1704380168

1704380169 14.MacLeod, Inventing the Industrial Revolution, pp..202–204.

1704380170

1704380171 15.MacLeod, “James Watt.”

1704380172

1704380173 16.Von Tunzfilmann, Steam Power.

1704380174

1704380175 17.To cite two instances, the Smithsonian Institution celebrates heroic inventors at the Lemelson Hall of Invention, commemorating the leading patent troll of the twentieth century who donated the funding; the National Inventors Hall of Fame is hosted by the U.S.Patent and Trademark O.ce and only includes inventors who secured patents, excluding, for example, Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web.

1704380176

1704380177 18.Cringely, “Steve Jobs.”

1704380178

1704380179 19.Lyman, “Transaction of the Rhode Island Society.”

1704380180

1704380181 20.Clark, “Why Isn’t the Whole World Developed?”

1704380182

1704380183 21.Thus to the extent that theory contemplates technology implementation, much of it only appears to consider investment in R&D and not the development of worker skills and knowledge.In economics, this problem is framed as one of cumulative innovation, as in Scotchmer, “Standing on the Shoulders.” In legal scholarship, the problem is framed as one of commercialization.See Kieff, “Property Rights and Property Rules”; Sichelman, “Commercializing Patents”; and Abramowicz and Duffy, “Intellectual Property for Market Experimentation.” But again, the question, as framed, is only about the investments that firms need to make in order to bring inventions to market, not about the broader development of skills and knowledge.

1704380184

1704380185 22.This is a very old intuition about patents, expressed in a formal model by Kenneth Arrow, “Economic Welfare.”

1704380186

1704380187 23.Other justifications for patents include the arguments that they facilitate trade and that they promote disclosure of knowledge.Economic analysis of patents has focused largely on R&D incentives.See, for example, the innovation theory textbook by Scotchmer, Innovation and Incentives.Notably, this text does not discuss implementation at all.

1704380188

1704380189 24.Inmany cases, theoretical economists simply ignore the difference between ideas and knowledge.In other cases, they recognize a potential difference but dismiss it.For example, Scotchmer’s text mentions Mokyr’s distinction between propositional and technological knowledge, but declares that this difference is not relevant to the economic analysis of innovation (Scotchmer, Innovation and Incentives, p.3, fn.2).

1704380190

1704380191 25.Inhuman capital theory, workers invest optimally in their training when their skills are “general human capital.” In order to be general, technology-specific skills must be widely accepted, requiring standardization.Without a widely accepted standard, the skills might be specific to a particular firm or small group of firms.A standard theoretical result is that worker investments in their own skills may be less than optimal when those skills are firm specific (see Acemoglu and Autor, “Lectures,” chapter 9).If firms could coordinate on a widely accepted standard, labor markets would provide stronger incentives to workers to invest in training.However, firms often fail to coordinate on widely accepted standards for decades (see Chapter.4).This coordination problem can arise because of network externalities in the provision of training or in job search.

1704380192

1704380193 26.Levinet al., “Appropriating the Returns”; Cohen et al., “Protecting Their Intellectual Assets”; Arundel and Kabla, “What Percentage of Innovations Are Patented?”

1704380194

1704380195 第二章　非技能工作中的技能

1704380196

1704380197 1.Sokolo., “Was the Transition…?”; Bessen, “Was Mechanization De-Skilling?”; Mohanty, “Experimentation in Textile Technology.” For example, studying Rhode Island weaving workshops during the late eighteenth century, Mohanty reports that “To make fabrics for early cloth manufacturers, weavers needed only rudimentary knowledge of their craft…the level of skill required of the workshop weavers was no more than a craftsman might acquire during the first year of an apprenticeship” (pp..9–10).

1704380198

1704380199 2.The following industries account for 58 percent of establishments with over 100 employees in the 1850 Census sample (Atack and Bateman, “U.S.Historical Statistics”): textiles, apparel, footwear, household furniture, meat, and dairy products.These goods had been produced previously largely within households (see Tryon, Household Manufactures).

1704380200

1704380201 3.The amount of cloth woven in households declined from 8.95 yards per person per year in 1825 to 0.27 yards per person per year in 1850 (Tryon, Household Manufactures, p.306).Estimates of weavers in workshops is based on calculations from the IPUMS Census samples for 1850 and 1880 (Ruggles et al., Integrated Public Use Microdata Series).Scranton, Proprietary Capitalism, documents the vitality of workshop production into the latter nineteenth century.

1704380202

1704380203 4.Dickens, “General Appearance.”

1704380204

1704380205 5.Morris, “Art, Wealth, and Riches.”

1704380206

1704380207 6.Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capital; Marglin, “What Do Bosses Do?”

1704380208

1704380209 7.Weaving apprenticeships had lasted only three years, but by the end of the eighteenth century, many artisans did not go through a formal apprenticeship; Mohanty, “Experimentation in Textile Technology.”

1704380210

1704380211 8.Here I am studying the learning curves of individual workers, not of the mill as a whole.Some of the early research on Lowell looked at learning curves for the mills or even for the industry as a whole (see Davis and Stettler, “New England Textile Industry,” and David, Technical Choice).Lazonick and Brush, in “Horndal Effect,” pointed out that a variety of factors might influence productivity over the long time frames studied, such as the organization of the workforce and the level of effort extracted.They attempted to show the effects of these factors.Nevertheless, Lazonick and Brush’s data do show individual learning curves.An individual in 1850 might begin learning at a different level than an individual in 1830 because of differences affecting the entire mill, but both individuals appear to improve performance dramatically within a year or two as the result of individual learning.

1704380212

1704380213 9.F.G.A., “Susan Miller.”

1704380214

1704380215 10.For example, the cohorts shown in Figure.2.1 earned $8.54 on average during their first month on the job; female schoolteachers in Massachusetts earned $11.28 per month around this time.Most of the weavers could have taught school, and many did.See Bessen, “Technology and Learning,” for more details.

1704380216

1704380217 11.Bessen, “Technology and Learning.”

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.704380168e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]