Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introducing an Epigenetic Approach for the Study of Internet Industry Groups

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Dynamics of Big Internet Industry Groups and Future Trends

  • 1228 Accesses

Abstract

The aim of this first chapter is to study how organizations adapt to extremely fast qualitatively significant changes in the environment. As opposed to the prevalent Darwinian approach in which the logic of the phenotype is seen as a slow and moderate adaptation of social organizations to changes, our view focuses on rapid adaptation to quickly changing environments. The analytical framework we put forth in this chapter, through the concept of Epigenetic Economic Dynamics (EED), comes from different fields of knowledge. This concept finds its roots in: (i) new discoveries in molecular biology; (ii) the complexity theory, which is a theoretical framework stemming from very diverse sciences; (iii) current approaches in terms of organizational routines in management; (iv) economic theory on competition and profits; and (v) innovation studies from a Schumpeterian approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Despite part of the current approaches to business routines being based on the complexity theory, we will not develop this point as it goes beyond the objectives set for this book.

  2. 2.

    The biological analogy, following classical Darwinism, has been widespread for several decades. In fact, in the early 1990s some North American economists started a research stream around bioeconomics, from which journals such as the ‘Journal of Bioeconomics’ or the ‘Journal of Evolutionary Economics’ emerged. The biological analogy is, for example, dominant in some areas such as economic geography, within the evolutionary realm. Therefore, when introducing epigenetics, we do not require any legitimacy, as we are acting on an area where Darwinian biology has been widespread for decades.

  3. 3.

    If, for example, we compared the changes that will occur in Internet industry group environments with the recent past, perhaps we should not talk about very fast changes because the current speed of change has become ‘quite normal’.

  4. 4.

    From another perspective, the second law of thermodynamics has one main purpose: Impose a strict world symmetry on the directions of the time axes towards the past and the future (Davies 2002). That is to say, there is asymmetry in both directions, past and future. And the essence of this asymmetry lies in the changes that have taken place. As Davies states (2002: 10) we do not really observe the passage of time, but we are actually observing how the later states of the world differ from earlier states that we still remember. A watch does not really measure the speed with which one event follows another. Therefore, it appears that the flow of time is subjective, not objective (ibid: 11).

  5. 5.

    Folke et al. (2010) develop a concept of resilience, which we believe has a greater scope than the one used by other authors. In their approach, resilience is formulated as the capacity that a complex ‘social ecological system’ has to continuously adapt, which is a more reasonable and less ‘mechanistic vision than others used for the concept, as they are mainly limited to the field of economic geography.

  6. 6.

    See https://www.encodeproject.org/ (last access October 2015).

  7. 7.

    The capacity to transmit epigenetic marking between generations translates as chemical changes in the chromatin structure, which may be greatly determined by environmental factors.

  8. 8.

    See http://www.epigenesys.eu (last access October 2015).

  9. 9.

    In this sense, human cells resort to splicing, producing several proteins with very different functions from the same gene (ENCODE Project).

  10. 10.

    “Given that the entities and processes involved are very different; these common principles will be highly abstract particular domain. For example…, we can generalize principles that apply to all the phenomena, despite major differences in their features. In biology and in the social sciences, the phenomena are so complex that scientists supplement general principles by many more auxiliary and particularistic explanations, thus differentiating these sciences from physics” (Aldrich et al. 2008: 580).

  11. 11.

    The main controversy between Hodgson and Knudsen (2012), Pelikan (2010, 2012) and Levit et al. (2011) centers on the role that replicators play in evolution.

  12. 12.

    The resource-based view of the firm “is enhanced by blending its usual path dependent strategic logic of leverage with a path-breaking strategic logic of change. [It] encounters a boundary condition in high velocity markets where the duration of competitiveness and advantage is inherently unpredictable, and dynamic capabilities are themselves unstable. Here the strategic imperative is not leverage but change” (Eisenhardt and Martin 2000: 1105).

  13. 13.

    We have seen that the epigenome is subject to the influence of the environment. Epigenetic inheritance is related to phenotype plasticity, which supports a Lamarckian interpretation (Jablonka and Lamb 2005).

  14. 14.

    The concepts of ostensive and performative routines are defined in Table 3.

  15. 15.

    These perspectives have often been approached from the literature on open innovation (Chesbrough 2003; Huizingh 2011; Mortara and Minshall 2011; Van de Brande et al. 2009).

  16. 16.

    Disruptive innovations place rapid limitations on what organizations are doing and how they usually carry out their activities (Gómez-Uranga et al. 2013).

  17. 17.

