Techno-Globalism and Techno-Nationalism: an Interpretative Framework

Montresor, Sandro Working Paper Techno-Globalism and Techno-Nationalism: an Interpretative Framework Quaderni - Working Paper DSE, No. 330 Provided in Cooperation with: University of Bologna, Department of Economics Suggested Citation: Montresor, Sandro (1998) : Techno-Globalism and Techno-Nationalism: an Interpretative Framework, Quaderni - Working Paper DSE, No. 330, Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche (DSE), Bologna, https://doi.org/10.6092/unibo/amsacta/4979 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/159171 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ Techno–globalismand techno–nationalism: aninterpretativeframework SandroMontresor IDSE-CNR,Via Ampere,56 – 20131 Milan(Italy) [email protected] October11,1998 Abstract Thispaperdealswiththeglobalisation process and withthetensionsbetween national, super-nationaland sub-nationalforcesitentails.Ataxonomyisputforwardinordertoexaminethequestionatdi¤erentlevels,distinguishing aspectsof‘techno-territoriality’, ‘techno-sovereignty’, ‘techno-citizenship’and ‘techno-nationality’, pertainingto,respectively,geographicalborders,governance structures and policymaking,strategicbehaviorsand accountability,socio-cultural distancesand spaces.Theanalysisofsomeofthemassive contributionsontheissueshowsthat the…rst three itemshaveactually reacheda globalspeci…cation,butwithoutcompletelylosingnational orevenmorelocalcharacters.Adi¤erentevaluationinstead holds fortechno-nationality,asacertaincommunalityoflanguageand culturewithinacountry,alongwithitshistoricallyformedinstitutional setting,conduce todi¤erent technologicalstylesand performances: ‘techno-nationalsystemsofinnovation’thereforestill matter. 1Introduction Itisgenerallyrecognisedthatfromthe1980sonwardsinternationaleconomic integration hasincreasedsubstantially,bothat theintensiveand at the extensivemargin(Chesnais,1992;Michie&Smith,1995). Ontheintensive side,trade‡owshave expanded bothinvolumeand inspread,and thesame 1 occurredateven higher ratesforforeign directinvestments. Onthe extensiveside, internationalization hasbeeninvolvingalargernumberofeconomic activities,as…rms startedconceiving…nance,management,corporatestrategiesand alsoinnovation,besidesproductionand marketing,onaworld-wide basis. Althoughthisnewphaseofinternationalizationiscommonlyreferred to as‘globalization’, and identi…edwithquitegenerallyacceptedaspects (OECD,1992,Ch.10,p.211),theresearchonitsactualextensionand onits e¤ectsisfarfromconclusive.In particular, itis still unclearwhichisthe outcomeofthe entailedtension between national, localand globalforces,an argument thathasbeen developedwith di¤erentfocuses,methodologies,and conclusions1. Thisisespeciallytruein dealingwithtechnology,asatleast two approachescan beidenti…ed. Ontheonehand,thereisa‘dualistic’kind of approach,whichcharacterizes‘techno-globalism’and ‘techno-nationalism’as twocontradictoryand mutuallyexclusivepatternsoftechnologicalchangein which nation(ormorelocal)basedfactorsare,respectively,eitheralready irrelevantorstill crucial. The…eldsinwhichthisdichotomyisinvestigated arenumerousand heterogeneous,sothat thisapproachisunabletoreach generalconclusionsabout theprevalence ofa globalratherthanofanational oralocalargument2.Analternativeapproachwhichlooksmorepromising inthislastrespectisa‘complementary’one,thataimstobetterqualifysome morespeci…cmomentsand aspectsinwhichtechno-globalism mightproceed to a di¤erentextentand withadi¤erentspeed3. 1Outofthenumerousvolumesonthesubject,atleast three recentareworthwhile mentioningfortheirsocio-economicbreath:Berger&Dore(1996),Boyer&Drache(1996), and Storper(1997). 2Somestudiesextend toR&Dthestandard‘internationalbusiness’approachtomultinationalcorporation(Pearce,1989;Goshal & Bartlett,1988;Bartlett &Goshal, 1990; Howells&Wood,1993),whilesomeotherapplytothema‘technologyoriented’approach, allocatingtheirinnovativeoutcomesbetweensubsidiariesand parentcompanies(Patel & Pavitt,1991;Patel, 1995).Some contributionsaddress nation-speci…cfactorsofglobalization,suchasthe…naldemand ortheresource endowment (Porter,1990;Cantwell, 1995; Movery& Oxley,1995),whilesomeotherhighlightlocalterritorialunits,suchas smallmedium-…rmsand industrialdistricts(delaMothe&Paquet,1996;Storper,1993).In some casesthefocusistechnology-speci…c,and cross-countrysectoralsimilaritiesarehighlighted(Malerba& Orsenigo,1995),whileinsomeotheritisonthehistorical, geographical and socialcontext thatunderpinscross-technologynationalsimilarities(Freeman,1987, 1995;Nelson,1993;Cohendetetal., 1992). 3Theliteraturethatfollowsthisapproachisnotasmuchrich butstill relevant.In 2 Followingthislastapproach, inthispaperIsuggest that thewholequestioncould bene…tfromafurtherclari…cationattempt.Ataxonomyisthereforeproposedinwhich‘techno-territoriality’, ‘techno-sovereignty’, ‘technocitizenship’, and ‘techno-nationality’ identifyfourdistinct,although notindependent,aspects,with di¤erentglobal, nationaland localspeci…cations. This schemerevealsparticularlyuseful inorganizingexisting and furtherevidence onthetopic,aswell asintestingthevalidityofnation-based notions and theoriesofinnovation. InwhatfollowsIwill …rstassignsomeresultsone can …nd intherelevant literaturetotheproperheading ofthetaxonomy(Section2),stressingtheir ‘pro-global’ or‘pro-national’ character.Iwill thenrefertothemostdebated nation-based notionoftheissue,thatof‘nationalsystemsofinnovation’ (NSI),and Iwill trytoshowhowtechno-nationalityis,outofthefour,the con…guration underpinned byitsmostarticulatedtheoreticalconceptualisation(Section3).Inthe…nalsection(Section4)a generalbalance ofthe di¤erentspeci…cationsestablishedwithineachcomponentofthetaxonomy isattempted. 