Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Theorizing path dependence: a review of positive feedback mechanisms in technology markets, regional clusters, and organizations

Contents:

Author Info

  • Leonhard Dobusch
  • Elke Schü�ler
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    The concept of path dependence has often been criticized as vague and only narrowly applicable. Although we can find some very refined definitions of the concept, we also find a wide range of empirical phenomena being described as path-dependent. We argue that more detailed accounts of the positive feedback mechanisms that form paths can take path dependence beyond this state of being overdetermined, but under-specified. Reviewing three well-described cases of path-dependent dynamics in technology markets, regional clustering, and organizations, we define a core set of positive feedback mechanisms that constitute path dependence at different analysis levels and clarify the relationship between positive feedback and increasing returns. We show that path-dependent processes, that is, processes driven by positive feedback that veer toward rigidity or lock-in, can be (but do not have to be) found under many labels, including structural inertia, coevolution, or institutional persistence. We conclude that a precise definition of path dependence does not need to be at odds with the concept's widespread use in understanding organizational and industrial development processes. Copyright 2013 The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Associazione ICC. All rights reserved., Oxford University Press.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/icc/dts029
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Oxford University Press in its journal Industrial and Corporate Change.

    Volume (Year): 22 (2013)
    Issue (Month): 3 (June)
    Pages: 617-647

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:22:y:2013:i:3:p:617-647

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK
    Fax: 01865 267 985
    Email:
    Web page: http://icc.oupjournals.org/

    Order Information:
    Web: http://www.oup.co.uk/journals

    Related research

    Keywords:

