IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v11y2002i3p451-496.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modular production networks: a new American model of industrial organization

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy J. Sturgeon

Abstract

This paper uses the case of contract manufacturing in the electronics industry to illustrate an emergent American model of industrial organization, the modular production network. Lead firms in the modular production network concentrate on the creation, penetration and defense of markets for end products--and increasingly the provision of services to go with them--while manufacturing capacity is shifted out-of-house to globally operating turn-key suppliers. The modular production network relies on codified inter-firm links and the generic manufacturing capacity residing in turn-key suppliers to reduce transaction costs, build large external economies of scale and reduce risk for network actors. I test the modular production network model against some of the key theoretical tools that have been developed to predict and explain industry structure: Joseph Schumpeter's notion of innovation in the giant firm; Alfred Chandler's ideas about economies of speed and the rise of the modern corporation; Oliver Williamson's transaction cost framework; and a range of other production network models that appear in the literature. I argue that the modular production network yields better economic performance in the context of globalization than more spatially and socially embedded network models. I view the emergence of the modular production network as part of a historical process of industrial transformation in which nationally specific models of industrial organization co-evolve in intensifying rounds of competition, diffusion and adaptation. Copyright 2002, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy J. Sturgeon, 2002. "Modular production networks: a new American model of industrial organization," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 451-496, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:11:y:2002:i:3:p:451-496
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Farrell, Joseph & Saloner, Garth, 1986. "Installed Base and Compatibility: Innovation, Product Preannouncements, and Predation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 940-955.
    2. 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, pages 971-983.
    3. Nicholas Economides, 2001. "The Microsoft Antitrust Case," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-39, March.
    4. Heli Koski & Tobias Kretschmer, 2004. "Entry, Standards and Competition: Firm Strategies and the Diffusion of Mobile Telephony," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 26(1), pages 89-113, November.
    5. 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;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 18(3), pages 263-268, May.
    6. Heli Koski, 1999. "The Installed Base Effect: Some Empirical Evidence From The Microcomputer Market," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, pages 273-310.
    7. Gandal, Neil & Greenstein, Shane & Salant, David, 1999. "Adoptions and Orphans in the Early Microcomputer Market," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 87-105, March.
    8. Varian,Hal R. & Farrell,Joseph & Shapiro,Carl, 2004. "The Economics of Information Technology," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521844154, November.
    9. Burgelman, Robert A., 2003. "Strategy Making and Evolutionary Organization Theory: Insights from Longitudinal Process Research," Research Papers 1844, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    10. Arthur, W. Brian, 1990. "'Silicon Valley' locational clusters: when do increasing returns imply monopoly?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 235-251, June.
    11. Heli Koski & Tobias Kretschmer, 2004. "Survey on Competing in Network Industries: Firm Strategies, Market Outcomes, and Policy Implications," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, pages 5-31.
    12. Metcalfe, J S, 1994. "Competition, Fisher's Principle and Increasing Returns in the Selection Process," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, pages 327-346.
    13. Kretschmer, Tobias, 2004. "Upgrading and niche usage of PC operating systems," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(8-9), pages 1155-1182, November.
    14. Dosi, Giovanni, 1982. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 147-162.
    15. 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, vol. 60(1), pages 50-73, January.
    16. repec:cup:apsrev:v:94:y:2000:i:02:p:251-267_22 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Bednar, Jenna & Page, Scott E. & Toole, Jameson L., 2012. "Revised-Path Dependence," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(02), pages 146-156, March.
    18. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    19. 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, vol. 86(2), pages 173-195, April.
    20. Gregory Werden, 2001. "Microsoft's Pricing of Windows and the Economics of Derived Demand Monopoly," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 18(3), pages 257-262, May.
    21. 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, pages 932-944.
    22. 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;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 18(3), pages 273-274, May.
    23. Burgelman, Robert A., 2002. "Strategy as Vector and the Inertia of Co-evolutionary Lock-in," Research Papers 1745, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    24. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 424-440.
    25. Junfu Zhang, 2004. "Growing Silicon Valley On A Landscape: An Agent-Based Approach To High-Tech Industrial Clusters," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Industry And Labor Dynamics The Agent-Based Computational Economics Approach, chapter 13, pages 259-283 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    26. Burgelman, Robert A. & Grove, Andrew S., 2007. "Let Chaos Reign, Then Rein In Chaos--Repeatedly: Managing Strategic Dynamics For Corporate Longevity," Research Papers 1954, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    27. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 102-103.
    28. Andreas Reinstaller & Werner Hölzl, 2009. "Big causes and small events: QWERTY and the mechanization of office work," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, pages 999-1031.
    29. David, Paul A, 1985. "Clio and the Economics of QWERTY," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 332-337.
    30. Ron Martin & Peter Sunley, 2006. "Path dependence and regional economic evolution," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(4), pages 395-437, August.
    31. Dolata, Ulrich, 2009. "Technological innovations and sectoral change: Transformative capacity, adaptability, patterns of change: An analytical framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 1066-1076.
    32. 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, vol. 12(3), pages 363-386, September.
    33. 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, vol. 5(2), pages 205-220, December.
    34. 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, pages 297-313.
    35. 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, pages 1049-1070.
    36. Ron Martin, 2010. "Roepke Lecture in Economic Geography-Rethinking Regional Path Dependence: Beyond Lock-in to Evolution," Economic Geography, Clark University, vol. 86(1), pages 1-27, January.
    37. Annabelle Gawer & Rebecca Henderson, 2007. "Platform Owner Entry and Innovation in Complementary Markets: Evidence from Intel," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(1), pages 1-34, March.
    38. Kenneth Arrow, 2000. "Increasing returns: historiographic issues and path dependence," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, pages 171-180.
    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, pages 45-62.
    40. 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, pages 736-759.
    41. Bennett, Andrew & Elman, Colin, 2006. "Complex Causal Relations and Case Study Methods: The Example of Path Dependence," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(03), pages 250-267, June.
    42. Andrea Bassanini & Giovanni Dosi, 1999. "When and How Chance and Human Will Can Twist the Arms of Clio," LEM Papers Series 1999/05, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    43. Windrum, Paul, 2004. "Leveraging technological externalities in complex technologies: Microsoft's exploitation of standards in the browser wars," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 385-394.
    44. Rodolphe Durand & Jean-Philippe Vergne, 2011. "The Path of Most Persistence: An Evolutionary Perspective on Path Dependence and Dynamic Capabilities," Post-Print hal-00583118, HAL.
    45. Schilling, Melissa, 1999. "Winning the standards race: : Building installed base and the availability of complementary goods," European Management Journal, Elsevier, pages 265-274.
    46. Miller, Danny, 1992. "The icarus paradox: How exceptional companies bring about their own downfall," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 24-35.
    47. Stanley M. Besen & Joseph Farrell, 1994. "Choosing How to Compete: Strategies and Tactics in Standardization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, pages 117-131.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:oup:indcch:v:11:y:2002:i:3:p:451-496. 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). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/icc .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.