Pushkinskaya st. 43. office 10
Rostov-on-Don, Russia
e-mail: info@hjournal.ru 
tel. +7(863) 269-88-14

cubsEN (2)

Technological Systems and Economy: a Heterodox Approach and Institutional Framework

Technological Systems and Economy: a Heterodox Approach and Institutional Framework

Journal of Institutional Studies, , Vol. 12 (no. 4),

Technologies determine the level of innovative development and economic growth. The article studies a methodological platform for a new unit of analysis in economic science such technological system. This phenomenon involves the research program, the study of the specifics and features this mesolevel pattern. The methodological basis of the research includes Neoclassical and Neoinstitutional Economic theories, Strategic Management and Complexity Economic. The research program we apply a Heterodox approach as a set of the Contract theory, Evolutionary theory, Complexity Economic and Platform ecosystems. The authors define a technological system as an economic meso-level pattern that coordinate actions and knowledge about system and component technologies and functioning through the quasi-self-enforcing contracts based on standards and independent of property rights. Any meso-level pattern that has technological and institutional identity is a technological system. The types of technological systems in the economy are highlighted on the basis of the consolidated classification “blurring of the bundle of property rights to technology – the degree of technology decentralization”. The results create the basis for further research of identifying boundaries and analyzing the competitiveness of technological systems, as well as assessing public administration strategies in this area.

Keywords: technological system; technology; technological identity; institutional identity; heterodox economic theory; self-enforcing contract