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Annabelle Gawer & Rebecca Henderson, 2005. "Platform Owner Entry and Innovation in Complementary Markets: Evidence from Intel," NBER Working Papers 11852, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Stanley M. Besen & Joseph Farrell, 1994. "Choosing How to Compete: Strategies and Tactics in Standardization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 117-131, Spring.
    3. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-40, June.
    4. Gandal, Neil & Greenstein, Shane & Salant, David, 1999. "Adoptions and Orphans in the Early Microcomputer Market," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 87-105, March.
    5. Kretschmer, Tobias, 2004. "Upgrading and niche usage of PC operating systems," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 22(8-9), pages 1155-1182, November.
    6. Kenneth Arrow, 2000. "Increasing returns: historiographic issues and path dependence," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 171-180.
    7. Bernard Reddy & David Evans & Albert Nichols & Richard Schmalensee, 2001. "A Monopolist Would Still Charge More for Windows: A Comment on Werden," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 263-268, May.
    8. Nicholas Economides, 2001. "The Microsoft Antitrust Case," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-39, March.
    9. Ron Martin & Peter Sunley, 2006. "Path dependence and regional economic evolution," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(4), pages 395-437, August.
    10. Jörg Sydow & Frank Lerch & Udo Staber, 2010. "Planning for Path Dependence? The Case of a Network in the Berlin-Brandenburg Optics Cluster," Economic Geography, Clark University, Clark University, vol. 86(2), pages 173-195, 04.
    11. Jochen Koch, 2008. "Strategic Paths and Media Management – a Path Dependency Analysis of the German Newspaper Branch of High Quality Journalism," Schmalenbach Business Review (sbr), LMU Munich School of Management, LMU Munich School of Management, vol. 60(1), pages 50-73, January.
    12. David Dranove & Neil Gandal, 2003. "The Dvd-vs.-Divx Standard War: Empirical Evidence of Network Effects and Preannouncement Effects," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(3), pages 363-386, 09.
    13. Burgelman, Robert A. & Grove, Andrew S., 2007. "Let Chaos Reign, Then Rein In Chaos--Repeatedly: Managing Strategic Dynamics For Corporate Longevity," Research Papers, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business 1954, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    14. Windrum, Paul, 2004. "Leveraging technological externalities in complex technologies: Microsoft's exploitation of standards in the browser wars," Research Policy, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 385-394, April.
    15. Burgelman, Robert A., 2002. "Strategy as Vector and the Inertia of Co-evolutionary Lock-in," Research Papers, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business 1745, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    16. Bernard Reddy & David Evans & Albert Nichols & Richard Schmalensee, 2001. "A Monopolist Would Still Charge More for Windows: A Comment on Werden's Reply," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 273-274, May.
    17. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    18. Cristiano Antonelli, 2008. "Pecuniary knowledge externalities: the convergence of directed technological change and the emergence of innovation systems," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(5), pages 1049-1070, October.
    19. David, Paul A., 1994. "Why are institutions the 'carriers of history'?: Path dependence and the evolution of conventions, organizations and institutions," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 205-220, December.
    20. Ron Martin, 2010. "Roepke Lecture in Economic Geography-Rethinking Regional Path Dependence: Beyond Lock-in to Evolution," Economic Geography, Clark University, Clark University, vol. 86(1), pages 1-27, 01.
    21. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2009. "How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 971-983, July.
    22. Junfu Zhang, 2003. "Growing Silicon Valley on a landscape: an agent-based approach to high-tech industrial clusters," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 529-548, December.
    23. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-31, March.
    24. David, Paul A, 1985. "Clio and the Economics of QWERTY," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 332-37, May.
    25. Heli Koski, 1999. "The Installed Base Effect: Some Empirical Evidence From The Microcomputer Market," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(4), pages 273-310.
    26. Koski, Heli & Kretschmer, Tobias, 2002. "Entry, Standards and Competition : Firm Strategies and the Diffusion of Mobile Telephony," Discussion Papers, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy 824, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    27. Miller, Danny, 1992. "The icarus paradox: How exceptional companies bring about their own downfall," Business Horizons, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 24-35.
    28. Schilling, Melissa, 1999. "Winning the standards race: : Building installed base and the availability of complementary goods," European Management Journal, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 265-274, June.
    29. Jean-Philippe Vergne & Rodolphe Durand, 2010. "The Missing Link Between the Theory and Empirics of Path Dependence: Conceptual Clarification, Testability Issue, and Methodological Implications," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(4), pages 736-759, 06.
    30. Burgelman, Robert A., 2003. "Strategy Making and Evolutionary Organization Theory: Insights from Longitudinal Process Research," Research Papers, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business 1844, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    31. Andreas Reinstaller & Werner Hölzl, 2009. "Big causes and small events: QWERTY and the mechanization of office work," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(5), pages 999-1031, October.
    32. Dolata, Ulrich, 2009. "Technological innovations and sectoral change: Transformative capacity, adaptability, patterns of change: An analytical framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 1066-1076, July.
    33. Langlois, Richard N. & Robertson, Paul L., 1992. "Networks and innovation in a modular system: Lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 297-313, August.
    34. Metcalfe, J S, 1994. "Competition, Fisher's Principle and Increasing Returns in the Selection Process," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 327-46, November.
    35. Heli Koski & Tobias Kretschmer, 2004. "Survey on competing in network industries : firm strategies, market outcomes, and policy implications," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library 803, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    36. Gregory Werden, 2001. "Microsoft's Pricing of Windows and the Economics of Derived Demand Monopoly," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 257-262, May.
    37. Arthur, W. Brian, 1990. "'Silicon Valley' locational clusters: when do increasing returns imply monopoly?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 235-251, June.
    38. Thrane, Sof & Blaabjerg, Steen & Møller, Rasmus Hannemann, 2010. "Innovative path dependence: Making sense of product and service innovation in path dependent innovation processes," Research Policy, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 932-944, September.
    39. Benjamin Klein, 2001. "The Microsoft Case: What Can a Dominant Firm Do to Defend Its Market Position?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 45-62, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Engwall, Mats & Freilich, Jonatan, 2014. "Architectural Lock-in of the Drug Development Process," INDEK Working Paper Series, Department of Industrial Economics and Management, Royal Institute of Technology 2014/4, Department of Industrial Economics and Management, Royal Institute of Technology.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:22:y:2013:i:3:p:617-647. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.