    We consider that alternative approaches such as that introduced by Geels (2002) on technological and sustainability transitions could also be compatible with the EED, in particular when addressing the analysis of the changes in the environment.

  18. 18.

    For an illustration of the main features characterizing items A (environment) and B (epigenetic dynamics) see Gómez-Uranga et al. (2013).

References

  • Abatecola, G., Belussi, F., Breslin, D., & Filatotchev, I. (2015). Darwinism, organizational evolution and survival: Key challenges for future research. Journal of Management & Governance, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. E., Hodgson, G. M., Hull, D. L., Knudsen, T., Mokyr, J., & Vanberg, V. J. (2008). In defence of generalized Darwinism. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 18, 577–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansoff, H. I., & Sullivan, P. A. (1993). Optimizing profitability in turbulent environments: A formula for strategic success. Long Range Planning, 26(5), 11–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L. (1999). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W. B. (1999). Complexity and the economy. Science, 284, 107–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayala, F. J. (2013). Aquí se producen científicos y el resto del mundo se beneficia de ellos. Revista Kampusa, 73, 10–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basole, R. C. (2009). Structural analysis and visualization of ecosystems: A study of mobile device platforms. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco, California, August 6–9, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessen, J., & Meurer, M. J. (2008). Patent failure: How judges, bureaucrats, and lawyers put innovators at risk. Woodstock: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessen, J., & Meurer, M. J. (2012). The direct costs from NPE disputes. Working paper 12–34. Boston University School of Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bingham, C. B., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2011). Rational heuristics: The ‘simple rules’ that strategists learn from process experience. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 1437–1464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bingham, C. B., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2014). Heuristics in strategy and organizations: Response to Vuori and Vuori. Strategic Management Journal, 35(11), 1698–1702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R. (2015). Towards an evolutionary perspective on regional resilience. Regional Studies, 49(5), 733–751.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R. A., & Frenken, K. (2006) Why is economic geography not an evolutionary science? Towards an evolutionary economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 6 (3), 273–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R. A., & Frenken, K. (2009). The spatial evolution of innovation networks. A proximity perspective. In R. Boschma, & R. Martin (Eds.), The handbook of evolutionary economic geography (pp. 120–135). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R. A., & Martin, R. (2007). Constructing an evolutionary economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 7, 537–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R., & Martin, R. (2010). The aims and scope of evolutionary economic geography. In R. Boschma & R. Martin (Eds.), The handbook of evolutionary economic geography (pp. 3–39). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Breslin, D. (2011). Reviewing a generalized Darwinist approach to studying socio-economic change. International Journal of Management Review, 13, 218–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. (1965). Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution. In H. R. Barringer, G. I. Blankstein, & R. W. Mack (Eds.), Social change in developing areas: A reinterpretation of evolutionary theory (pp. 19–49). Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canetti, E. (2003). Epigenética: una explicación de las enfermedades hereditarias. Perinatología y Reproducción humana, 17, 57–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, N. (2012). The epigenetics revolution. How modern biology is rewriting our understanding of genetics, disease and inheritance. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, S. B. (2005). Endless forms most beautiful: The new science of evo devo and the making of the animal kingdom. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavagnari, B. M. (2012). Regulación de la expresión génica: cómo operan los mecanismos epigenéticos. Archivos argentinos de pediatría, 110(2), 132–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation. The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleland, S., & Brodsky, I. (2011). Search and destroy: Why you can’t trust Google Inc. St. Louise, Missouri: Telescope books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P., Gomez Uranga, M., Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organizational dimensions. Research Policy, 26, 475–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordes, C. (2006). Darwinism in economics: From analogy to continuity. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 16(5), 529–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corkery, T., Forder, J., Svantesson, D., & Mercuri, E. (2015). Taxes, the internet and the digital economy. Revenue Law Journal, 23(1), Article 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corning, P. A. (2002). The re-emergence of “emergence”: A venerable concept in search of a theory. Complexity, 7(6), 18–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, S. (2011). Mobile patent suits: Graphic of the day. http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/index.php/mobile-patent-suits-graphic-of-the-day. Accessed 3 October 2015.

