Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Institutions and Systems: Analysing Technical Innovation Processes from an Institutional Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Innovation Policy and Governance in High-Tech Industries

Abstract

Different sub-disciplines of the social sciences analyse the evolution and diffusion of technical innovations from an institutional perspective. Important contributions are provided by socio-economic studies of national systems of innovation, by politico-economic research on the varieties of capitalism, and by the sociology of technology. These studies often start from rather simple distinctions between types of technical innovations (e.g., radical versus incremental) which they usually do not elaborate on. Also, most of them neglect that particularly large and complex technical systems require specific institutional provisions for their functioning. Such “black-boxing” of technology by and large facilitates detecting generalisable relations between institutional constellations and technical innovations. But a more sophisticated analysis of the relationship between institutions and technical innovations needs more precise concepts of both technology and institutions, and it must dismiss the prevailing institutional determinism. Processes of technical and institutional innovations are characterised by co-evolution , interaction and mutual adjustment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Freeman shows that Japan’s institutional constellation was conducive to process innovations and lead to competitive advantages in the consumer goods industry, in the automobile production and in the production of semiconductors. In other areas of technology, Japan lacked innovativeness because its institutional system was less supportive to innovations.

  2. 2.

    The view that platform technologies possess a cumulative character and can be continuously developed over years is often challenged (Dolata 2003). However, this does not alter the usefulness of distinguishing between discrete and cumulative technologies.

