IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/unm/umamer/2001013.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Technological Bias in the Establishment of a Technological Regime: the adoption and enforcement of early information processing technologies in US manufacturing, 1870-1930

Author

Listed:
  • Reinstaller, Andreas
  • Holzl, Werner

    (MERIT)

Abstract

This paper presents a qualitative study on the adoption of early information technologies, such as typewriters, calculators or Hollerith machines in US manufacturing in the period between 1870 and 1930, which was by all means a true systemic innovation. Our empirical work is guided by a theoretical framework in which the theory of induced innovation is interpreted along "classical" lines in which an explicit link to the concept of technological regimes is established. We show how the presence of a distinct bias in technical change in US manufacturing led to the opening of a window of opportunity for early information technologies. We work out how the presence of this bias influenced the technological search and adoption process of firms and how this found its final reflection in the rules and heuristics of the regime, as well as the technological trajectories of the technologies. The reliance on established practices led organisation designers to cast the logic of large scale manufacturing into the administrative organisation of firms. This required the convergence of technical practices. The resulting technological trajectories and path dependencies were the outcome of the diffusion and the hardening of the early office work regime. Our analysis of US manufacturing data of the period suggests that even though electrification and "bureaucratisation" overlapped they cannot considered being the result of the same pattern of technology adoption, identified by the development of the capital-labour ratio.