  • Darwin, C. R. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life. London: Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. R. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: Murray.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75(2), 332–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, P. A. (1994). Why are institutions the ‘carriers of history? Path dependence and the evolution of conventions, organizations and institutions. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 5(2), 205–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P. (2002). La flecha del tiempo. Investigación y Ciencia, November 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bingham, C. B. (2009). Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 413–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype: The long reach of the gene. Oxford: W.H. Freeman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1983). Universal Darwinism. In D. S. Bendall (Ed.), Evolution from molecules to man (pp. 403–425). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deighton, J. A., & Kornfeld, L. (2013). Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google. Harvard Business School Case, 513-060.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Justice. (2012). Statement of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division on its decision to close its investigations of Google Inc.’s Acquisition of Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. and the Acquisitions of certain patents by Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Research in Motion Ltd. 13th February 2012. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/February/12-at-210.html. Accessed 3 October 2015.

  • Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11(3), 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Encaoua, D., & Madiès, T. (2012). Dysfunctions of the patent system and their effects on competition. http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/74/07/16/PDF/ENCAOUA-MADIES_DYSFUNCTIONS_.pdf. Accessed 3 October 2015.

  • Essletzbichler, J., & Rigby, D. L. (2010). Generalized Darwinism and evolutionary economic geography. In R. Boschma & R. Martin (Eds.), The handbook of evolutionary economic geography (pp. 43–61). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etkin, J., & Schvarstein, L. (1995). Identidad de las Organizaciones. Invariancia y Cambio. Buenos Aires: Paidós.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, T., & Henkel, J. (2012). Patent trolls on markets for technology: An empirical analysis of NPEs’ patent acquisitions. Research Policy, 41, 1519–1533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4), article 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, R. C. (2011). Epigenetics. How the environment shapes our genes. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fransman, M. (2014). Models of innovation in global ICT firms: The emerging global innovation ecosystems. Luxembourg: European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C. (2002). Continental, national and sub-national innovation systems—complementarity and economic growth. Research Policy, 31(2), 191–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenken, K., & Boschma, R. A. (2007). A theoretical framework for evolutionary economic geography: Industrial dynamics and urban growth as a branching process. Journal of Economic Geography, 7(5), 635–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García Azkonobieta, T. (2005). Evolución, desarrollo y (auto)organización: Un estudio sobre los principios filosóficos de la evo-devo. PhD thesis. San Sebastian: University of the Basque Country.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31, 1257–1274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. (2014). Reconceptualising the co-evolution of firms-in-industries and their environments: Developing an inter-disciplinary triple embeddedness framework. Research Policy, 43(2), 261–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S. F. (2001). Ecological developmental biology: Developmental biology meets the real world. Developmental Biology, 233, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S. F., & Epel, D. (2009). Ecological developmental biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillham, N. W. (2001). Evolution by jumps: Francis Galton and William Bateson and the mechanism of evolutionary change. Genetics, 159, 1383–1392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Penguin books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Uranga, M., Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M., & Miguel, J.C. (2013). Evolutionary epigenetic economics: How to better understand the trends of big internet groups. SSRN. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2200421. Accessed 3 October 2015.

  • Gómez-Uranga, M., Miguel, J. C., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2014). Epigenetic economic dynamics: The evolution of big Internet business ecosystems, evidence for patents. Technovation, 34(3), 177–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb, G. (2001). A developmental psychobiological systems view: Early formulation and current status. In S. Oyama, P. E. Griffiths, & R. D. Gray (Eds.), Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, P. E. (1996). Darwinism, process structuralism and natural kinds. Philosophy of Science, 63, S1–S9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, P. E., & Gray, R. D. (2005). Discussion: Three ways to misunderstand developmental systems theory. Biology and Philosophy, 20, 417–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckemeyer, J. H., Richter, K., Spengel, C. (2014). Tax planning of R&D intensive multinationals. ZEW Discussion Papers, 14-114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernández-Martínez, A. G. (2006). La decisión y su relación con el tiempo: estrategia, procesos e identidad. Revista Facultad de Ciencias Económicas: Investigación y Reflexión, 14(1), 23–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herstatt, C., & Kalogerakis, K. (2005). How to use analogies for breakthrough innovations. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 2(3), 331–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G. M. (1993). Economics and evolution: Bringing life back into economics. Cambridge: Cambridge Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G. M. (2009). Agency, institutions and Darwinism in evolutionary economic geography. Economic Geography, 85(2), 167–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G. M. (2010). Darwinian coevolution of organizations and the environment. Ecological Economics, 69(4), 700–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G. M. (2012). The mirage of microfoundations. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 1389–1395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G. M., & Knudsen, T. (2004). The firm as an interactor: Firms as vehicles for habits and routines. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(3), 281–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G. M., & Knudsen, T. (2006a). Why we need a generalized Darwinism, and why a generalized Darwinism is not enough. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 61, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G. M., & Knudsen, T. (2006b). Dismantling Lamarckism: Why descriptions of socio-economic evolution as Lamarckian are misleading. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 16, 343–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G. M., & Knudsen, T. (2012). Agreeing on generalised Darwinism: A response to Pavel Pelikan. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 22(1), 9–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. H. (1998). Emergence: From chaos to order. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huizingh, E. K. R. E. (2011). Open innovation: Sate of the art and future perspectives. Technovation, 31, 2–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iansiti, M., & Richards, G. L. (2006). The information technology ecosystem: Structure, health, and performance. The Antitrust Bulletin, 51(1), 77–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (2005). Evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, epigenetic, and symbolic variation in the history of life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jing, Z., & Xiong-Jian, L. (2011). Business ecosystem strategies of mobile network operators in the 3G era: The case of China Mobile. Telecommunications Policy, 35, 156–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S. (1993). Origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, J. B., Case, R. L., Lytjen, D., Otting, L., & Cummings, D. L. (1995). Ecological approaches to riparian restoration in northeastern Oregon. Restoration and Management Notes, 13, 12–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khalil, E. L. (2012). Are instincts hardened routines? A radical proposal. Monash University. Department of Economics, Discussion Paper 25/12. Retrieved October 3, 2015 from http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/eco/research/papers/2012/2515areinstinctskhalil.pdf.

  • Kitano, H. (2004). Biological robustness. Nature Reviews Genetics, 5, 826–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knable Gotts, I., & Sher, S. (2012). The particular antitrust concerns with patent acquisitions. Competition Law International, August, 30–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lara, B. (1991). La decisión, un problema contemporáneo. Madrid: Editorial Espasa Calpe S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A. (1997). Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Science, 43(7), 934–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A., & Marino, A. (2013). Three facets of organisational adaptation: Selection, variety, and plasticity. The Wharton School: University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levit, G. S., Hossfeld, U., & Witt, U. (2011). Can Darwinism be ‘generalized’ and of what use would this be? Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 21, 545–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, B., & March, J. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14(1), 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R. C. (1982). Organism and environment. In H. Plotkin (Ed.), Learning, development, culture (pp. 151–170). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R. C. (1983). Gene, organism and environment. In D. S. Bendall (Ed.), Evolution: From molecules to men (pp. 273–285). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J. (2014). Protecting the tax base in the digital economy. Papers on selected topics in protecting the tax base of developing countries. Paper No. 9, June 2014. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B. -Å. (1992). National innovation systems: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. (2012a). Regional economic resilience, hysteresis and recessionary shocks. Journal of Economic Geography, 12, 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. (2012b). (Re)Placing path dependence: A response to the debate. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 26(1), 179–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2007). Complexity thinking and evolutionary economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 7, 573–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2014). Towards a developmental turn in evolutionary economic geography? Regional Studies, 49(5), 712–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massini, S., Lewin, A. Y., & Greve, H. R. (2005). Innovators and imitators: Organizational reference groups and adoption of organizational routines. Research Policy, 34(10), 1550–1569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masuelli, R. W., & Marfil, C. F. (2011). Variabilidad epigenética en plantas y evolución. Journal of Basic and Applied Genetics, 22(1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. (1988). Toward a new philosophy of biology: Observations of an evolutionist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. (1991). One long argument: Charles Darwin and the genesis of modern evolutionary thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miao, C.-H. (2011). Planned obsolescence and monopoly undersupply. Information, Economics and Policy, 23(1), 51–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2003). Ten principles of complexity & enabling infrastructures. In E. Mitleton-Kelly (Ed.), Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives of organisations: The application of complexity theory to organizations (pp. 23–50). Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortara, L., & Minshall, T. (2011). How do large multinational companies implement open innovation? Technovation, 31(10–11), 586–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (1995). Recent evolutionary theorizing about economic change. Journal of Economic Literature, 33(1), 48–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (2005). Evolutionary social science and universal darwinism. CCS Working Paper 5. Center on Capitalism and Society, The Earth Institute at Columbia University Working Papers Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (2007). Universal Darwinism and evolutionary social science. Biology and Philosophy, 22(1), 73–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oyama, S., Griffiths, P. E., & Gray, R. D. (2001). Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelikan, P. (2010). Evolutionary developmental economics: How to generalize Darwinism fruitfully to help comprehend economic change. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 21, 341–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelikan, P. (2012). Agreeing on generalized Darwinism: A response to Geoffrey Hodgson and Thorbjörn Knudsen. Journal of evolutionary economics, 22, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pendall, R., Foster, K. A., Cowell, M. (2010). Resilience and regions: Building understanding of the metaphor. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3, 71–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Issues in empirical field studies of organizational routines. In M. C. Becker (Ed.), Handbook of organizational routines (pp. 281–300). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pentland, B. T., Feldman, M. S., Becker, M. C., & Liu, P. (2012). Dynamics of organizational routines: A generative model. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1484–1508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrosky, T. Y., & Prigogine, I. (1990). Laws and events: The dynamical basis of self-organization. Canadian Journal of Physics, 68(9), 670–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pike, A. (2002). Task forces and the organisation of economic development: The case of the North East region of England. Environment and Planning C, 20, 717–739.