Should the meaning of technology be restricted to the knowledge   
associated with hard science and engineering? If one's goal is to   
explain economic growth, then why not add the following?  
  
1. Knowledge of consumer wants.  
2. Knowledge of buying and selling opportunities.  
3. Knowledge that helps one overcome the agency problem in a firm or in   
market transaction.  
4. Knowledge about their own and the others' specializations that leads   
two or more complementary management experts to form a consulting firm.  
5. Knowledge about how to produce technical knowledge and the other types.  
6. Knowledge of the law and informal social and cultural elements that   
reduce the cost of operating an enterprise and of creating an   
environment for the market economy.  
  
Are these parts of technology? The answer seems to depend on how one   
defines economics.  
  
It seems to me that how one decides to define technology depends on what   
she wants to accomplish. If her goal is to explain economic growth and   
she begins with the so-called "neoclassical growth model" (a la Solow),   
she is very much constrained. However, if she has the same goal but   
begins with a broader "institutional" vision, she might be inclined to   
define technology more broadly.  
  
Pat Gunning