  • Acquier, A., Carbone, V. (2018). Sharing economy and social innovation. In: N.M. Davidson, M. Finck, J.J. Infranca (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sharing economy and law. Cambridge-New York: Cambridge University Press, 51–64. DOI: 10.1017/9781108255882
  • Adner, R., Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 306–333.
  • Aghion, P., Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60(2), 323–351.
  • Alchian, A., Demsetz, H. (2003). Production, the value of information and economic organization. In: Milestones of economic thought. The theory of industry organizations. Vol .5. SPb.: School of Economics. P. 280–317 (In Russian).
  • Andergassen, R., Nardini, F., Ricottilli, M. (2017). Innovation diffusion, general purpose technologies and economic growth. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 40, 72–80.
  • Arrow, K. J. (1962). The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing. Revue of Economic Studies, (29), 155–173.
  • Arthur, W. B. (2015). Theory of complexity in economic science: other foundations of economic thinking. Terra Еconomicus, 13(2), 15–37 (In Russian).
  • Arthur, W. B. (1999). Complexity and the Economy. Science, 284, 107–109.
  • Bagrinovsky, K. A., Isaeva, M. K. (2008). Methods for analyzing the mechanism of mastering new technologies. Economic science of modern Russia, (2), 77–87 (In Russian).
  • Böcker, L., Мeelen, T. (2017). Sharing for people, planet or profit? In: K. Frenken (Ed.), Analysing
  • motivations for intended sharing economy participation [Special issue]. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, (23), 28–39. DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.004
  • Bodrunov, S. D. (2016). New industrial society. Production. Economy. Institutions. Economic Revival of Russia, (2), 5–14 (In Russian).
  • Botsman, R., Rogers, R. (2010). What’s Mine is Yours: How Collaborative Consumption is Changing the Way We Live. London: Collins. 304 р.
  • Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A. (2013). The organization of innovation in ecosystems: Problem framing, problem solving, and patterns of coupling. Advances in Strategic Management, (30), 167–194.
  • Castells, M. (2001). The Internet Galaxy. Reflections on the Internet, Business and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 292 р.
  • Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P., Wu, D. J. (2012). Co-creation of value in a platform ecosystem: The case of enterprise software. MIS Quarterly, (36), 263–290.
  • Dementyev, V. V. (2019). Innovation: Between Coaseʼs Theorem and Hobbesʼs Theorem. Journal of Institutional Studies, 11(1), 95–114. DOI: 10.17835 / 2076-6297.2019.11.1.095-114 (In Russian).
  • Dyer, J. H., Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy, sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, (23), 660–679.
  • Fellner, W. J. (1953). The Significance and Limitations of Contemporary Distribution Theory. American Economic Review. (43), 484−494.
  • Freeman, C. (1987). Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. Pinter Publishers. 155 p.
  • Frolov, I. E., Chaplygina, I. G. (2009). Modern problems of building models of the scientific and technical sphere of the economy. Economic science of modern Russia, (1), 7–25 (In Russian).
  • Furubotn, E. G., Richter, R. (2005). Institutions and Economic Theory. Achievements of the new institutional economic theory. SPb .: Publishing house of S.Peterb. state university. 736 p. (In Russian).
  • Gawer, A., Cusumano, M. A. (2008). How companies become platform leaders. MIT Sloan Management Review, (49), 28–35.
  • Glazyev, S. Yu. (1990). Economic theory of technical development. Moscow: Science. 230 p. (In Russian).
  • Glushak, N. V., Glushak, O. V. (2014). Technology as an institutional category and object of economic relations. Bulletin of the Bryansk University, 102–109 (In Russian).
  • Grübler, A. (2003). Technology and Global Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 464 p.
  • Hannan, M. T., Freeman, J. (1977). The Population Ecology of Organizations. American J. of Sociology, (82), 929–964.
  • Hanusch, H., Pyka, A. (2007). Principles of Neo-Schumpeterian Economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, (31), 275–289.
  • Hausmann, R., Hidalgo, C. A., Bustos, S., Coscia, M., Simoes, A., Yildirim, M. A. (2013). The atlas of economic complexity: Mapping paths to prosperity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 71 p.
  • Hurwicz, L. (1972). On informationally decentralized systems. Decision and organization. Amsterdam: North-Holland Press. P. 297–336.
  • Ivaschenko, N. P., Shastitko, A. E., Shpakova, A. A. (2019). Smart contracts in the network of new institutional economic theory. Journal of Institutional Studies, 11(3), 64–81 (In Russian).
  • Kennedy, C. (1964). Induced bias in innovation and the theory of distribution. The Economic Journal, (74), 541−547. DOI: 10.2307/2228295
  • Kirdina-Chandler, S. G., Maevsky, V. I. (2018). Mesoeconomics in a heterodox perspective: one of the possible approaches // In «Heterodoxia versus economic reductionism: micro-, meso-, macro» (ed. S.G. Kirdina-Chandler, V.I. Maevsky). Moscow: IE RAS. P. 40–70 (In Russian).
  • Kirdina-Chandler, S. G., Maevsky, V. I. (2020). Mesoeconomics in a heterodox perspective: an intradisciplinary structure. Journal of Institutional Studies, 12(2), 6–24. DOI: 10.17835 / 2076-6297.2020.12.2.006-024 (In Russian).
  • Klein, B. (1983). Contracting Costs and Residual Claims: The Separation of Ownership and Control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 367–374.
  • Klein, B. (1985). Self-enforcing contracts. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, (141), 595–600.
  • Kochetov, E. G. (2014). Innovative arrangement of the global world. Bulletin of the Moscow University. S.Yu. Witte. Series 1: Economics and Management, (3), 53–67 (In Russian).
  • L’vov, D. S. (1990). Effective management of technical development. Moscow: Economics. 255 p. (In Russian).
  • Lucas, R. (1988). Оn the Mechanics of Economic Development. Journal of Monetary Economics, (22), 3−42.
  • Martin, R., Sunley, P. (2007). Complexity thinking and evolutionary economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 7(5), 573–601.
