Your path in the tree: Start > Economic Development Technological Change, and Growth > Technological Change: Choices and Consequences > Technology Assessment
This entry's rating: 2/5 (1 ratings)
Log in to rate or make a suggestion

Technology Assessment

Narrower topics in the RePEc Biblio tree

Crosslinks to topics in other branches of the RePEc Biblio

This RePEc Biblio topic is edited by António Brandão Moniz. It was first published on 2013-03-21 04:10:52 and last updated on 2015-03-05 03:48:45.

Introduction by the editor

Technology Assessment (TA) aims at broadening the knowledge base of policy decisions. It is an analytic and democratic practice which aims at broadening the knowledge base of policy decisions by comprehensively analysing the socio-economic preconditions as well as the possible social, economic and environmental impacts in the implementation of new technologies. It is thus engaged at the interface of science, society and policy making.

Most relevant link for this topic

http://technology-assessment.info/index.php/publications

Most relevant JEL codes

Most relevant NEP reports

NEP reports are email or RSS notifications about new research in selected fields. Subscriptions are free.

Most relevant research

  1. Armin Grunwald, 2011. "Responsible innovation: bringing together technology assessment, applied ethics, and STS research," Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IET/CICS.NOVA-Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, vol. 7(7), pages 9-31, November.
  2. Freeman, Christopher & Soete, Luc, 2009. "Developing science, technology and innovation indicators: What we can learn from the past," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 583-589, May.
  3. Mytelka, Lynn K. & Smith, Keith, 2002. "Policy learning and innovation theory: an interactive and co-evolving process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1467-1479, December.
  4. Armin Grunwald, 2006. "Scientific independence as a constitutive part of parliamentary technology assessment," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 103-113, March.
  5. Bengt-Åke Lundvall, 2010. "Scope, Style, and Theme of Research on Knowledge and Learning Societies," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 1(1), pages 18-23, March.
  6. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & Matthias Weber, 2010. "The impact of foresight on innovation policy-making: recent experiences and future perspectives," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 91-104, June.
  7. Fagerberg, Jan & Fosaas, Morten & Sapprasert, Koson, 2012. "Innovation: Exploring the knowledge base," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1132-1153.
  8. Andreas Klinke & Marion Dreyer & Ortwin Renn & Andrew Stirling & Patrick Van Zwanenberg, 2006. "Precautionary Risk Regulation in European Governance," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 373-392, June.
  9. Bettina-Johanna Krings, 2006. "The sociological perspective on the knowledge-based society: assumptions, facts and visions," Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IET/CICS.NOVA-Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, vol. 2(2), pages 9-19, November.
  10. Philip Shapira & Jan Youtie & Luciano Kay, 2011. "National innovation systems and the globalization of nanotechnology innovation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 587-604, December.
  11. Hermeling, Claudia & Löschel, Andreas & Mennel, Tim, 2013. "A new robustness analysis for climate policy evaluations: A CGE application for the EU 2020 targets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 27-35.
  12. Fagerberg, Jan & Verspagen, Bart, 2009. "Innovation studies--The emerging structure of a new scientific field," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 218-233, March.
  13. Lai, N.Y.G. & Yap, E.H. & Lee, C.W., 2011. "Viability of CCS: A broad-based assessment for Malaysia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(8), pages 3608-3616.
  14. Robinson, Douglas K.R. & Rip, Arie & Mangematin, Vincent, 2007. "Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 871-879, July.
  15. Böhle, Knud & Moniz, António, 2015. "No Countries for Old Technology Assessment? Sketching the Efforts and Opportunities to Establish Parliamentary TA in Spain and Portugal," EconStor Open Access Articles, ZBW - German National Library of Economics, pages 29-44.
  16. Granados, Alicia & Borràs, Josep M., 1994. "Technology assessment in Catalonia: Integrating economic appraisal," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 38(12), pages 1643-1646, June.
  17. Alan Colin Brent, 2012. "Technology Assessment In Developing Countries: Sustainable Energy Systems In The African Context," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(05), pages 1-29.
  18. Leonhard Hennen, 1999. "Participatory technology assessment: A response to technical modernity?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(5), pages 303-312, October.
  19. van den Daele, Wolfgang & Pühler, Alfred & Sukopp, Herbert, 1997. "Transgenic herbicide-resistant crops: A participatory technology assessment. Summary report," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Standard-setting and Environment FS II 97-302, Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB).
  20. Ely, Adrian & Van Zwanenberg, Patrick & Stirling, Andrew, 2014. "Broadening out and opening up technology assessment: Approaches to enhance international development, co-ordination and democratisation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 505-518.