References

  • Amable, B. (2000). Institutional complementarity and diversity of social systems of innovation and production. Review of International Political Economy, 7(4), 645–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, D., & Pianta, M. (1992). The technological specialization of advanced countries. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J. (2002). The free-market innovation machine. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessen, J., & Meurer, M. J. (2008). Patent failure: How judges, bureaucrats, and lawyers put innovators at risk. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, F., & Keller, M. R. (2009). Where do innovations come from? Transformations in the U.S. economy, 1970–2006. Socio-economic Review, 7(3), 459–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breschi, S., & Malerba, F. (1997). Sectoral innovation systems: Technological regimes, Schumpeterian dynamics, and spatial boundaries. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations (pp. 130–156). London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, B. (1994). Technological systems and economic performance. In M. Dodgson & R. Rothwell (Eds.), The handbook of industrial innovation (pp. 13–24). Aldershot: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmén, M., & Rickne, A. (2002). Innovation systems: Analytical and methodological issues. Research Policy, 31(2), 233–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casper, S. (2000). Institutional adaptiveness, technology policy and the diffusion of new business models: The case of German biotechnology. Organization Studies, 21(5), 887–914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casper, S., & Glimstedt, H. (2001). Economic organization, innovation systems and the Internet. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 17(2), 265–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casper, S., & Matraves, C. (2003). Institutional frameworks and innovation in the German and UK pharmaceutical industry. Research Policy, 32(10), 1865–1897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casper, S., Lehrer, M., & Soskice, D. (1999). Can high-technology industries prosper in Germany? Institutional frameworks and the evolution of the German software and biotechnology industries. Industry and Innovation, 6(1), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castilla, E. J., Hwang, H., Granovetter, E., & Granovetter, M. (2000). Social networks in Silicon Valley. In C.-M. Lee, W. F. Miller, M. G. Hancock, & H. S. Rowen (Eds.), The Silicon Valley edge: A habitat for innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 218–247). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. D. (1977). The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American business. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coriat, B., & Weinstein, O. (2002). Organizations, firms and institutions in the generation of innovation. Research Policy, 31(2), 273–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, C. (2003). Institutions within which real actors innovate. In R. Mayntz & W. Streeck (Eds.), Die Reformierbarkeit der Demokratie: Innovationen und Blockaden (pp. 71–98). Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, P. A. (2001). The evolving accidental information super-highway. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 17(2), 159–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolata, U. (2003). Unternehmen Technik. Akteure, Interaktionsmuster und strukturelle Kontexte der Technikentwicklung: Ein Theorierahmen. Berlin: Edition Sigma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolata, U. (2009). Technological innovations and sectoral change. Transformative capacity, adaptability, patterns of change: An analytical framework. Research Policy, 38(6), 1066–1077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11(3), 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures, and macroeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26(3), 1120–1171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of innovation approaches: Their emergence and characteristics. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations (pp. 1–35). London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edquist, C., & Lundvall, B.-Å. (1993). Comparing the Danish and the Swedish systems of innovations. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems: A comparative analysis (pp. 265–298). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faber, J., & Hesen, B. (2004). Innovation capabilities of European nations: Cross-national analyses of patents and sales of product innovations. Research Policy, 33(2), 193–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feick, J., & Werle, R. (2010). Regulation of cyberspace. In M. Cave, R. Baldwin, & M. Lodge (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of regulation (pp. 523–547). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C., & Louçã, F. (2002). As time goes by: From the industrial revolutions to the information revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C., & Perez, C. (1988). Structural crises of adjustment, business cycles and investment behaviour. In G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, & L. Soete (Eds.), Technical change and economic theory (pp. 38–66). London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallini, N. T. (2002). The economics of patents: Lessons from recent US patent reform. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(2), 131–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems. Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, 33(6–7), 897–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. W. (2005). Technological transitions and system innovations: A co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. W. (2007). Transformations of large technical systems: A multilevel analysis of the Dutch highway system (1950–2000). Science, Technology & Human Values, 32(2), 123–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giesecke, S. (2000). The contrasting roles of government in the development of biotechnology industry in the US and Germany. Research Policy, 29(2), 205–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. J. H., & Mowery, D. C. (2003). Intellectual property in the US software industry. In W. M. Cohen & S. A. Merrill (Eds.), Patents in the knowledge based economy (pp. 219–258). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerrieri, P. (1999). Patterns of national specialisation in the global competitive environment. In D. Archibugi, J. Howells, & J. Mitchie (Eds.), Innovation policy in a global economy (pp. 139–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). An introduction to varieties of capitalism. In P. A. Hall & D. Soskice (Eds.), Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage (pp. 1–70). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., & Ziedonis, R. H. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 101–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, M. A., & Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280(5364), 698–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henisz, W. J., Zelner, B. A., & Guillén, M. F. (2005). The worldwide diffusion of market-oriented infrastructure reform, 1977–1999. American Sociological Review, 70(6), 871–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. (2002). Unternehmensnetzwerke – revisited. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 31(2), 106–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollingsworth, J. R. (2000). Doing institutional analysis: Implications for the study of innovations. Review of International Political Economy, 7(4), 595–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollingsworth, J. R., & Boyer, R. (1997). Coordination of economic actors and social systems of production. In J. R. Hollingsworth & R. Boyer (Eds.), Contemporary capitalism: The embeddedness of institutions (pp. 1–47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höpner, M. (2005). Epilogue to ‘explaining institutional complementarity’: what have we learnt? Complementarity, coherence and institutional change. Socio-Economic Review, 3(2), 383–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, T. P. (1982). Conservative and radical technologies. In S. B. Lundstedt & E. W. Colglazier (Eds.), Managing innovation (pp. 31–44). New York: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, T. P. (1983). Networks of power: Electrification in western society 1880–1930. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B. (2000). The US patent system in transition: Policy innovation and the innovation process. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 531–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, D. (2002). Netzwerkansätze in der Organisationsforschung. In J. Allmendinger & T. Hinz (Eds.), Organisationssoziologie: Sonderheft 42 der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie (pp. 88–118). Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitschelt, H. (1991). Industrial governance structures, innovation strategies and the case of Japan: Sectoral or cross-national comparative analysis? International Organization, 45(4), 453–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitschelt, H., & Streeck, W. (2003). From stability to stagnation: Germany at the beginning of the twenty-first century. West European Politics, 26(4), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kowol, U., & Krohn, W. (1995). Innovationsnetzwerke: Ein Modell der Technikgenese. In J. Halfmann, G. Bechmann, & W. Rammert (Eds.), Technik und Gesellschaft. Jahrbuch 8: Theoriebausteine der Techniksoziologie (pp. 77–105). Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krücken, G., & Meier, F. (2003). Wir sind alle überzeugte Netzwerktäter: Netzwerke als Formalstruktur und Mythos der Innovationsgesellschaft. Soziale Welt, 54, 71–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Küppers, G. (2002). Complexity, self-organisation and innovation networks: A new theoretical approach. In A. Pyka & G. Küppers (Eds.), Innovation networks: Theory and practice (pp. 22–52). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange, K. (2009). Institutional embeddedness and the strategic leeway of actors: The case of the German therapeutical biotech industry. Socio-economic Review, 7(2), 181–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larédo, P., & Mustar, P. (2001). Research and innovation policies in the new global economy: An international comparative analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The triple helix as a model for innovation studies. Science and Public Policy, 25(3), 195–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992). User-producer relationships, national systems of innovation and internationalisation. In B.-Å. Lundvall (Ed.), National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning (pp. 45–67). London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B.-Å., Johnson, B., Andersen, E. S., & Dalum, B. (2002). National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy, 31(2), 213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz, R. (1993). Große technische Systeme und ihre gesellschaftstheoretische Bedeutung. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 45(1), 97–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz, R. (2009). The changing governance of large technical infrastructure systems. In R. Mayntz (Ed.), Über Governance: Institutionen und Prozesse Politischer Regelung (pp. 121–150). Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz, R., & Hughes, T. P. (1988). The development of large technological systems. Campus: Frankfurt a.M.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C. (1994). Science and technology policy in interdependent economies. Boston: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). The U.S. national innovation system. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems: A comparative analysis (pp. 29–75). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., & Simcoe, T. (2002). The internet. In B. Steil, D. G. Victor, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), Technological innovation and economic performance (pp. 229–264). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (1987). Understanding technical change as an evolutionary process. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (1988). Institutions supporting technical change in the United States. In G. Dosi, C. Freemann, R. R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, & L. Soete (Eds.), Technical change and economic theory (pp. 312–329). London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (1994). The coevolution of technologies and institutions. In R. W. England (Ed.), Evolutionary concepts in contemporary economics (pp. 139–156). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). Technical innovation and national systems. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems. A comparative analysis (pp. 3–21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Belknap.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J., Riccaboni, M., Pammolli, F., & Powell, W. W. (2002). A comparison of US and European university-industry relations in the life sciences. Management Science, 48(1), 24–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K., & Patel, P. (1999). Global corporations and national systems of innovations: Who dominates whom? In D. Archibugi, J. Howells, & J. Mitchie (Eds.), Innovation policy in a global economy (pp. 94–119). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents, living with high-risk technologies. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podolny, J. M., & Page, K. L. (1998). Network forms of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 57–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12(1), 295–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., White, D. R., Koput, K. W., & Owen-Smith, J. (2005). Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 110(4), 1132–1205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rammert, W. (1997). New rules of sociological method: Rethinking technology studies. The British Journal of Sociology, 48(2), 171–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riccaboni, M., Powell, W. W., Pammoli, F., & Owen-Smith, J. (2003). Public research and industrial innovation: A comparison of US and European innovation systems in the life sciences. In A. Geuna, A. J. Salter, & W. E. Steinmueller (Eds.), Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance (pp. 169–201). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. In S. Rayner & E. L. Malone (Eds.), Human choice and climate change two: Resources and technology (pp. 327–399). Columbus: Batelle Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkopf, L., & Tushman, M. L. (1994). The coevolution of technology and organization. In J. A. C. Baum & J. V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics of organizations (pp. 403–424). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, S., & Werle, R. (1998). Coordinating technology: Studies in the international standardization of telecommunications. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, V. (2001). Die Transformation der Telekommunikation: Vom Staatsmonopol zum globalen Markt (1800–2000). Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, V., & Bauer, J. (2009). Von der Governance- zur Komplexitätstheorie: Entwicklungen der Theorie gesellschaftlicher Ordnung. In J. Weyer & I. Schulz-Schaeffer (Eds.), Management komplexer Systeme (pp. 31–53). München: Oldenbourg.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz-Schaeffer, I. (2000). Sozialtheorie der Technik. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soskice, D. (1994). Innovation strategies of companies: A comparative institutional approach of some cross-country differences. In W. Zapf & M. Dierkes (Eds.), Institutionenvergleich und Institutionendynamik: WZB-Jahrbuch 1994 (pp. 271–289). Berlin: Edition Sigma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soskice, D. (1999). Divergent production regimes: Coordinated and uncoordinated market economies in the 1980s and 1990s. In H. Kitschelt, P. Lange, G. Marks, & J. D. Stevens (Eds.), Continuity and change in contemporary capitalism (pp. 101–134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steil, B., Victor, D. G., & Nelson, R. R. (2002). Introduction and overview. In B. Steil, D. G. Victor, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), Technological innovation and economic performance (pp. 3–22). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streeck, W. (2011). Skills and politics: General and specific. MPIfG Discussion Paper. Köln: Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werle, R. (1998). An institutional approach to technology. Science Studies, 11(1), 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werle, R. (2000). Innovationspotentiale im Internet: Selbstregelung auf Strukturebene. In W. Hoffmann-Riem (Ed.), Innovation und Telekommunikation: Rechtliche Steuerung von Innovationsprozessen in der Telekommunikation (pp. 141–160). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werle, R. (2002). Internet @ Europe: Overcoming institutional fragmentation and policy failure. In J. Jordana (Ed.), Governing telecommunications and the new information society in Europe (pp. 137–158). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werle, R. (2007). Zur Interdependenz von Innovationen. In H. Hof & U. Wengenroth (Eds.), Innovationsforschung: Ansätze, Methoden, Grenzen und Perspektiven (pp. 31–40). Münster/Hamburg: LIT Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyer, J. (2006). Modes of governance of hybrid systems: The mid-air collision at Ueberlingen and the impact of smart technology. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 2(2), 127–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyer, J., Kirchner, U., Riedl, L., & Schmidt, J. F. K. (1997). Technik, die Gesellschaft schafft: Soziale Netzwerke als Ort der Technikgenese. Berlin: Edition Sigma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne, Germany

    Raymund Werle

  2. Department of Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany

    Raymund Werle

Authors
  1. Raymund Werle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raymund Werle .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Quello Center for Telecommunication, Michigan State University, Communication Arts and Sc. Building 409, East Lansing, 48824, Michigan, USA

    Johannes Bauer

  2. , Department of Politics and Management, University of Konstanz, Universitätsstr. 10, Konstanz, 78464, Germany

    Achim Lang

  3. , Department of Politics and Management, University of Konstanz, Universitätsstr. 10, Konstanz, 78464, Germany

    Volker Schneider

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Werle, R. (2012). Institutions and Systems: Analysing Technical Innovation Processes from an Institutional Perspective. In: Bauer, J., Lang, A., Schneider, V. (eds) Innovation Policy and Governance in High-Tech Industries. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12563-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12563-8_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-12562-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-12563-8

  • eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation