IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pum/wpaper/2008-02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Path Dependency and Path Plasticity: the Co-evolution of Institutions and Innovation - the German Customized Business Software Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Simone Strambach

    () (Department of Geography, Philipps University Marburg)

Abstract

Path dependence and the co-evolution of technology and institutions is a key concept to understand the dynamics of structural change at the level of firms, sectors and multi-level spatial scales. The concept of path dependency is often used in economic geography to explain the economic specialisation and long-standing success as well as crises and economically unfavourable development of regions. The understanding of the institutional dynamics within a well-established technological and institutional development path of territorial settings is a central but to a large extent also an open issue. The paper focuses on the role of institutions and modes of institutional change in path dependent processes of innovation, knowledge accumulation and competence building in innovation systems. Processes of institutional change are mainly seen either as incremental, leading to continuity of the present technological path or as abrupt and disruptive, leading to the breakdown and replacement of institutional settings. By using the notion of 'path plasticity' the paper argues that paths are not coherent in themselves. There is 'path plasticity', which describes a broad range of possibilities for the creation of innovation within a dominant path of innovation systems. Plasticity results among others from the elastic stretch of institutions and institutional arrangements and their interpretative flexibility through actors. Associated with this approach, the paper takes a closer look at path plasticity, its relation to institutional change and the role of geography. Empirical evidence is provided by exploring the evolution of the German software industry. Although comparative disadvantages are caused by the established institutional setting of the national innovation system, a sub sector of this industry - customized business software - was able to become internationally competitive. The customized business software industry can be seen as an example of innovation and successful change in what is described as non- favourable institutional settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Simone Strambach, 2008. "Path Dependency and Path Plasticity: the Co-evolution of Institutions and Innovation - the German Customized Business Software Industry," Working Papers on Innovation and Space 2008-02, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
  • Handle: RePEc:pum:wpaper:2008-02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: ftp://137.248.191.199/RePEc/pum/wpaper/WP2.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steven Casper & Mark Lehrer & David Soskice, 1999. "Can High-technology Industries Prosper in Germany? Institutional Frameworks and the Evolution of the German Software and Biotechnology Industries," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 5-24.
    2. Richard Whitley, 2002. "Developing innovative competences: the role of institutional frameworks," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 497-528, June.
    3. Steven Casper & J. Rogers Hollingsworth & Richard Whitley, 2005. "Varieties of capitalism: comparative institutional approaches to economic organization and innovation," Chapters,in: Innovation and Institutions, chapter 7 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Mark Lehrer, 2000. "From Factor of Production to Autonomous Industry: The Transformation of Germany's Software Sector," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 69(4), pages 587-600.
    5. Meric S. Gertler, 2003. "Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or The undefinable tacitness of being (there)," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 75-99, January.
    6. Richard R. Nelson, 2002. "special issue: Bringing institutions into evolutionary growth theory," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 17-28.
    7. Nooteboom, Bart, 1999. "Innovation, Learning and Industrial Organisation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 127-150, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Simone Strambach, 2010. "Knowledge-Intensive Business Services (KIBS)," Chapters,in: Platforms of Innovation, chapter 7 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Ron Boschma & Ron Martin, 2007. "Editorial: Constructing an evolutionary economic geography," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(5), pages 537-548, September.
    11. Franco Malerba, 2006. "Innovation and the evolution of industries," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 3-23, April.
    12. 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.
    13. Pavitt, Keith, 1998. "The social shaping of the national science base," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 793-805, December.
    14. Carlsson, Bo, 2006. "Internationalization of innovation systems: A survey of the literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 56-67, February.
    15. Alchian, Armen A & Woodward, Susan L, 1988. "The Firm is Dead; Long Live the Firm: A Review of Oliver E. Williamson's The Economic Institutions of Capitalism," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 26(1), pages 65-79, March.
    16. Frank Stille, 2003. "Produktbegleitende Dienstleistungen gewinnen weiter an Bedeutung," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 70(21), pages 335-342.
    17. Peter Maskell & Anders Malmberg, 2007. "Myopia, knowledge development and cluster evolution," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(5), pages 603-618, September.
    18. 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.
    19. Ron Boschma, 2005. "Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 61-74.
    20. Ron A. Boschma & Koen Frenken, 2006. "Why is economic geography not an evolutionary science? Towards an evolutionary economic geography," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(3), pages 273-302, June.
    21. Pelikan, Pavel, 2003. "Bringing Institutions Into Evolutionary Economics: Another View with Links to Changes in Physical and Social Technologies," Ratio Working Papers 24, The Ratio Institute.
    22. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 2000. "Knowledge, Innovation Activities and Industrial Evolution," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 289-313, June.
    23. Lundvall, Bengt-Ake & Johnson, Bjorn & Andersen, Esben Sloth & Dalum, Bent, 2002. "National systems of production, innovation and competence building," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 213-231, February.
    24. Pavel Pelikan, 2003. "Bringing institutions into evolutionary economics: another view with links to changes in physical and social technologies," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 237-258, August.
    25. Jürgen Essletzbichler & David L. Rigby, 2007. "Exploring evolutionary economic geographies," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(5), pages 549-571, September.
    26. Jürgen Essletzbichler & David L. Rigby, 2007. "Exploring Evolutionary Economic Geographies," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 0702, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Apr 2007.
    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:pum:wpaper:2008-02. 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: (Christoph Mengs) The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Christoph Mengs to update the entry or send us the correct email address. General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/vamarde.html .

    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 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.

    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.