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

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.

[1]  Bruno Amable,et al.  Institutional complementarity and diversity of social systems of innovation and production , 2000 .

[2]  Charles Edquist,et al.  Systems of innovation perspectives and challenges , 2004 .

[3]  Bengt-Åke Lundvall,et al.  Nation States and Economic Development:From National Systems of Production to National Systems of Knowledge Creation and Learning , 2000 .

[4]  R. Boschma.  Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment , 2005 .

[5]  R. Martin,et al.  Path dependence and regional economic evolution , 2006 .

[6]  Pavel Pelikan,et al.  Bringing institutions into evolutionary economics: another view with links to changes in physical and social technologies , 2003 .

[7]  A. Alchian,et al.  The Firm Is Dead; Long Live the Firm A Review of Oliver E. Williamson s The Economic Institutions of Capitalism* , 1988 .

[8]  A. Malmberg,et al.  Localized learning revisited , 2006 .

[9]  Simone Strambach,et al.  Pfadabhängigkeit und Pfadplastizität von Innovationssystemen - Die deutsche und japanische Softwareindustrie , 2008 .

[10]  P. Hall,et al.  Varieties of Capitalism , 2001 .

[11]  Raghu Garud,et al.  Path Creation as a Process of Mindful Deviation , 2013 .

[12]  Andreas Oberweis,et al.  Industrialisierung der Softwareentwicklung , 2007, Wirtsch..

[13]  Meric S. Gertler,et al.  Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or The undefinable tacitness of being (there) , 2003 .

[14]  M. Lehrer.  Two Types of Organizational Modularity: SAP, ERP Product Architecture and the German Tipping Point in the Make/Buy Decision for IT Services , 2006 .

[15]  Manfred Broy,et al.  Softwareentwicklung in Deutschland Eine Bestandsaufnahme , 2001, Informatik-Spektrum.

[16]  A. Malmberg,et al.  Myopia, knowledge development and cluster evolution , 2007 .

[17]  W. Streeck,et al.  Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies , 2005 .

[18]  Sten Jönsson.  Institutions and Organizations , 1997 .

[19]  Richard Whitley,et al.  The Institutional Structuring of Innovation Strategies: Business Systems, Firm Types and Patterns of Technical Change in Different Market Economies , 2000 .

[20]  Daniele Archibugi,et al.  The Technological Specialization of Advanced Countries: A Report to the EEC on International Science and Technology Activities , 1992 .

[21]  K. Green.  National innovation systems: a comparative analysis , 1996 .

[22]  Richard R. Nelson,et al.  The Co-evolution of Technology, Industrial Structure, and Supporting Institutions , 1994 .

[23]  Alan Brier,et al.  European Information Technology Observatory 2003 , 2003 .

[24]  D. Rigby,et al.  Exploring evolutionary economic geographies , 2007 .

[25]  Paolo Guerrieri.  Innovation Policy in a Global Economy: Patterns of national specialisation in the global competitive environment , 1999 .

[26]  D. North.  Competing Technologies , Increasing Returns , and Lock-In by Historical Events , 1994 .

[27]  R. Boschma,et al.  Why is economic geography not an evolutionary science? : towards an evolutionary economic geography , 2004 .

[28]  B. Lundvall,et al.  National systems of production, innovation and competence building , 2002 .

[29]  Sectoral Systems of Innovation: Sectoral dynamics and structural change: stylized facts and “system of innovation” approaches , 2004 .

[30]  B. Carlsson.  Internationalization of innovation systems: A survey of the literature ☆ , 2006 .

[31]  Manfred Nagl,et al.  Manifest*: Strategische Bedeutung des Software Engineering in Deutschland , 2006, Informatik-Spektrum.

[32]  A. Kellerman,et al.  The Constitution of Society : Outline of the Theory of Structuration , 2015 .

[33]  Ron Martin,et al.  Institutional Approaches in Economic Geography , 2008 .

[34]  W. Streeck.  German Capitalism: Does It Exist? Can It Survive? , 1997 .

[35]  Franco Malerba,et al.  Innovation and the evolution of industries , 2006 .

[36]  P. Cooke.  Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation: Exploring 'Globalisation 2'--A new model of industry organisation , 2005 .

[37]  David Soskice,et al.  Continuity and Change in Contemporary Capitalism: Divergent Production Regimes: Coordinated and Uncoordinated Market Economies in the 1980s and 1990s , 1999 .

[38]  M. Lehrer,et al.  Can High-technology Industries Prosper in Germany? Institutional Frameworks and the Evolution of the German Software and Biotechnology Industries , 1999 .

[39]  Mark Lehrer.  From Factor of Production to Autonomous Industry: The Transformation of Germany's Software Sector , 2000 .

[40]  Kirstin Kohler,et al.  Softwareentwicklung in Deutschland , 2022 .

[41]  J. Zysman.  How Institutions Create Historically Rooted Trajectories of Growth , 1994 .

[42]  G. Licht,et al.  Bericht zur technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands 2007 , 2007 .

[43]  D. North.  Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance: Economic performance , 1990 .

[44]  Richard R. Nelson,et al.  Bringing institutions into evolutionary growth theory , 2002 .

[45]  Franco Malerba,et al.  Knowledge, innovative activities and industrial evolution , 2000 .

[46]  M. Storper.  The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy , 1997 .

[47]  K. Pavitt.  SPRU Electronic Working Paper No 5 The Social Shaping of the National Science Base , 1998 .

[48]  G. Dosi.  Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A Suggested Interpretation of the Determinants and Directions of Technical Change , 1982 .

[49]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Innovation, Learning and Industrial Organisation , 1999 .

[50]  R. Whitley.  Developing innovative competences: the role of institutional frameworks , 2002 .

[51]  Ron Boschma,et al.  Editorial: Constructing an evolutionary economic geography , 2007 .

[52]  Frank Stille.  Produktbegleitende Dienstleistungen gewinnen weiter an Bedeutung , 2003 .