2Techno-statismversustechno-nationalism Asitiswell known, in politicalsciencesstateand nation,twoconceptsthat ineconomicsoftengo underthesameheading ofcountry,are clearlydistinct.Accordingtothesocalled‘institutionaltheoryoflaw’4,thestateis aninstitutionidenti…ed bythree constituentelements:(i) territory,thatis a geographicalspace delimited bynaturalorarti…cialboundaries;(ii)sovereignty,thatisanoriginalkind ofpowerthatmakesthestateindependent and superiorto otherminorlegal institutions;(iii)citizens,meantasthe communityofall thosewho acquiredtherelativestatus,rightsand liabilitiesinarecognisedway(notonlyoriginally).Thenationinsteadrefersto asocialand ethnic entity,characterised byacertaincommunalityofrace, language,culture,habits,traditions,and religionamongitscomponents. some casestheinternationalization process isbroken downintophases(e.g.commercial, hierarchical, and communicative)depending ontheprevalent‘integrators’and ‘media’ (Grandinetti & Rullani, 1996,Ch.2).Insomeothertechno-globalismis subdividedinto components,depending onthefocusbeing oninnovativeproduction,distributionand internationalcollaboration(Archibugi & Michie,1995;1997). 4Tothistheorycan betracedthepositionsofvon Stein,vonGierke,Hauriou,Elrich and SantiRomano,just toquotethemostimportant. 3 Therelationship betweenthetwoconceptsisquitestrict,asthenation pre-existstothestateand representsthatsociologicalbasiswhichguarantees itspermanence alongthetime. Ontheotherhand,thenation doesnotsimply coincidewiththe citizensofonestate,as severalplurinational-statesreveal5. Withthenecessary‡exibilityofeveryeclectic exercise,therationalof thisgeneraldistinctioncan be extendedtothespeci…cdomainoftechnologicalchange,sothat‘techno-statism’and ‘techno-nationalism’can betaken to accountfortwodi¤erentkindsofissues.Pursuingtheparallel, technostatismishereusedtoindicatethosetechno-economicaspectswhichrelate to oneofthethree constituentelementsofthestate,thatis:therelevance ofthegeographicalspace withinwhichinnovationsareproducedand diffused,and ofthephysicaldistance betweeninnovativeproducersand users (‘techno-territoriality’);theactualdomainofdi¤erentlevelsofpublicgovernance and the e¢cacyoftherelativescience and technology(S&T)policies (‘techno-sovereignty’);thedegree ofaccountabilityand loyaltyofthemain innovativeactorstomoreorless globalcentersofpower,eitherpublicorprivate(‘techno-citizenship’).Techno-nationalityas suchinstead hererefersto theinnovativeroleplayed bythe existence ofdi¤erentsocio-economic communalities, identi…ed bylanguage,cultureand othermorespeci…cformsof socialsharing,alongwiththehistoricalrootsoftheirbroaderinstitutional setting and socialarchitectures. Letusconsidereachoftheseaspectsinturn. 2.1Techno-territoriality Astherecentupsurgeofinterestofeconomistsforgeographyreveals6,the actual locationofproductiveactivitiesisextremelyimportant.Although theincreasingroleof‘globalizing’technologies(e.g.communicationand informationtechnologies)makestheincidence oftransportationand communicationcostsless relevant thaninthepast,anotherkind ofargumentsets thequestionofthephysicaldistance between producersand users(notonly innovative)asacrucialone,thatoftheroleofknowledge. 5Thediscussionisindeedverysketchy,buthereitsu¢cestorecall thenatureof thedistinction.Foramoredetailed historicalaccountofthe conceptsofnationand ofnationalitysee,forexample,Mises(1919,Ch.I;Ed.1994). 6Justremind thepath-breakingvolumeofKrugman(1991)and themorerecentbook ofStorper(1997). 4 In nowadayseconomicsystemsknowledgeisbyfarthemostrelevantfactorinput (Loasby,1998;Lundvall & Barras,1998),themorewhenitisnew knowledge,thatisinnovation,tobeproducedand applied.Itsinnernatureisthereforehighlyin‡uential in determiningtheactualspeci…cationof therelevantgeographicalboundaries:thisholdsin particularfortheimportantdistinction betweencodi…ed(explicit,orformal)and tacit (implicit,or informal)knowledgeinthepursuitofscience and technology7. Itisquitestraightforwardthatphysicalproximitywouldn’tberelevantfor theimplementationand di¤usionofanyinnovation, ifitexclusivelyormainly reliedonaformalkind ofknowledge.Asitcan be easilyde-contextualized, codi…edand transmitted,thegeographicaldistance betweeninnovativeproducersand users,eitheractualorpotential, wouldn’tenterthe‘feasibility constraints’ofacertaininnovation,whileitcouldinstead berelevantfor otherkindsofreasons,suchas,forexample,distributive(the commercializationofanewproduct) ororganisational(theimplementationofanew productiveprocess).Inotherwords, ifthiswasthe case,techno-territoriality would havea globalspeci…cation. Although,asitwill be clari…edlater,quite criticizable,this seemsto betheimplicitperspectiveundertaken bysomerecentcontributionsofinternationalpoliticaleconomyand internationalrelations8.Theseauthors maintainthat…rmswouldcurrentlybequitefootlooseand free ofchoosing thetechnologiestoimplementorto adopt,aswell asofselecting or rejecting theappropriateorganisationalformsand thesuitablelocations9. Thisglobaltechno-territorialargumentismainlyputforwardin dealingwithmultinationalcorporations(MNCs):asthemostrelevantinformative‡owsbetweena¢liatesand parentcompaniesare codi…ed,and whatis moreincompany-speci…c codes, itisclaimedthatMNCswouldconsistof integratedstructures,withinwhichinnovationmightbepossiblyundertaken 7Brie‡y,theformer referstoinformationand instructionsthatcan beformulatedin wordsand symbols,whilethelatter referstothosewhichcannotbe completelyformulated inanexplicitwayand aretherefore embodiedin physicalorhumancapital. Among theseveralreferencesontheissue,see,forexample,thesuggestiveaccountprovided by MacKenzie&Spinardi(1994)oftheinventionand di¤usionofthe earliestnuclearweapons. 8See,forexample,delaMothe&Paquet,(1996), Ohmae(1990),and Strange(1988). 