Agency and structure: a social simulation of knowledge-intensive industries

Article

Abstract

Modern knowledge-intensive economies are complex social systems where intertwining factors are responsible for the shaping of emerging industries: the self-organising interaction patterns and strategies of the individual actors (an agency-oriented pattern) and the institutional frameworks of different innovation systems (a structure-oriented pattern). In this paper, we examine the relative primacy of the two patterns in the development of innovation networks, and find that both are important. In order to investigate the relative significance of strategic decision making by innovation network actors and the roles played by national institutional settings, we use an agent-based model of knowledge-intensive innovation networks, SKIN. We experiment with the simulation of different actor strategies and different access conditions to capital in order to study the resulting effects on innovation performance and size of the industry. Our analysis suggests that actors are able to compensate for structural limitations through strategic collaborations. The implications for public policy are outlined.

Keywords

Innovation networks Agent-based social simulation Innovation systems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amable B (2003) The diversity of modern capitalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argyris C, Schoen DA (1996) Organisational learning: a theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading Google Scholar
  3. Beije P (1998) Technological change in the modern economy: basic topics and new developments. Elgar, Cheltenham Google Scholar
  4. Bolton GE, Katoka E, Ockenfels A (2005) Cooperation among strangers with limited information about reputation. J Public Econ 89:1457–1468 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdieu P (2005) The social structures of the economy. Polity Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu P (1992) The logic of fields. In: Bourdieu P, Wacquant L (eds) An invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 94–114 Google Scholar
  7. Brusoni S, Prencipe A, Pavitt K (2001) Knowledge specialisation, organizational coupling and the boundaries of the firm: why firms know more than they make? Adm Sci Q 46:597–621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cantner U, Pyka A (1998) Absorbing technological spillovers. Simulations in an evolutionary framework. Ind Corp Change 7(2):369–397 Google Scholar
  9. Cohen WM, Levinthal D (1989) Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. Econ J 99:569–596 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Casper S, Kettler H (2001) National institutional frameworks and the hybridization of entrepreneurial business models: the German and UK biotechnology sectors. Ind Innov 8:5–30 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Casper S, van Waarden F (2006) Innovation and institutions. A multi-disciplinary review of the study of innovation systems. Elgar, Cheltenham Google Scholar
  12. Collins HM (1995) Science studies and machine intelligence. In: Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Petersen JC, Pinch T (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 286–301 Google Scholar
  13. Commission of the European Communities (2002) Benchmarking national R&D policies: first results. Commission Staff Working Paper, Brussels SEC 129 Google Scholar
  14. Cooke P, Morgan K (1998) The associational economy, firms, regions and innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford Google Scholar
  15. de Geus A (1997) The living company. Brealy, London Google Scholar
  16. Dewey J (1938) Experience and education. Collier, New York Google Scholar
  17. Duncan RB (1974) Modifications in decision structure in adapting to the environment: some implications for organizational learning. Decis Sci 5:705–725 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eliasson G (1995) General purpose technologies, industrial competence and economic growth. Working Paper, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm Google Scholar
  19. Feldman M, Francis J, Bercovitz J (2005) Creating a cluster while building a firm: entrepreneurs and the formation of industry clusters. Reg Sci 39:129–142 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garcia R, Dunn DT, Smith LA (forthcoming a) Boundary spanners and social networks surrounding research centers. NSF 04-556 Partners for Innovation Program. Working Paper Google Scholar
  21. Garcia R, Dunn DT, Smith LA (forthcoming b) Performance of knowledge interactions between public research centres and industrial firms: an application for Spanish public research centres based on project-level data. Working Paper Google Scholar
  22. Granovetter M (1985) Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am J Soc 91:481–510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hall P, Soskice D (eds) (2001) Varieties of capitalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford Google Scholar
  24. Hedberg B (1981) B. Hedberg, How organizations learn and unlearn. In: Nystrom PC, Starbuck WH (eds) Handbook of organizational design. Oxford University Press, Oxford Google Scholar
  25. Knight FH (1921) Risk, uncertainty and profit. Chicago Google Scholar
  26. Malerba F, Nelson R, Orsenigo L, Winter S (1999) History friendly models of industry evolution: the computer industry. Ind Corp Change 8:3–40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Malerba F (2002) Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Res Policy 31:247–264 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Michael DM (1973) On learning to plan and planning to learn. Jossey-Bass, Hoboken Google Scholar
  29. Michelet R (1992) Forming successful strategic marketing alliances in Europe. J Eur Bus 4:11–15 Google Scholar
  30. Pavitt K (1987) The objectives of technology policy. Sci Public Policy 14:182–188. Reprinted in Pavitt (1999) Google Scholar
  31. Petit P, Amable B (2001) The diversity of social systems of innovation and production during the 1990s. Working Paper CEPREMAP # 2001 – 15 Google Scholar
  32. Powell WW, White DR, Koput KW, Owen-Smith J (2005) Network dynamics and field evolution: the growth of inter-organizational collaboration in the life sciences. Am J Soc 110:1132–1205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pyka A, Kueppers G (eds) (2003) Innovation networks—theory and practice. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Google Scholar
  34. Pyka A, Saviotti PP (2003) Innovation networks in the biotechnology-based industries. In: Pyka A, Kueppers G (eds) Innovation networks - theory and practice. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 75–107 Google Scholar
  35. Pyka A, Saviotti PP (2005) The Evolution of R&D networking in the biotech industries. Int J Entrepreneurship Innov Manag 5(1/2):49–68 Google Scholar
  36. Weber M (2003) Innovation networks and the transformation of large socio-technical systems: the case of combined heat and power technology. In: Pyka A, Kueppers G (eds) Innovation Networks - Theory and Practice. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 133–165 Google Scholar
  37. Windrum P (2003) The role of knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) in e-commerce. In: Pyka A, Kueppers G (eds) Innovation networks - theory and practice. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 108–132 Google Scholar
  38. Winter SG (1984) Schumpeterian competition in alternative technological regimes. J Econ Behav Organ 5:237–261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UCD Innovation Research Unit IRU, CASLUniversity College DublinDublinIreland
  2. 2.Centre for Research in Social SimulationUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK
  3. 3.Economics DepartmentUniversity of HohenheimStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations