IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Modularity in Technology, Organization, and Society


  • 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?

Suggested Citation

  • Richard N. Langlois, 1999. "Modularity in Technology, Organization, and Society," Working papers 1999-05, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:uct:uconnp:1999-05

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no


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

    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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: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: (Mark McConnel). General contact details of provider: .

    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.