9Alsothe extremeidea of‘virtualcompanies’(and ‘virtualgovernments’),enlarging and shrinkingtheir…eldofaction depending ontheopportunityof joining and quitting alliances orpartnerships(Davidow&Malone,1992;delaMothe&Paquet,1994),reliesonthe assumptionthat…rmscan be cabledwithin networksofcontext-independentinformation ‡ows. 5 everywhere,and actuallylocalizedonthebasisof‘extra-territorial’ considerations.Althoughsome empiricalevidence seemstocon…rmthisinterpretation, suggestingthat thesubsidiary-parentcompanydistributionoftheinnovative activitiesand oftheinnovativeresultsmainlyrespondstostrategicquestions (Ghoshal & Bartlett,1988;Bartlett &Ghoshal, 1990;Archibugi & Michie, 1995),anarrowercharacterisationfortechno-territorialitycan be claimed, althoughindirectly,alsointhis‘multinational’ context10.Theargumentis quitesimpleand consistsofrecognizinghowtheactual innovative corporate structureofaMNCmightalsobea¤ected bycommunicativetransaction costs,entailed byarelevantdistance ingeographicaltermsand inturnovercomeby…tting a properorganisationalkind ofdistance (Lundvall, 1992b; Kogut&Zander,1993;Ghoshal & Bartlett,1990). The‘local’ speci…cationoftechno-territorialityhoweveremergesmore clearlywhenthe crucialroleoftacitknowledgefortheinnovativeprocess isconsidered.Unlike explicitknowledge,tacitknowledge cannotbestored ortransferredexclusivelybyimpersonal, and context-independentmeans, suchaswritten documents,orcomputer…les.Asperson-to-personcontacts, practicaldemonstrations,and physicaltransactionsareinstead necessaryfor itstransmission,thespatialdimensionentailed bytechno-territorialityisinevitablyrecovered. Accordingtothelatterpoint,and torelatedtheoreticalarguments11, techno-territorialitywouldthereforeratherhaveanational, orsub-national speci…cation.Asforthenationalcharacterisation,some‘environmental/systemic’ approachestocompetitiveness (Hatzichronoglou,1996)haveshown howimportantvirtuouscirclescan beset-up and fuelled by knowledgesharing and e¤ectivefeed-backingwhenthestrategic…rmsofacertaincountryare‘correlated’and ‘supported’bysome crucialsectorsbasedinthesamenational territory(Porter,1990;Ergas,1984).Thesameargumentcan be‘scaleddown’atalocal levelwhenthenationalcontextappears sodi¤erentiated thatitwould bemisleadingtoretainitexclusivelyatanaggregatelevel: in10Forareviewofthe empiricalcontributionsonthisthathasbecomeknownasthe ‘Patel & Pavitt argument’, fromtheseminalworkofPateland Pavitt (1991),see OECD (1992,Ch.10,p.225). 11In particular,such notionsasknowledgespillovers,economiesofintegration,agglomerationand clustering,all conceptsthatpresupposeacertaingeographicalproximity(especiallywheninformalbitsofinformationare concerned),havebeenarguedtobeasmuch importantaseconomiesofscaleinlocatingscience and technology(Ja¤e,1989;Ja¤e et al., 1993;Feldman,1993,Cantwell, 1991). 6 dustrialdistricts,technologypools,regionalsystemsofinnovationsand other similarlocalforumsreveal…rstofall theinnovationinducinge¤ectsofphysicalproximity:thefact that thiscircumscribetheopportunitiesofsharing acertainculturaland entrepreneurialclimateinstead pertainstotechnonationality,and will bethereforediscussedlater(Brusco,1982;Beccattini & Rullani, 1996;Cooke etal., 1996)12. 2.2Techno-sovereignty Techno-sovereigntyisapparentlythemoststate-concernedcomponentofthe taxonomy.Withinthenationalism/globalismdebateitsrelevance istwofold asitregards,ontheonehand,thebalance between national, super-national and sub-nationalpublicgovernance structuresengagedininnovation;onthe otherhand,thescopeand theobjectivesofnationaland super-nationalS&T policies. Theformerargumentisputforward bysomeinternationalpoliticalscientists,whoclaimthat thedissolutionofthenation-statesintosuper-national ‘players’would beanestablishedglobalphenomenon13.That thishypothesis should beretainedverycarefullywhentechnologyisconcernedfollows fromtwoquitesimpleand generalconsiderations. Ontheonehand, internationalorganizationswith decisionalpowerand responsibilityfortechnologicalquestionsareoftenmadeup ofcentralgovernmentsrepresentatives whichinevitablyexpress,moreorless formally,nationalneedsand interests: accordingly,national innovativeinstitutionsdonotsimplyfuseintointernationalones,and thelatter, inturn,oftencontributetodi¤erentiatethe formerinaco-evolutiveprocess14. Ontheotherhand,anyattemptatharmonizingtheinnovativeinstitutionalframeworkatinternational level, interms ofstandards,rulesand norms,seemsto accentuate,ratherthansmoothing, thedi¤erencesbetween positionsand argumentsthatare conveyed bycentral 12Withinsuchatechno-territorialapproach,nationaland localcharacterizationsarenot necessarilycontradictory.Althoughthedominantpositioninrecognizingtherelevance of aDahmenian/Schumpeterianmesoperspective claimsadiminishingroleofthenational context (Paquet,1996;Storper,1992,1993),techno-territorialityhelpstounderstand both the‘organization’ofthenationalcontextin di¤erentlocalenvironments,and thenationspeci…cvarietyoftheir relative extension,dimension, internaland externalrelationships. 13See,forexample,delaMothe&Paquet (1996)and Ohmae(1990). 14Caracostas&Soete(1997)provideseveralexamplesofthiskind ofphenomenonat Europeanleveland thereforeoptforthesigni…cative expressionof‘post-national’, rather thansuper-national innovativeinstitutions. 