striking characteristic of Amazon is the low rate of reported profits. The centrality of innovations leads us to suggest an alternative calculation that shows that Amazon’s profits are not as low as they appear in Annual Reports. We also argue that lower profits are coherent with Amazon’s rentiership and predatory strategy since they contribute to the avoidance of accusations of excessive market power. Finally, the paper offers preliminary observations on: (i) the complementarities between financial and intellectual rentierism and (ii) how data-driven intellectual monopoly expands big corporations’ political power. Going beyond the specific case of Amazon, we thus contribute to a better understanding of the role of lead firms and power dynamics within innovation networks.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
2019
Journal Articles
Rikap, Cecilia
Asymmetric Power of the Core: Technological Cooperation and Technological Competition in the Transnational Innovation Networks of Big Pharma Journal Article
In: Review of International Political Economy, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 987-1021, 2019.
@article{Rikap2019,
title = {Asymmetric Power of the Core: Technological Cooperation and Technological Competition in the Transnational Innovation Networks of Big Pharma},
author = {Cecilia Rikap},
url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09692290.2019.1620309},
doi = {10.1080/09692290.2019.1620309},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-06-26},
urldate = {2019-06-26},
journal = {Review of International Political Economy},
volume = {26},
number = {5},
pages = {987-1021},
abstract = {This article theoretically and empirically analyzes leader corporations’ innovation processes in contemporary capitalism. We highlight three characteristics: their transnational scope, the primacy of power or asymmetric relations exercised by leaders over the participants of their innovation circuits or networks, and the relevance of what we called technological competition and technological cooperation between leaders. Focusing on the latter, our theoretical contribution integrates the concepts of innovation circuit, global innovation network and modularity of knowledge production in order to elaborate a preliminary model for synthesizing leader’s technological competition and collaboration behaviors. This model is the general framework used for studying three big pharma’s innovation networks (Roche, Novartis and Pfizer). In particular, we study those networks by considering two outputs: scientific publications and patents. Network maps are constructed based on institutions’ co-occurrences, thus looking at who is co-authoring their publications and co-owning these corporations’ patents. We find that big pharmaceuticals co-produce together mainly generic knowledge modules, thus develop a strong technological cooperation. Simultaneously, to succeed in their technological competition they outsource stages of their innovation networks to subordinate institutions that, even if they contribute to achieve the innovation, will not be co-owners of the resulting patents, while big pharmaceuticals enjoy associated innovation rents.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
LIST OF SCIENTIFIC WORKS THAT HAVE USED CORTEXT MANAGER
(Sources: Google Scholar, HAL, Scopus, WOS and search engines)
We are grateful that you have found CorTexT Manager useful. Over the years, you have been more than 950 authors to trust CorTexT for your publicly accessible analyzes. This represents a little less than 10% of CorTexT Manager user’s community. So, thank you!
We seek to understand how the scientific production that used CorText Manager has evolved and to characterise it. You will find here our analysis of this scientific production.
Browse documents by main topics
What types of documents? |
---|
What types of documents? |
204 journal articles |
42 conference proceedings |
34 conference (not in proceedings) |
30 online articles |
28 reports |
25 Ph.D. thesis |
18 masters thesis |
17 book chapters |
9 workshop |
6 book |
5 miscellaneous |
1 bachelorthesis |
1 manual |
1 workingpaper |
Main peer-reviewed journals |
---|
Main peer-reviewed journals |
Scientometrics |
I2D - Information, données & documents |
PloS one |
Réseaux |
Journal of Rural Studies |
Revue d'anthropologie des connaissances |
Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances |
Poetics |
Competition & Change |
Renewable Energy |