  • Meade, N., Islam, T. (1998). Technological forecasting – model selection, model stability, and combining models. Management Science, 44(8), 1115–1130. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.44.8.1115
  • Mensch, G. (1975). Technological stalemate: innovation overcomes depression. Frankfurt am Main. 241 p. (In Russian).
  • Munger, M. (2019). Tomorrow 3.0. Transaction costs and sharing economics. Economic sociology, 20(5), 74–97 (In Russian).
  • Nelson, R. (2008). Economic Development from the Perspective of Evolutionary Economic Theory. Oxford Development Studies, 36(1), 9–21.
  • Nelson, R. R., Winter, S. G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap Press/Harvard University Press: Cambridge. 434 p.
  • North, D. K. (1997). Institutional change: a framework for analysis. Economic Issues, (3), 6–17 (In Russian).
  • Orekhova, S. V. (2016). Institutional factors in choosing the resource strategy of the enterprise. Journal of Institutional Studies, 8(4), 106–122. DOI: 10.17835 / 2076-6297.2016.8.4.106-122 (In Russian)
  • Orekhova, S. V. (2017). Technological platforms and new industrial policy in Russia. Journal of Economic Regulation, 8(4), 6–19 (In Russian).
  • Orekhova, S. V. (2018). Industrial Plants: Electronic vs. traditional business model. Terra Economicus, 16(4), 77–94. DOI: 10.23683 / 2073-6606-2018-16-4-77-94 (In Russian)
  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 367–472. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600
  • Peine, A. (2008). Technological paradigms and complex technical systems – the case of smart homes. Research Policy, 37(3), 508–529.
  • Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of Growth of the Firm. N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons. 272 p.
  • Perez, С. (2002). Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages. London: Elgar. 224 p.
  • Pistorius, C. W. I., Utterback, J. M. (1997). Multi-mode interaction among technologies. Research Policy, 26(1), 67–84. DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00916-X
  • Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. 1st ed. N.Y.: Free Press. 367 p.
  • Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), S71–S102.
  • Rozin, V. M. (2017). Technology as a Time Challenge: Study, Concept and Types of Technology. Philosophy and Cosmology, 19, 133–142.
  • Russell, M. G., Smorodinskaya, N. V. (2018). Leveraging Complexity for Ecosystemic Innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 114–131. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.11.024
  • Samuelson, P. A. (1965). A Theory of Induced Innovation along Kennedy-Weizsacker Lines. Review of Economics and Statistics, 343−356.
  • Schneider, V. (2012). Governance and complexity. The Oxford handbook of governance. D. Levi-Faur (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Р. 129–142.
  • Schumpeter, J. (1982). Theory of Economic Development (Study of Entrepreneurial Profit, Capital, Credit, Interest and the Market Cycle). Moscow: Progress. 455 p. (In Russian).
  • Shastitko, A. E. (2016). Economic theory of organizations: a tutorial. Moscow: Prospect. 304 p. (In Russian).
  • Shastitko, A. E., Pavlova, N. S., Kashchenko, N. V. (2020). Antimonopoly regulation of product ecosystems: the case of “Kasperskyʼs Laboratory” – Apple Inc. The Manager, 11(4), 29–42. DOI:10.29141 / 2218-5003-2020-11-4-3 (In Russian)
  • Shell, K. (1973). Inventive Activity, Industrial Organization and Economic Growth. In: Models of Economic Growth (Ed. by J.A. Mirrlees and N.H. Stern). N.Y. P. 77–100.
  • Solow, R. M. (1957). Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function. Review of Economics and Statistics (The MIT Press), 39(3), 312–320.
  • Sukharev, O. S. (2011). Institutional Change, Efficiency and Structure of Economy. Saarbrucken: Lambert Academic Publishing. 124 p.
  • Sukharev, O. S. (2013). Institutional and technological change: the boundaries of the analysis of evolutionary theory. Journal of Institutional Studies, 5(2), 88–115 (In Russian).
  • Sukharev, O. S. (2017). Evolutionary economic theory of institutions and technologies. Modeling problems. Moscow: Lenand. 139 p. (In Russian).
  • Sukharev, O. S. (2018). Structural analysis of technological changes and the strategy of economic growth. Bulletin of the Ural State Economic University, 19(3), 26−41 (In Russian).
  • Tambovtsev, V. L. (2019). Interaction “institutions-technology” and economic growth. Journal of New Economy, 20(2), 55–70. DOI: 10.29141 / 20731019-2019-20-2-3 (In Russian)
  • Tatarkin, A. I. (2016). Innovation vector of the Russian economy: behavioral readiness of the population. Business, management, law, (3–4), 8–22 (In Russian).
  • Tesler, L. (1980). A theory of self-enforsing agreements. Journal of Business, 53(1), 27–44.
  • Thomson, A. M., Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration Processes: Inside the Black Box. Public Administration Review, 66 (S1), 20–32.
  • Tirole, J. (1994). The Theory of Industrial Organization. MIT Press. 479 p.
  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
  • Volchik, V. V. (2020). Narratives and understanding of economic institutions. Terra Еconomicus, 18(2), 49–69. DOI: 10.18522 / 2073-6606-2020-18-2-49-69 (In Russian)
  • Wareham, J., Fox, P. B., Cano Giner, J. L. (2014). Technology ecosystem governance. Organization Science, (25), 1195–1215.
  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, (2), 171–180.
  • Williamson, O. (1996). Economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, “relational” contracting. SPb.: Lenizdat; CEV Press. 702 p. (In Russian).
  • Williamson, O. (2002). The Theory of the Firm as Governance Structure: From Choice to Contract. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(3), 171–195.
  • Zhang, G., McAdams, D. A., Shankar, V., Darani, M. M. (2017). Modeling the evolution of system technology performance when component and system technology performances interact: Commensalism and amensalism. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 116–124. DOI:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.08.004
Publisher: Ltd. "Humanitarian perspectives"
Founder: Ltd. "Humanitarian perspectives"
Online-ISSN: 2412-6039
ISSN: 2076-6297