7 governments15.Alsotheoppositeinterpretationofa‘dispersiverevolution’, whichwould havedissolved nationalgovernance structuresintosub-national ones(delaMothe&Paquet,1994),should notbetakenforgrantedinevaluatingtheactualscopeoftechno-sovereignty.Inspiteofthepresentboost tofederalsystems(Osborne&Gaebler1992;Davidow&Malone,1992),the …nancialand administrativeautonomyoftheregion-statesand ofotherlocalunitsin undertakinginnovationsremainsacountry-speci…cand country dependentfactor16. Comingtothesecond techno-sovereigntyissue,thatofS&Tpolicies,two distinctquestions should be consideredwithinit.Theformer referstothe scopethat techno-globalismleavestonationalS&Tpolicies,thelatterconcernstheroleofS&Tpoliciesinfacingsomeundesirableimplicationsof techno-globalism.Thesetwo aspectsarestrictlyinterdependent:thesame internationalpressuresthatmakeitincreasinglycomplextoidentifyindependentnationalobjectives,havealsomadenationalpoliciesincreasingly necessaryforadaptingtotheresultingnew worldorder17. At theoutsetitshould beobservedthat,althoughtherecentwaveof international integration hasenlargedthe‘constraintset’ofthepolicymakers,the ensuing global(or rathersuper-national)agreementsarenotperfect substitutesfornationalpolicies. Onthe contrary,nationalS&Tpolicies playanimportantroleofco-ordinationand oftenalso…ll thegapsleftby super-nationalarrangements: insomeareasmultilateral interventionsare less justi…edthan unilateralones,whileinsomeotherstheyreveal ine¤ective,astheyarenotco-ordinatedwithauxiliarynationalpolicies,oreven ine¢cient,astheyinaccuratelytargetspeci…careaswhere e¤ortduplications with nationalactorseasilyoccur18.NationalS&Tpoliciesarealsomoresub15The caseofqualitystandardsisasigni…cative exampleinthislastrespect (Barker, 1994).Theargumentismuchmoreapparentwheninnovativestatisticsare considered: particularlyexplicativeisthe caseofinnovationsinservices(Young,1996). 16Cooke etal. (1996)qualifythisautonomyasanecessary,althoughstill notsu¢- cientconditionforthe existence ofwhat theycall ‘regionalsystemsofinnovation’. They provideseveralexamplesinwhichaproductiveand innovativesocio-cultural localbase(regionalismapproach)isnotassisted bythenecessaryinstitutional-infrastructuralelements (regionalisationapproach). 17Thisphenomenon hasbeeningeneralcalledthe‘contemporaryparadoxofnational policymaking’(Kozul-Wright,1995,p.166). 18Thisiswhatemerges,forexample,fromacriticalreviewcarriedoutbySoete(1994) about thedi¤usionofinnovationin SMEinEurope:the creationofECstructuralfunds without theparalleldevelopmentoflocalcapabilities,and thesupportguaranteedtopre8 Thesocialshaping oftechnologyrevealsamoredirectconnectionwith techno-nationalityinathird,widervariant thatexplicitlyconsidersthe broaderinstitutionalcontext thatcharacterizesa‘society’stechnologyensemble’(Russeland Williams,1988,p.11)30.Severalaspectsareaddressed withinthis strand,and atleast three areworthwhilementioningintheir techno-nationalspeci…cations:theintrinsicshapingfunctionofinstitutions; theircognitiverole;and theinstitutionalnatureofthemarket. The…rstpointisatypicalargumentoftheinstitutionaltheory31,accordingtowhichinstitutionsand organizations, in particularthoseinvolvedin innovation,havetwopeculiarfeatures:ontheonehand,theydonotrise inavacuum,beingshaped bythepresence ofacultural, possiblynational, environment (North,1990);ontheotherhand,theydonotreduce toconstraints,butarealsoenablers,astheymouldthepreferencesand the choice setofthe economic(innovative)agents(Edquist&Johnson,1997).These argumentshaverecentlyinspiredthedebateonthe existence ofdi¤erent modelsofcapitalism(Albert,1991;Dore,1992),a greatpartofwhichisdevotedtotheirtechnological implications,asrevealed bytheidea ofdi¤erent nationalsystemsofinnovation,discussedlater32. Asforthesecond point,recognizingthatinstitutionshaveacognitive dimensionisalsorelatedtothe culturalhomogeneitycaughtbytechnonationality.Thebasicargumentisquitesimple:giventhatinformationcollecting and elaborating abilitiesarelimited, individuals(and moreinnovatorsentrepreneurs)mustresortintheirperceptionand processing activitiesto establishedcognitiveframeworks(Hodgson,1988,p.119).Astheyarelearnt and acquiredfromspeci…csocialsurroundingsand nationalcultures,these 30Thereference isheretothosescholarswho adoptedsuchabroad perspectivein dealing withtechnologypolicyissuesand tothosewho adheredtotherecentneo-Schumpeterian and evolutionaryapproachtoinnovation. 31Moreprecisely,thereference isheretothose contributionswhichareinspired by the‘old’, ‘Veblenian’, ratherthan bythe‘new’, ‘Williamsonian’ institutionalism.Fora detailed discussionofthisissuesee Hodgson(1988,1993). 32The corehypothesisofthisdebateisthat theadventofcapitalisminculturallydifferentiatedcontextswould haveimplied di¤erentspeci…cationsofasetof fundamental socio-economicvaluesand ideologies(suchas,forexample,solidarity,participation,shorttermism,speculation,etc.);thelatter, inturn,would haveshapedtheinternalorganizationalstyles,the external institutionalconnections,theobjectivesand theperformances oftherelevantproductive,…nancial, educationaland alsoinnovativeorganizations.Fora speci…cillustrationofthetechnological implicationsofthedebatesee Leoncini & Montresor(1998). 15 cognitiveframeworksend up tobehighlydi¤erentiatedand induce alsodifferentculturalstylesoftechnicalproblemsolutions(Farmer&Matthews, 1991,p.108). Finally,comingtothethird point,consideringthemarketasasocial institution,and notasaninstitution-free ‘stateofthenature’(Dosi, 1988; Hodgson,1988;Lowry,1976),makesthe economicshaping oftechnologyone oftherelevantformsofsocialshaping.Theideahereisthat thedominating setof formaland informalsocialrulesa¤ectsthe economic calculusundertakeninimplementing anyeconomicdecision,and afortiori,thatrelated totheintroductionand di¤usionofaninnovation.Althoughacost-bene…t analysisofparticulardesign decisionsand technicalchoiceshastobeundertakeninall societies,theformtaken bythisreckoningisextremely variable, mainlybecauseofthosekindsofsocio-culturaland socio-politicalaspects addressed bytechno-nationality(MacKenzie&Wajcman,1985,p.15). 