Suggested Citation

  • Reinstaller, Andreas & Holzl, Werner, 2001. "The Technological Bias in the Establishment of a Technological Regime: the adoption and enforcement of early information processing technologies in US manufacturing, 1870-1930," Research Memorandum 013, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
  • Handle: RePEc:unm:umamer:2001013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://unu-merit.nl/publications/rmpdf/2001/rm2001-013.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul A. David & Gavin Wright, 1999. "Early Twentieth Century Productivity Growth Dynamics: An Inquiry into the Economic History of "Our Ignorance"," Oxford University Economic and Social History Series _033, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    2. Silverberg, Gerald & Lehnert, Doris, 1993. "Long waves and 'evolutionary chaos' in a simple Schumpeterian model of embodied technical change," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 9-37, June.
    3. Zoltan J. Acs & David B. Audretsch, 2008. "Innovation in Large and Small Firms: An Empirical Analysis," Chapters, in: Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy, chapter 1, pages 3-15, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Winter, Sidney G., 1984. "Schumpeterian competition in alternative technological regimes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 5(3-4), pages 287-320.
    5. John W. Kendrick, 1961. "Productivity Trends in the United States," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number kend61-1.
    6. S .G. Winter & Y. M. Kaniovski, 2000. "Modeling Industrial Dynamics with Innovative Entrants," Chapters, in: Innovation, Organization and Economic Dynamics, chapter 16, pages 459-500, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Hawkins, David F., 1963. "The Development of Modern Financial Reporting Practices among American Manufacturing Corporations," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(3), pages 135-168, October.
    8. Kurz,Heinz D. & Salvadori,Neri, 1997. "Theory of Production," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521588676.
    9. Paul David & Gavin Wright, 1999. "Early Twentieth Century Productivity Growth Dynamics: An Inquiry into the Economic History of Our Ignorance," Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers _033, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    10. Knie, Andreas, 1991. ""Generierung" und "Härtung" technischen Wissens: die Entstehung der mechanischen Schreibmaschine," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 58(2), pages 101-126.
    11. Seymour Melman, 1951. "The Rise Of Administrative Overhead In The Manufacturing Industries Of The United States 1899–1947," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 62-112.
    12. Litterer, Joseph A., 1963. "Systematic Management: Design for Organizational Recoupling in American Manufacturing Firms," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(4), pages 369-391, January.
    13. Solomou, Solomos, 1986. "Innovation Clusters and Kondratieff Long Waves in Economic Growth," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 10(2), pages 101-112, June.
    14. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1995. "Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 19(1), pages 47-65, February.
    15. Saviotti, P. P. & Metcalfe, J. S., 1984. "A theoretical approach to the construction of technological output indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 141-151, June.
    16. 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.
    17. Cooper, Christine & Taylor, Phil, 2000. "From Taylorism to Ms Taylor: the transformation of the accounting craft," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 555-578, August.
    18. Hopper, Trevor & Armstrong, Peter, 1991. "Cost accounting, controlling labour and the rise of conglomerates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 16(5-6), pages 405-438.
    19. Windrum, Paul & Birchenhall, Chris, 1998. "Is product life cycle theory a special case? Dominant designs and the emergence of market niches through coevolutionary-learning," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 109-134, March.
    20. Chandler, Alfred Jr. & Daems, Herman, 1979. "Administrative coordination, allocation and monitoring: A comparative analysis of the emergence of accounting and organization in the U.S.A. and Europe," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 4(1-2), pages 3-20, January.
    21. Knie, Andreas, 1991. "Generierung und Härtung technischen Wissens: Die Entstehung der mechanischen Schreibmaschine," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Organisation and Technology FS II 91-103, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    22. Roy Radner, 1975. "A Behavioral Model of Cost Reduction," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 6(1), pages 196-215, Spring.
    23. Abramovitz, Moses & David, Paul A, 1973. "Reinterpreting Economic Growth: Parables and Realities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 63(2), pages 428-439, May.
    24. Gort, Michael & Klepper, Steven, 1982. "Time Paths in the Diffusion of Product Innovations," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(367), pages 630-653, September.
    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. Andreas Reinstaller & Werner Hölzl, 2001. "The creative response in economic development: the case of information processing technologies in US manufacturing, 1870-1930," Working Papers geewp15, Vienna University of Economics and Business Research Group: Growth and Employment in Europe: Sustainability and Competitiveness.
    2. Werner Hölzl & Andreas Reinstaller, 2000. "The Adoption and Enforcement of a Technological Regime: The Case of the first IT Regime," Working Papers geewp12, Vienna University of Economics and Business Research Group: Growth and Employment in Europe: Sustainability and Competitiveness.
    3. Andreas Reinstaller & Werner Hölzl, 2004. "Complementarity constraints and induced innovation: some evidence from the first IT regime," Chapters, in: John Foster & Werner Hölzl (ed.), Applied Evolutionary Economics and Complex Systems, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    5. Hölzl, Werner & Reinstaller, Andreas, 2003. "The Babbage principle after evolutionary economics," Research Memorandum 016, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    6. Frenken, Koen & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "Scaling trajectories in civil aircraft (1913-1997)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 331-348, March.
    7. Elena Cefis & Franco Malerba & Orietta Marsili & Luigi Orsenigo, 2021. "Time to exit: “revolving door effect” or “Schumpeterian gale of creative destruction”?," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 1465-1494, November.
    8. Alessandro Nuvolari & Emanuele Russo, 2019. "Technical progress and structural change: a long-term view," LEM Papers Series 2019/17, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    9. Dosi Giovanni & Gambardella Alfonso & Grazzi Marco & Orsenigo Luigi, 2008. "Technological Revolutions and the Evolution of Industrial Structures: Assessing the Impact of New Technologies upon the Size and Boundaries of Firms," Capitalism and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-49, June.
    10. Raquel Ortega-Argilés & Marco Vivarelli & Peter Voigt, 2009. "R&D in SMEs: a paradox?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 3-11, June.
    11. Alfred Haid & Markus Thomas Münter, 1999. "Neuere Entwicklungen in der industrieökonomischen Forschung und die aktuelle Berichterstattung über die technologische Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 188, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    12. Tavassoli, Sam, 2015. "Innovation determinants over industry life cycle," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 18-32.
    13. 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.
    14. Harald Edquist & Magnus Henrekson, 2006. "Technological Breakthroughs and Productivity Growth," Research in Economic History, in: Research in Economic History, pages 1-53, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    15. Murmann, Johann Peter & Frenken, Koen, 2006. "Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 925-952, September.
    16. G. Silverberg, 2007. "Long Waves: Conceptual, Empirical and Modelling Issues," Chapters, in: Horst Hanusch & Andreas Pyka (ed.), Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics, chapter 50, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Robert J. Gordon, 2004. "Two Centuries of Economic Growth: Europe Chasing the American Frontier," NBER Working Papers 10662, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Fulvio Castellacci, 2007. "Technological regimes and sectoral differences in productivity growth ," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(6), pages 1105-1145, December.
    19. de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Marsili, Orietta, 2006. "The fruit flies of innovations: A taxonomy of innovative small firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 213-229, March.
    20. Crafts, Nicholas, 2002. "The Solow Productivity Paradox in Historical Perspective," CEPR Discussion Papers 3142, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    economics of technology ;

    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:unm:umamer:2001013. 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: Leonne Portz (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/meritnl.html .

    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.