“Economics of technology”: principles of development and potential assessment

The paper considers a relatively new scientific direction “economics of technology”, which is part of a broader direction “economics of scientific and technological progress”, and studies the patterns of emergence, implementation, operation, withdrawal and competition of technologies, processes of technological substitution and addition, development of technologies. The purpose of the study is to determine the main principles of development of the scientific direction “economics of technology” and technological development itself, as well as the application of the author’s doctrine of “two potentials” in the framework of quantitative assessment of technological potential for making a technological choice. The methodology is the theory of technological development, “economics of technology”, the doctrine of “two potentials” – current and prospective. The result of the work is a set of principles of technological development and “economics of technology” as a research direction, as well as an approach to assessing technological potential and a methodology for choosing a technological solution when replacing imported or obsolete technology. It allows you to give a qualitative assessment of the existing set of basic technologies within a specific technological direction, type of activity or even an industry. Of course, it is necessary to take into account the fact that even one imported element within a technology can restrain its development and ensure a fairly high dependence on external technical solutions, as well as prevent it from being given the status of a completely domestic technology. In this regard, a qualitative assessment of the content of the technology, its additional characteristics is needed to ensure the adequacy of the technological choice. The tools created within the framework of this article significantly advance the development of the “economics of technology” as a scientific direction at the theoretical and methodological-measurement level of analysis. A methodology for comparative assessment of technologies in the field of microelectronics is shown, demonstrating the options for choosing in a situation of substituting imported and abandoning obsolete technology in favor of a new domestic technology. 

1. Anchishkin, A.I. (1986). Science, technology, economics. Economica. (in Russian)

2. Glazunova, V.V. (2024). Measuring technological development and sovereignty. Economics of Science, 10(3), 22–33. EDN: PCMQAV (in Russian) https://doi.org/10.22394/2410–132X-2024-10-3-22-33

3. Glazyev, S.Yu. (2018). Leap into the Future. Russia in the new technological and world-economic orders. Knizhny Mir. EDN: VQDBYV (in Russian)

4. Skobelev, D.O. (2020). Best available technologies: Experience in improving the efficiency of resource and environmental efficiency of production. AST (in Russian)

5. Sukharev, O.S. (2024). “Economics of technology” as a field of science: Retrospective and prospective aspects. Economics of Science, 10(1), 41–53. EDN: ASECXX (in Russian) https://doi.org/10.22394/2410-132X-2024-10-1-41-53

6. Sukharev, O.S. (2025). Scientific and technological potential and industrial policy. Finance and Statistics.

7. Acosta, M., Coronado, D., León, M.D., & Moreno, P.J. (2020). The production of academic technological knowledge: An exploration at the research group level. Journal of Knowledge Economy, 11, 1003–1025. EDN: HHHOMS, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-019-0586-9

8. Ahmad, N., Youjin, L., Žiković, S., & Belyaeva, Zh. (2023). The effects of technological innovation on sustainable development and environmental degradation: Evidence from China. Technology in Society, 72, 102184. EDN: HDDSEA, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102184

9. Amann, E. (2002). Globalisation, industrial efficiency and technological sovereignty: Evidence from Brazil. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 42(5), 875–888. EDN: DWVQNR.

10. Barrena-Martínez, J., Cricelli, L., Ferrándiz, E., Greco, M., & Grimaldi, M. (2020). Joint forces: Towards an integration of intellectual capital theory and the open innovation paradigm. Journal of Business Research, 112, 261–270. EDN: HMBCOV, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.029

11. Bassens, D., & Hendrikse, R. (2022). Asserting Europe’s technological sovereignty amid American platform finance: Countering financial sector dependence on Big Tech? Political Geography, 97, 102648. EDN: SVNPFM, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2022.102648

12. Chaturvedi, T. (2023). How corporate development activities resolve the legitimacy-adaptation dilemma: A case study in technological substitution. Journal of Business Research, 164, 113983. EDN: FNEUYH, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2023.113983

13. Crafts, N. (2005). The First Industrial Revolution: Resolving the Slow Growth/Rapid Industrialization Paradox. Journal of the European Economic Association, 3(2–3), 525–534.

14. Edler, J., Blind, K., Kroll, H., & Schubert, T. (2023). Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy. Defining rationales, ends and means. Research Policy, 52(6), 104765. EDN: JFINLC, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104765

15. Erebak, S., & Turgut, T. (2021). Anxiety about the speed of technological development: Effects on job insecurity, time estimation, and automation level preference. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 32(2), 100419. EDN: WKTXLW, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2021.100419

16. Eum, W., & Lee, J. – D. (2022). The co-evolution of production and technological capabilities during industrial development. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 63, 454–469. EDN: EZJKQU, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2022.07.001

17. Grimaldi, M., Greco, M., & Cricelli, L. (2021). A framework of intellectual property protection strategies and open innovation. Journal of Business Research, 123, 156–164. EDN: RKBHSE, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.043

18. Jiang, H., Zhao, S., Zhang, S., & Xu, X. (2018). The adaptive mechanism between technology standardization and technology development: An empirical study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 135, 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.11.015

19. Lee, Ch., & Yan, J. (2024). Will artificial intelligence make energy cleaner? Evidence of nonlinearity. Applied Energy, 363, 123081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.123081

20. Magistretti, S., Dell’Era, Cl., & Verganti, R. (2020). Searching for the right application: A technology development review and research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 151, 119879. EDN: XQPLHS, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119879

21. Mêgnigbêto, E. (2018). Correlation between transmission power and some indicators used to measure the knowledgebased economy: Case of six OECD countries. Journal of Knowledge Economy, 9, 1168–1183. EDN: JRNNZC, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-016-0408-2

22. Oppong, G.K., & Pattanayak, J.K. (2019). Does investing in intellectual capital improve productivity? Panel evidence from commercial banks in India. Borsa Istanbul Review, 19(3), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2019.03.001

23. Ponte, A., Leon, G., & Alvarez, I. (2023). Technological sovereignty of the EU in advanced 5G mobile communications: An empirical approach. Telecommunications Policy, 47(1), 102459. EDN: ITPYRG, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102459

24. Wang, Ch.-H., & Lin, H.-Ch. (2021). Competitive substitution and technological diffusion for semiconductor foundry firms. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 48, 101254. EDN: DGRHHU, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2021.101254

25. Wang, M.- Y., & Lan, W.-T. (2007). Combined forecast process: Combining scenario analysis with the technological substitution model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(3), 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.08.002

26. Wu, L., & Chen, W. (2023). Technological achievements in regional economic development: An econometrics analysis based on DEA. Heliyon, 9(6), e17023. EDN: TDRQJE, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17023