3Techno-nationalismand nationalsystems ofinnovation The conceptof‘systemofinnovation’hasbecomequitestandardinthe economicsoftechnologicalchange,asitisrecognisedthat theinnovativeprocess doesnotfollowa‘linear’, isolated path,butratheroccurswithinspeci…c institutionalcontextsofinteractiverelationshipsbetween di¤erentorganizations(Edquist,1997).Less cleariswhichisthemostrelevantspeci…cation ofitsboundaries:techno-globalismhasput thenationalspeci…cation,the …rst tobeproposed(Freeman,1988;Nelson,1988;Lundvall, 1988)under discussion,and spurredothersuper-nationaland sub-nationalspeci…cations (Edquist,1997a).Thereference totheframeworkdiscussedabovemightbe ofsomehelpinclarifyingthisissue. Althoughthe conceptofNSIhasoriginatedwithanempiricalconcern33, and lacksan unambiguousde…nitionand acoherentgeneraltheory34,a 33Thisand othersimilarconceptsrefertowhathasbeencalledan‘appreciative’kind of theorizing,distinctfroma‘formal’ onebecauseofitsempiricalconcern(Nelson&Winter, 1982). 34Foradiscussionoftheoriginofthenotionsee Freeman(1987,1988,1995).Foran analysisofits severalvariants see McKelvey(1991)and Humbert (1994).Forawidesetof empiricalapplicationsofthesame conceptsee Nelson(1993)and Cohendetetal. (1992). Forsomemorerecentdevelopments see Patel&Pavitt (1994)and Edquist (1997). 16 strictlytheoreticaltreatmentofthetopicisprovidedwithinPartIofthe bookedited byLundvall (1992),towhichitisconvenient toreferalsofora discussionofitsnationaldomain. Firstofall, themain distinctionofthepresentpaperisexplicitlystated amongthepremises:anationaldimension,de…ned by‘cultural, ethnicaland linguistic characteristics’(i.e.techno-nationality), isactuallyopposedto an ètatist-politicalone,de…ned by‘onesinglegeographicalspace controlled by one centralstateauthority’(i.e.techno-territorialityand techno-sovereignty) (Lundvall, 1992a,p.2).Althoughthelatterisalsodiscussedinseveralplaces ofthebook,thedimensionwhichreceivesmoreattentionwithinthethree bitswhichconstitutethetheoreticalfoundationofthenotion(correspondent toChapters2,3 and 4)isforsuretheformer. The…rstbitoftheNSItheoreticalconstructionrecognizestwobasicfacts discussedabove(Johnson,1992). Ontheonehand, institutions shapeinnovation byallowingthoseformsofhumaninteractiononwhichlearning(byinteracting)ismainlybased35. Ontheotherhand,theprevailingeconomic structureand productiverelationshipsa¤ect thatmore‘isolated’ learning (by-doing orby-using)whichemanatesfromroutineactivities.Boththeinstitutionalset-up and theproductionstructureareinturn highlydiversi…ed, atdi¤erentlevels,and thisexplainsdi¤erentformsoflearning and innovation:theirtypicalorganizationshavedi¤erentinternalstructures(‘…rstorder’ diversity),di¤erentroutinegenerationand selectionmechanisms(‘second orderdiversity’),and,overall, operatewithin di¤erentnationspeci…cformsof culturesand ideologies: Aslong aswe canidentifynationalcultures,weshouldexpectnationaldi¤erencesin productionand innovation.Culturemakes nationswiththesamekind ofeconomicsystem[...] di¤erentfrom eachother,and culturalsystemsaregoverned byrulesand rules aboutrules, includingrulesforbreaking and changingrules. [...] Manyoftherules supportingproduction di¤erbetweencountries and since communicationwithinacommoncultureiseasierthan between di¤erentcultures,weshouldexpect thedi¤erencesbetween nationalculturestohave considerablestayingpower.Nationalideologiesmayalsobeimportant. [...] (A)nationoften has 35Thisholdsto a di¤erentextent,depending onitsgoalorientation: inthisrespect learningisactuallydi¤erentfromsearching and exploring. 17 aratherstable,commonideology. [...] (T)hereareideologicaldifferencesbetween nations[...]. Such national ideologiesin‡uence communication, interactionand learning atall levelsofsociety. (Johnson,1992,p.39,originalemphasis). Thesecond bitoftheNSItheoreticalfoundationfollowsup theprevious oneand dealsmorespeci…callywithinnovativeuser-producer relationships (Lundvall, 1992b).Theissueisdeemedcrucialasinnovations,speci…cally productinnovations,entail suchadegree ofuncertaintyand ofasymmetric information between producersand userstocall fororganisedmarkets, in turnrelying on durableand selectiverelationshipsbetween professional innovativeunits36.Theseorganisedmarketsare(techno)nationalatleastin tworespects. Firstofall, techno-nationalityisregardedasanessentialproducer-user distance,asthe culturalspace becomesprogressivelymoreimportantwith respect to others(i.e.economic,organisationaland geographical)inmoving fromaquitestationaryto a highlyinnovative environment37. Complexand everchangingmessages,combiningexplicitinformationwithtacitassumptionsregardingmutualobligations,will often berequiredininteractionsinvolvinginnovativeactivities. Here culturaldi¤erencesbetween userand producermayblock theinteraction. Thisisonereasonwhynations still playanimportantrole,as economic entities,witharelativeautonomy.(Lundvall, 1992b, p.56). Asecond techno-nationalargumentfollowsfromthetheoreticalassumptionthatuser-productioninteractionswithinorganisedmarketscan’toccur betweenfully‘opportunistic’agents(Williamson,1975),asthiswouldotherwiseriseprohibitivetransactioncostsinducingcompletevertical integration. User-producer relationshipsareinsteadofteninspired byco-operationand 36Organizedmarketsare consideredintermediatebetween puremarketsand vertically integratedrelationships,conduciveof,respectively,stationarytechnology(oratbest process innovations),and radicalchange(oreventechnologicalrevolutions). 37Thesedi¤erentkindsofdistance a¤ect the characteroftheresultingtechnological change,onascalethatrangesfromstationarytechnologytotechnologicalrevolutions, passingthroughincrementaland radical innovations(Freeman&Perez,1988). 18 othersocialagreementsand values(suchas,forexample, loyalty,mutual trust,respect,etc.)whicharedi¤erentamongnations, inducingdi¤erent formsofculturalbased‘rationality’(Kornai, 1971;Allen,1988;Lester& Crocker,1987).Thisis, inturn,responsibleforadi¤erentimpactofthe transactioncosts sustainedininnovating and foramoreorless developed learningcapability: Thereareseveral(other)documented, interesting, international di¤erencesbetweenagentswhicharerootedin nationalsocial normsand culture.Thetimehorizonmightbeshortorlongterm, and theirattentionmightbedirectedtowardseither…nancial variablesoruse-valueaspectsofproduction. [...] Inthereal world,thedominance ofeitherhonestyoropportunismat the national levelwill re‡ecthistorical, and perhapsevenan heritage frompre-capitalistdevelopments.