On the Co-Evolution of Technologies and Institutions

Abstract

To say that technologies and institutions evolve together means that they evolve in interaction. This ought to be hardly surprising if looked at from the vantage point of a systems approach. Such an approach has lately acquired a considerable weight both at a theoretical and at a policy level, in particular by means of the concept of innovation system. Innovation systems have been studied at different levels, ranging from national innovation systems (Lundvall 1992; Freeman 1987; Nelson 1992; Edquist 1997) to regional innovation systems (Braczyk et al. 1998) to sectoral innovation systems (Carlsson and Stankiewicz 1991; Carlsson and Jacobsson 1997; Breschi and Malerba 1997). The common assumption underlying all these approaches is that innovation is not created simply by pouring money into an R&D bucket from which innovations come out. On the contrary, innovations are created by a system, constituted by different parts or components interacting and determining the final outcome. Amongst the evidence that led to the concepts of innovation systems mentioned above is the strong specificity, or persistent asymmetry, shown by several of these systems in the course of time. Thus, for example, some national innovation systems acquire a particular pattern of specialisation, or areas of strength, that show a high persistence in the course of time. The strength of the German chemical and pharmaceutical industry dates from the second half of the XlXth century. Likewise Japanese specialisation in electronics, motor cars and photographic equipment, or Italian industrial clusters specialising in ceramic tiles, leather products or optical equipment, show a considerable persistence. Furthermore, each of these innovation systems shows an institutional specificity that is even stronger than the output asymmetries mentioned above, with patterns of institutions and institutional interaction differing sharply amongst countries, regions or sectors.