Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Modularity in Technology, Organization, and Society


Author Info

  • Richard N. Langlois

    (University of Connecticut)


Modularity is a very general set of principles for managing complexity. By breaking up a complex system into discrete modules - which can then communicate with one another only through standardized interfaces within a standardized architecture - one can eliminate what would otherwise be an unmanageable spaghetti tangle of systemic interconnections. Such ideas are not new in the literature of technological design (Simon 1962, Alexander 1964), even if, as some claim (Baldwin and Clark 1997), modularity is becoming more important today because of the increased complexity of modern technology. What is new is the application of the idea of modularity not only to technological design but also to organizational design. Sanchez and Mahoney (1996) go so far as to assert that modularity in the design of products leads to - or at least ought to lead to - modularity in the design of the organizations that produce such products. From another angle, however, the principles of modularity have arguably long been at work in the literature of social science. F. A. Hayek (1967) tells us that the subject matter of social science - unlike that of some physical sciences - is "organized complexity." And we can think of Adam Smith's "obvious and simple system of natural liberty" as one of the first of a tradition of proposals for how a complex modern society might be made more productive through a modular design of social and economic institutions. The classic defense of Smith's system is that, in separating mine from thine, property rights modularize social interaction, which is then mediated through the interface of voluntary exchange, all under the governance of the systems architecture of common law. A Venn diagram would reveal only the thinnest of overlaps between these two literatures. The management literature on modularity and organizational design asks how (given) firms should organize themselves internally to cope with modular products. The literature on (what is implicitly) modularity in social institutions asks how the interactions among (given) organizational units should be structured to increase wealth and productivity (and perhaps yield other good things as well). The overlapping question, of course, is Coase's question: what determines the boundaries of firms? Why are some (modular) social units governed by the architecture of the organization and some governed by the larger architecture of the market? It is not perhaps surprising that scholars have looked to the notion of property rights to answer Coase's question, yielding an older theory of property rights spun directly from Coase (De Alessi 1983) as well as a newer version emerging from the tradition of formal modeling (Hart 1989). The paper I propose will revisit from the perspective of the theory of modular systems the various literatures of property rights in the economics of organization. It will ask the question: how far can the principles of modularity take us in understanding the boundaries of the firm? How far have existing theories of property rights already taken us?

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:
File Function: Full text
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by University of Connecticut, Department of Economics in its series Working papers with number 1999-05.

as in new window
Length: 40 pages
Date of creation: Aug 1999
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:uct:uconnp:1999-05

Contact details of provider:
Postal: University of Connecticut 341 Mansfield Road, Unit 1063 Storrs, CT 06269-1063
Phone: (860) 486-4889
Fax: (860) 486-4463
Web page:
More information through EDIRC

Related research



No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.


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

Cited by:
  1. Campbell-Kelly, Martin & Garcia-Swartz, Daniel D., 2009. "Pragmatism, not ideology: Historical perspectives on IBM's adoption of open-source software," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 229-244, August.
  2. Klaus Heine & Wolfgang Kerber, 2002. "European Corporate Laws, Regulatory Competition and Path Dependence," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 47-71, January.


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


Access and download statistics


When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uct:uconnp:1999-05. 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: (Kasey Kniffin).

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.