(Lundvall, 1992b,p.61-62)38. ThelastbitoftheNSItheoreticalconstructionspeci…callyreferstothe structureofproductionand ofproductivelinkages(Andersen,1992)inaffectingboth unintentionaland deliberateinnovativeactivities.Alsohere nationalspeci…cationsare extremelyrelevant,withameaningthatkeeps referringtotechno-nationalitybothwithrespect tosimple(by-doing and by-using)and interactinglearning. Firstofall, simplelearningtakesplace withina‘search(and selection) space’(Nelson&Winter,1982,p.229) thatentails stochasticoutcomesand path-dependence fortheinvolved …rms,as suggested bythe evolutionarytheory,butwhose‘topology’ isalso a¤ected bytherelativeaggregateproduction structure,asfromthe classicalArrowargument.Thesynthesisofthesetwo approachesmainlyexplains sector-speci…cdiversitiesamong…rmswhich hold across di¤erentcountries.However,anotherkind of‘localized’ learning and ‘lock-in-ness’can be…guredoutwhichismorerelatedtotechno-nationality: By ‘localised’wemean nationaland moreorless industry-speci…c. Thiskind oflocalisedsearchmayhelptoconservenational idiosyncrasiesinthepatternofspecialisation.Inthiscaseweare 38Theargumentalsoholdswheninternationaluser-producer relationships, involving heterogeneousrationalityspeci…cations,are considered:avarietyofsolutionsforsome importantquestionsabout techno-globalism(suchas,forexample,theroleofMNCs,of SMEs,ofstandardization,etc.)followaccordingly. 19 notdealingwitha global ’lock-in-ness’ intospeci…ctechnology (asdiscussed byDavid[...] and Arthur[...])butwithalock-in ofnational…rms/industriesdueto,forexampleassetspeci…city and thedi¢cultiesofenteringwell-establishedindustrieswhere anespeciallyhugeamountoftacitknowledgebecomesamajor barriertoentry.(Andersen,1992,p.80-81). Secondly,nationalsystemsofproductionand techno-nationalityintertwinealsowhen production-dependentinteractivelearningisconsidered. Following againastructuralist-evolutionarysynthesis,seller-buyer relationshipsarelocked-inin ‡exible,footloosespeci…cationsonlyaslong asproductsarefullystandardized,whiletheyshift toamorestructural, informal and information-intensive,typicallytechno-national interface whena‘protocommodity’ isintroducedand graduallytransformedintoawell de…ned‘commodity’: Therelevance ofintranational(and techno-national)relationships inthe earlystagesofthe‘commodi…cation’process istherefore atleast threefold: [...] (1) (S)emi-formaland informal information[...] transferis notas strongly…lteredand disturbedinintranationalasininternationalchannels.(2)[...] The creationofnewchannelsofthe innovativetypeiseasiestbetweenmembersofanationalproductionsystem[...]. (3)[...] Di¤erenceswithrespect tothe character and amountofnational linkagesbetween producersand lead-users leadtodi¤erencesintheoverall competitiveness ofnations[...]. (Andersen,1992,p.85)39. Fromall thesebrie‡ysketchedtheoreticalarguments40 itclearlyturnsout that thenationalspeci…cationofthenationalsystemofinnovationisclosely related(asinthe caseoftheproductionand productivelinkagesargument), and sometimesevencoincident (asinthe caseofinstitutional learning),with thatparticularcomponent thathasbeen previouslyidenti…edwiththeterm oftechno-nationality. 39Thelistisonlyasub-sampleoftheoriginalone compiled byAndersen,sothat the numeration hasbeen …ttedaccordingly. 40Althoughthereference istoLundvall’suser-producerapproach,similarinsightscan bealsodrawnfromNelson&Rosenberg(1993). 20 Ontheotherhand,thisisalsotrueformanypiecesofempiricalwork whichtrytodisentangletheactualspeci…cationofthemainsub-systems withinasystemofinnovation:studiesonmanagementsystemsand work organization principles,eitherarguingfortheintra-…rmtranspositionofdifferentnationalculturalvalues(Kogut,1991;Hofstede,1980),orfortheglobalizinge¤ectoforganisational learning(Johnson&Lundvall, 1992);studiesoninter…rmnetworking,eitherpointingtodi¤erentnational industrial structures(Hakansson,1989),or recognizingtheir regionalstructure(Brusco,1982;Russo,1985);studieson …nancialsystems,eitherstressingdi¤erentsocio-culturalstylesofinnovation …nancing(Tylecote&Demirag,1991; Zysman,1983;Christensen,1991),orsuggestingtheadventofafull …nancialglobalization(Franks&Mayer,1990;Zysman,1990);studieson pure technological leadershipand catching-up between nations,eitherhighlightingtheroleofnation-speci…cinstitutions(Freeman,1992)socialcapabilities (Abramovitz,1989)and skillsformation process (Ashton&Green,1996,Ch. 5,6,and 7),oraddressingthescopeofglobalizingtechnologiesand worldwide institutions41.Althoughmorespeci…c conclusionsareobviouslydependent onthepreciseissue, ingeneraltermstheformertechno-nationaloptionseems toprevail onthelattertechno-globalone,sothatitisplausibletoconclude that‘techno-nationalsystemsofinnovation’still matter. 4Conclusions Extendingthepoliticalsciencesdistinction between nationand state, inthis paperfourdimensionshavebeenidenti…edtodealwithglobalizationintechnology(i.e.techno-globalism): ‘techno-territoriality’, ‘techno-sovereignty’, ‘techno-citizenship’and ‘techno-nationality’as such. By allocatingtheresultsofsomerepresentative contributionsontechnologyand globalizationtothemostpertinentheading ofthistaxonomy,and tryingtoestablishaccordinglytheirglobal, nationalorsub-nationalspeci…- cation, interestingresultshave emerged. 41Theabovereferredsub-systemsarethosediscussedinthesecond partofLundvall’s book(1992,PartII:ACloserLookatNationalSystemsofInnovation),withtwonotable exceptions:theomissionofChapter7,dealingwiththepacer roleofthepublicsector, which better…tsthetechno-sovereigntycomponent;theinclusionofthe educationaland trainingsub-system,highlyshaped bytechno-nationalconsiderationsand notincludedin Lundvall (1992)forscope constraints. 21 Firstofall, apartfromtechno-nationality,all the elementsofthetaxonomydonotadmitauniquespeci…cation.Asfortechno-territoriality,the needofacertaingeographicalproximity,and thustherelevance ofa‘local’ speci…cation(eithernationalorsub-national), isthemoreplausible,themore crucial istheroleoftacitand implicitknowledge,whilethesame component hasa globalspeci…cationin‘multinational’ contexts,where explicitknowledgedominates.Asfortechno-sovereignty,nationalspeci…cationsdominate inthosesectorsthataremorerelatedtothesecurity,tothe competitiveness,and tothetechnological idiosyncrasiesofone country,whileglobal speci…cationsarenotpurelysubstitutiveforthenational, butleavetonationalgovernmentalstructuresthescopeforsupporting and accommodating theirimplementation.Finally, in dealingwithtechno-citizenship,global(or central)and dispersed(orlocal)speci…cationsaretwo opposite,extreme strategieswhich …tascenariowhereproductionisthemostinternationally integratedeconomicactivity.Anationalspeci…cation howeverprevailsonce onerecognizesthepresentdominance ofaninternationaldivisionofthe‘cognitive’workwithinwhichtheinternationalchainofknowledgeisthemain strategicrational. Quitedi¤erentconclusionsholdfortechno-nationality,whose‘natural’, nationalspeci…cationiscon…rmed bylooking atseveralaspects:theroleof historyand ofinstitutionalshapinginformingdi¤erentinnovationsystems, thenationalunderpinning ofthesocialconstructionoftechnology,the culturalbaseofthe cognitiveroleofinstitutions,and theinstitutionalnature ofthemarket.Indeed,thisistheunique componentofthetaxonomywhose speci…cationisquiteunambiguous. Intryingtodeterminewhichoftheidenti…edtechno-componentsisthe mostimplicitinthenotionofnationalsystemofinnovation,techno-nationalism hasemergedasanotherimportantelement,alongwithtechno-sovereignty: suchquestionsasinstitutional learning, innovativeproducer-user relationshipsand productive(linkages)structure,thatisthethree interrelated buildingblocksofthemostarticulatedtheoreticalconstructionofthe concept (Freeman,1994),alongwithseveralrelated piecesofempiricalevidence, actuallyconveydi¤erentelementsoftechno-nationality,eitherdirectlyor indirectly. 22 References [1]Abramovitz,M.(1989),Thinking aboutgrowth,Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress. [2]Albert,M.(1991),Capitalisme contre capitalisme,Paris,Editionsdu Seuil. [3]Allen,P.(1988),Evolution, innovationand economics, inDosi, G.et al. (eds.),TechnicalChangeand EconomicTheory,London,Pinter Publishers,pp.95-119. [4]Andersen,E.S.(1992)Approachingnationalsystemsofinnovation, in Lundvall, B.A.(ed.),NationalSystemsofInnovation.TowardsaTheoryofInnovationand InteractiveLearning,London,PinterPublishers, pp.68-92. [5]Archibugi, D.&Michie,J.(1995),Theglobalisationoftechnology:a newtaxonomy,CambridgeJournalofEconomics,vol. 19,pp.121-140. [6]Archibugi, D. & Michie,J.(1997),Technologicalglobalisationand nationalsystemsofinnovation:anintroduction, inArchibugi, D. &Michie,J.(eds.),Technology,Globalisationand Economics,Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.1-23. [7]Arthur,B.W.(1989),Competingtechnologies, increasingreturns,and lock-in byhistoricalevents,EconomicJournal, vol.99,pp.116-131. [8]Ashton,D. & Green,F.(1996),Education,Training and theGlobal Economy,Aldershot,EdwardElgar. [9]Barker,B.(ed.), QualityPromotioninEurope,Aldershot,GowerPublishing. [10]Bartlett,C.A. & Ghoshal, S.(1989),Managing across Borders:The TransnationalSolution,Boston,HarvardBusiness School. [11]Bartlett,C.A.&Ghoshal, S.(1990),ManagingInnovationinTransnationalCorporations, inBartlett,C.A., Doz,Y.&Hedlund,G.(eds.), ManagingtheGlobalFirm,London,Routledge,pp.215-55. 23 [12]Beccattini, G. & Rullani, E.(1996),Localsystemsand globalconnections:theroleofknowledge, inCossentino,F., Pyke,F, & Sengenberger,W.(eds.),Localand RegionalResponsetoGlobalPressure: theCaseofItalyand itsIndustrialDistricts,Geneva,International InstituteforLabourStudies,pp.159-174. [13]Berger,S.&Dore,R.(eds.) (1996),NationalDiversityand Global Capitalism,Ithaca,Cornell UniversityPress. [14]Bijker,W., Hughes,T. & Pinch,T.(eds.) (1987),TheSocialConstructionofTechnologicalSystems:NewDirectionsintheSociology and HistoryofTechnology,Cambridge,MA,MITPress. [15]Bijker,W. & Law,J.(eds.) (1992),ShapingTechnology/BuildingSociety:Studiesin Socio-technicalChange,Cambridge(MA),MITPress. [16]Boyer,R.&Drache,D.(eds.) (1996),StateAgainstMarkets:the Limitsof Globalization,London,Routledge. [17]Braverman,H.(1974),Laborand MonopolyCapital: The Degradation ofWorkintheTwentiethCentury,NewYork,MonthlyReviewPress. [18]Breschi, S.eMalerba,F.(1997),Sectoral innovationsystems:technologicalregimes,Schumpeterian dynamics,and spatialboundaries, in Edquist,C.(eds.),SystemsofInnovation.Technologies,Institutions and Organisations,London,PinterPublishers,pp.130-156. [19]Brusco,S.(1982),TheEmilianmodel: productivedecentralisationand social integration,CambridgeJournalofEconomics,vol.6,pp.167-184. [20]Cantwell, J.A.(1989),TechnologicalInnovationand MultinationalCorporations, Oxford,Blackwell. [21]Cantwell, J.A.(1991),TheinternationalagglomerationofR&D, in Casson,M.C.(ed.),GlobalResearch Strategyand InternationalCompetitiveness, Oxford,Basil Blackwell, pp.104-132. [22]Cantwell, J.A.(1993),Corporatetechnologicalspecialisationininternational industries, inCasson,M.C. & Creedy,J.(eds.),Industrial Concentrationand EconomicInequality,Aldershot,EdwardElgar. 24 [88]Lundvall, B.A. & Barras,S.(eds.) (1998),TheGlobalisingLearning Economy.ChallengeforInnovationPolicy(Reportbasedoncontributionsfrom7projectsundertheTSERProgramme),Brussels,DGXII. [89]MacKenzie,D. & Wajcman,J.(eds.) (1985),TheSocialShaping of Technology,MiltonKeynes, OpenUniversityPress. [90]MacKenzie,D. & Spinardi, G.