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pike, A., Dawley, S., & Tomaney, J. (2010). Resilience, adaptation and adaptability. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3, 59–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, J. (1999). Some notions of complex adaptive systems and their relationship to our world. Presented at InterSymp-99, Advances in Collaborative Decision-Support Systems for Design, Planning and Execution (pp. 9–24). Baden-Baden, Germany, August 2–7, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert, J. S., Hall, B. K., & Olson, W. M. (2001). Bridging the gap between developmental systems theory and evolutionary developmental biology. BioEssays, 23, 954–962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, C. (2012). Is novelty always a good thing? Towards an evolutionary welfare economics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 22(3), 585–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoelhorst, J.W. (2008). The explanatory logic and ontological commitments of generalized darwinism. Journal of Economic Methodology, 15(4), 343–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suárez, D. (2014). Persistence of innovation in unstable environments: Continuity and change in the firms’ innovative behavior. Research Policy, 43(4), 726–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suárez Sánchez-Ocaña, A. (2012). Desnudando a Google: La inquietante realidad que no quieren que conozcas. Barcelona: Editorial Deusto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1319–1350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2010). Technological Innovation and the theory of the firm: The role of enterprise-level knowledge, complementarities and (dynamic) capabilities. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook on the economics of innovation (pp. 679–730). North-Holland: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2012). Dynamic capabilities: Routines versus entrepreneurial action. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1395–1401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. L. (2011). Patent thickets, trolls and unproductive entrepreneurship. Athens, GA: Department of Economics, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Brande, V., De Jong, J. P. G., Vanhaverbeke, W., & De Rochemont, M. (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation, 29, 423–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gundy, A. B. (1981). Techniques of structured problem solving. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Zeebroeck, N., Pottelsberghe, Van, de la Potterie, B., & Guellec, D. (2009). Claiming more: The increased voluminosity of patent applications and its determinants. Research Policy, 38(6), 1006–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A. (1989). Similarity and analogical reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Waddington, C. H. (1947). Organisers and genes. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddington, C. H. (1953). Genetic assimilation of an acquired character. Evolution, 7, 118–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman, J. (2011). Epigenetics: Beyond face value. Nature, 477, 534–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West-Eberhard, M. J. (2003). Developmental plasticity and evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirtz, B. W., Mathieu, A., & Schilke, O. (2007). Strategy in high-velocity environments. Long Range Planning, 40(3), 295–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, U. (2008). What is specific about evolutionary economics? Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 18, 547–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, U. (2014). The future of evolutionary economics: Why the modalities of explanation matter. Journal of Institutional Economics, 10(4), 645–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, U., & Cordes, C. (2007). Selection, learning and Schumpeterian dynamics: A conceptual debate. In H. Hanusch & A. Pyka (Eds.), The Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics (pp. 316–328). Cheltenham: Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Applied Economics I, University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU, Bilbao, Spain

    Miguel Gómez-Uranga

  2. Deusto Business School, University of Deusto, Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain

    Jon Mikel Zabala-Iturriagagoitia

  3. Department of Management and Business Economics, University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU, Bilbao, Spain

    Jon Barrutia

Authors
  1. Miguel Gómez-Uranga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jon Mikel Zabala-Iturriagagoitia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jon Barrutia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jon Mikel Zabala-Iturriagagoitia .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Applied Economics, Univ. of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU, Bilbao, Spain

    Miguel Gómez-Uranga

  2. Deusto Business School, University of Deusto, Vizcaya, Spain

    Jon Mikel Zabala-Iturriagagoitia

  3. Dept Management and Business Economics, Univ. of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU, Bizkaia, Spain

    Jon Barrutia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gómez-Uranga, M., Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J.M., Barrutia, J. (2016). Introducing an Epigenetic Approach for the Study of Internet Industry Groups. In: Gómez-Uranga, M., Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J., Barrutia, J. (eds) Dynamics of Big Internet Industry Groups and Future Trends. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31147-0_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation