IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prs/recoru/ecoru_0013-0559_1989_num_192_1_3984.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Les nouvelles technologies agricoles comme production sociale

Author

Listed:
  • Bernard Rosier
  • Jean-Pierre Berlan

Abstract

[fre] La technologie est extérieure à notre société. Sa genèse est mystérieuse et il faut s'adapter à ses impacts. Après un bref rappel des positions des différents courants de la pensée économique, l'article traite des traits marquants de la transformation de l'agriculture au 20e siècle et de l'organisation correspondante de la production de l'innovation en s'attachant au rôle et à la place de la recherche publique. Il s'interroge sur la capacité des technologies nouvelles présentes pour résoudre les problèmes actuels nés du développement même des technologies "nouvelles" du passé (surproduction, environnement, santé publique, rapports Nord-Sud etc.) et suggère que la vraie question serait plutôt celle de définir ces technologies en fonction des impacts qui leur seraient assignés. [eng] Technological change is usually considered as given and the only task is to study its impact. This paper takes the opposite view : technology has a history, a genesis, it is socially contingent and marked. Looking at the main features of the transformation of agriculture in the 20th century, it deals with the corresponding structure and organization of the production of innovations, particularly of public agricultural research. It questions the capacity of the present "new" technologies to solve the problems inherited from the very development of the past "new" ones (excess capacity, environment, public health, North-South relations, etc.) and suggests rather to design the new technologies according to the impact we want from them.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernard Rosier & Jean-Pierre Berlan, 1989. "Les nouvelles technologies agricoles comme production sociale," Économie rurale, Programme National Persée, vol. 192(1), pages 23-28.
    • Handle: RePEc:prs:recoru:ecoru_0013-0559_1989_num_192_1_3984
    DOI: 10.3406/ecoru.1989.3984
    Note: DOI:10.3406/ecoru.1989.3984
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/ecoru.1989.3984
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/ecoru_0013-0559_1989_num_192_1_3984
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3406/ecoru.1989.3984?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    2. Elster,Jon, 1983. "Explaining Technical Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521270724.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Albert Faber & Koen Frenken, 2008. "Models in evolutionary economics and environmental policy: Towards an evolutionary environmental economics," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-15, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Apr 2008.
    2. Giovanni Dosi & Luigi Marengo & Alessandro Nuvolari, 2019. "Institutions are neither autistic maximizers nor flocks of birds: self-organization, power and learning in human organizations," Chapters, in: Francesca Gagliardi & David Gindis (ed.), Institutions and Evolution of Capitalism, chapter 13, pages 194-213, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Fritz Rahmeyer, 2001. "Prolegomenon zu einer evolutorischen Theorie der Unternehmung," Discussion Paper Series 202, Universitaet Augsburg, Institute for Economics.
    4. Fulvio Castellacci, 2007. "Evolutionary And New Growth Theories. Are They Converging?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 585-627, July.
    5. We Shim & Oh-jin Kwon & Yeong-ho Moon & Keun-hwan Kim, 2016. "Understanding the Dynamic Convergence Phenomenon from the Perspective of Diversity and Persistence: A Cross-Sector Comparative Analysis between the United States and South Korea," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-29, July.
    6. Numagami, Tsuyoshi, 1996. "Flexibility trap: a case analysis of U.S. and Japanese technological choice in the digital watch industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 133-162, January.
    7. Arman Avadikyan & Gilles Lambert & Christophe Lerch, 2016. "A Multi-Level Perspective on Ambidexterity: The Case of a Synchrotron Research Facility," Working Papers of BETA 2016-44, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    8. Francesco Bogliacino & Mario Pianta, 2016. "The Pavitt Taxonomy, revisited: patterns of innovation in manufacturing and services," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 33(2), pages 153-180, August.
    9. Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Boschma, Ron, 2022. "Do scientific capabilities in specific domains matter for technological diversification in European regions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    10. Grillitsch, Markus & Asheim, Björn & Fünfschilling, Lea & Kelmenson, Sophie & Lowe, Nichola & Lundquist, Karl Johan & Mahmoud, Yahia & Martynovich, Mikhail & Mattson, Pauline & Miörner, Johan & Nilsso, 2023. "Rescaling: An Analytical Lense to Study Economic and Industrial Shifts," Papers in Innovation Studies 2023/11, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    11. Oliver Falck & Anita Dietrich & Tobias Lohse & Friederike Welter & Heike Belitz & Cedric von der Hellen & Carsten Dreher & Carsten Schwäbe & Dietmar Harhoff & Monika Schnitzer & Uschi Backes-Gellner &, 2019. "Steuerliche Forschungsförderung: Wichtiger Impuls für FuE-Aktivitäten oder zu wenig zielgerichtet?," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 72(09), pages 03-25, May.
    12. Silverberg, Gerald & Verspagen, Bart, 2002. "A Percolation Model of Innovation in Complex Technology," Research Memorandum 032, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    13. Coccia, Mario & Wang, Lili, 2015. "Path-breaking directions of nanotechnology-based chemotherapy and molecular cancer therapy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 155-169.
    14. Carolina Castaldi & Roberto Fontana & Alessandro Nuvolari, 2009. "‘Chariots of fire’: the evolution of tank technology, 1915–1945," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 545-566, August.
    15. Tamer Khraisha & Keren Arthur, 2018. "Can we have a general theory of financial innovation processes? A conceptual review," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 4(1), pages 1-27, December.
    16. Petersen, Alexander M. & Rotolo, Daniele & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2016. "A triple helix model of medical innovation: Supply, demand, and technological capabilities in terms of Medical Subject Headings," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 666-681.
    17. Luigi Orsenigo & Fabio Pammolli & Massimo Riccaboni & Andrea Bonaccorsi & Giuseppe Turchetti, 1997. "The Evolution of Knowledge and the Dynamics of an Industry Network," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 1(2), pages 147-175, June.
    18. Hagedoorn, John & Carayannis, Elias & Alexander, Jeffrey, 2001. "Strange bedfellows in the personal computer industry: technology alliances between IBM and Apple," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 837-849, May.
    19. Pammolli, Fabio & Riccaboni, Massimo, 2002. "Technological Regimes and the Growth of Networks: An Empirical Analysis," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 205-215, November.
    20. Verhoeven, Dennis & Bakker, Jurriën & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2016. "Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 707-723.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:prs:recoru:ecoru_0013-0559_1989_num_192_1_3984. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Equipe PERSEE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.persee.fr/collection/ecoru .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.