(1994),Tacitknowledge,weaponsdesign,and theuninventionofnuclearweapons,mimeo. [91]Malerba,F.&Orsenigo,L.(1995),Schumpeterian patternsofinnovation,CambridgeJournalofEconomics,vol. 19,pp.47-65. [92]McKelvey,M.(1991),Howdonationalsystemsofinnovation di¤er? A criticalanalysisofPorter,Freeman,Lundvall and Nelson, inHodgson, G.M.&Screpanti, E.(eds.),Rethinking Economics.Markets,Technologyand EconomicEvolution,Aldershot,EdwardElgar,pp.117-137. [93]Metcalfe,J.S.(1995),Technologysystemsand technologypolicyinan evolutionaryframework,CambridgeJournalofEconomics,vol.19,pp. 25-46. [94]Michie,J. & Smith,G.J.(eds.),(1995),ManagingtheGlobalEconomy, Oxford, OxfordUniversityPress. [95]Mises,L.(1919),Nation,Staatund Wirtschaft.Beiträge zurPolitik und GeschichtederZeit,Wien,ManzscheVerlags,translatedasStato, Nazione edEconomia,(1994),Turin,BollatiBoringhieri. [96]Molina,A.(1989),TheSocialBasisoftheMicroelectronicsRevolution, Edinburgh,EdinburghUniversityPress. [97]Movery,D.C. & Oxley,J.E.(1995),Inwardtechnologytransferand competitiveness:theroleofnational innovationsystems,Cambridge JournalofEconomics,vol. 19,pp.67-93. [98]Nelson,R.R.(1988),Institutions supportingtechnicalchangeinthe United States, inDosi, G.etal. (eds.),TechnicalChangeand Economic Theory,London,PinterPublishers,pp.312-329. [99]Nelson,R.R.(ed.) (1993),NationalInnovation Systems.AComparativeAnalysis, Oxford, OxfordUniversityPress. 31 [100]Nelson,R.&Winter,S.(1982),AnEvolutionaryTheoryofEconomic Change,Cambridge(MA),HarvardUniversityPress. [101]Nelson,R.R.eRosenberg,N.(1993),Technical innovationand nationalsystemsinNelson,R.R.(eds.)NationalInnovation Systems.A ComparativeAnalysis, Oxford, OxfordUniversityPress,pp.3-21. [102]North,D.C.(1990),Institutions,InstitutionalChangeand Economic Performance,Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress. [103] OECD,(1992),Technologyand theEconomy.TheKeyRelationships, Paris, OECD. [104] Ohmae, K. (1990),TheBorderless World:ManagementLessonsinthe NewLogicoftheGlobalMarketPlace,London,Collins. [105] Osborne,D.&Gaebler,T.(1992),ReinventingGovernment,NewYork, Addison-Wesley. [106]Panic,M.(1993),Thestateasanagentofchange,paperpresentedat WIDERconference ontheStateand Economic Development,UniversityofCambridge. [107]Paquet,G.(1996),Technonationalism and mesoinnovationsystems,PRIME, http:/iir1.uwaterloo.ca/MOTW96/Summer96/GillesPaquet.html., pp.1-13. [108]Patel, P.(1995),Localised productionoftechnologyforglobalmarkets, CambridgeJournalofEconomics,vol. 19,pp.141-153. [109]Patel, P. & Pavitt, K. (1991),Large…rmsintheproductionofthe world’stechnology:animportantcaseof’non-globalisation’, Journal ofInternationalBusiness Studies,vol. 22,pp.1-21. [110]Patel, P. & Pavitt,K.(1994),Thenatureand economicimportance of national innovations systems,STIReview,n.14,pp.9-32. [111]Pearce,R.D.(1989),TheInternationalisationofResearchand DevelopmentbyMultinationalEnterprises,Houndmills,Macmillan. 32 [112]Pianta,M.(1988),Hight technologyprogrammes:forthemilitaryor forthe economy?,BullettinofPeace Proposals,n.1,pp.53-79. [113]Pinch,T. & Bijker,W.(1984),Thesocialconstructionof factsand artefacts:orhowthesociologyofscience and thesociologyoftechnologymightbene…teachother,SocialStudiesofScience,vol.14,pp. 399-441. [114]Porter,M.(1990),TheCompetitiveAdvantageofNations,London, Macmillan. [115]Russel, S.(1986),Thesocialconstructionofartefacts:aresponseto Pinchand Bijker,SocialStudiesofScience,vol.16,pp.331-346. [116]Russel, S. & Williams,R.(1988), Openingtheblack-boxand closing behind you:onmicro-sociologyinthesocialanalysisoftechnology, EdinburghPICT,Working PaperNo.3,EdinburghUniversity. [117]Russo,M.(1985),Technicalchangeand theindustrialdistrict:therole ofinter…rmrelationsinthegrowthand transformationofceramictile productioninItaly,ReserachPolicy,vol.14,pp.329-343. [118]Soete,L.(1994),EuropeanComparativeInnovation Systems,paperpresentedat theTransnationalInstituteonInnovation,Competitiveness and Sustainability,CentreforPolicyReserachon Science and Technology,Whistler,B.C., SimonFraserUniversity, (http://edie.cprost.sfu.ca/summer/paper/luc-soete.html). [119]Storper,M.(1992),Thelimitsofglobalization:technologydistricts and internationaltrade,EconomicGeography,vol.61,pp.260-282. [120]Storper,M.(1993),Regionalworldsofproduction: learning and innovationinthetechnologydistrictsofFrance,Italyand theUSA,RegionalStudies,vol.27,pp.433-455. [121]Storper,M.(1997),TheRegionalWorld:TerritorialDevelopmentina GlobalEconomy,NewYork,Guilford. [122]Strange,S.(1988),Statesand Markets,London,PinterPublishers. 33 [123]Tylecote,A.&Demirag,I.(1991),Short-termism:cultureand structuresasfactorsintechnological innovation,ResearchProjectonPerformancesPressuresand TechnologicalProgress inBritishIndustry, mimeo. [124]Walker,W.(1993),National innovationsystems:Britain, inNelson, R.R.(eds.),NationalInnovation Systems.AComparativeAnalysis, Oxford, OxfordUniversityPress,pp.158-191. [125]Walsh,V.(1987),Technology,competitiveness and thespecialproblemsofsmall countries,STIReview,vol.2,pp.81-133. [126]Winter,S.G.(1984)Schumpeteriancompetitioninalternativetechnologicalregimes,JournalofEconomicBehaviourand Organizations, vol.5,pp.287-320. [127]Williams,R. & Edge,D.(1996),Thesocialshaping oftechnology, ResearchPolicy,vol.25,pp.865-899. [128]Williamson, O.E.(1975),Marketsand Hierarchies:Analysisand AntitrustImplications,NewYork,TheFree Press. [129]Wood,S.(ed.) (1982),The DegradationofWork?Skill, Deskilling and theLabourProcess,London,Hutchinson. [130]Young,A.(1996),MeasuringR&Dintheservices,STIWorking Papers, No.1996/7,Paris, OECD. [131]Zysman,J.(1983),Governments,Marketsand GrowthFinancialSystemsand thePoliticsofIndustrialChange, Oxford,MartinRobertson. [132]Zysman,J.(1990),Trade,technologyand nationalcompetition,Paper fortheOECDConference,Paris,24-27 June. 34