Triangulation or bipolarization: Which mode of cooperation towards stronger cohesion in Europe?
- 35 Downloads
This paper attempts to highlight some weaknesses of European integration by technology. It is argued that these weaknesses of integration arise out of misunderstanding of the relationships between economics and technology. Mainstream economics considers technology as being external to the sphere of economy. It is treated as an external stock of knowledge or information rather than the result of a process of interaction between the actors belonging to the sphere of economy. The theoretical status of technology influences the focus and process of economic development through technology. If technology is considered as being exogenous to the sphere of economics, the resulting stock of technology can be considered as transferable. If technology is considered as the result of an interaction of economic actors, so belonging to the economic sphere, its transfer becomes impossible because of its endogenous nature. In this last frame, technology concept transfer may become a danger for the development of less developed countries as well as for the cohesion of the European Community.
Two modes of cooperation between actors of different European countries have been identified: bipolarization, based on the relationship between two economic actors, can correspond to logics of creation or diffusion of knowledge or information. Triangulation is always based on the interrelation of at least three actors, from which at least two will have a relationship based on mutual creation of knowledge, know-how, production, etc.
Triangulation seems more oriented to creation of information or knowledge in European countries, while bipolarisation might present the risk of increased dependency, through strengthening the strongest partner of the cooperation.
KeywordsBipolarisation Triangulation Economic adjustment Technology creation Localized learning
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- A. Amin and K. Robbins. “The re-emergence of regional economies?”, The mythical geography of flexible accumulation, Society and Space, vol 8, 1990.Google Scholar
- M. Beaud. “Le Systeme National Mondial Hierarchise”, Agalma La Découverte, 1987.Google Scholar
- Les Systèmes Nationaux d'Innovation, à la recherche d'un concept utilisable”, Revue Française d'Economie No 1, vol VII, 1992.Google Scholar
- G. Colletis and B. Pecqueur. “Les facteurs de la concurrence spatiale et la construction des territoires”, IREPD, Grenoble, 1993.Google Scholar
- G. Colletis, K. Colletis-Wahl, B. Reverdy. “Triangulation ou bipolarisation, quel chemin vers une plus grande cohésion en Europe?”, Monitor Fast, Thème B, CCE, 1993.Google Scholar
- G. Dosi snd C. Freeman, “Technical Change and Economic Theory”, 1988.Google Scholar
- D. Foray. “Economie des organisations de R&D ”, REPOL No 101, 1991.Google Scholar
- J.L. Gaffard, “Innovations et changement structurel”, REPOL No 3, 1990.Google Scholar
- A.O. Hirschmann. “The Strategy of economic development”. New Haven, Yale U.P., 1958.Google Scholar
- Mc D. Lamberton. “Introductory remarks to information economics” In: Economics of information networks, C. Antonelli (ed), 1992.Google Scholar
- B.A. Lundvall. “Innovation as an interactive process: from user-producer interaction to the national system of innovation”, Technical Change and Economic Theory, 1988.Google Scholar
- J. Perrin. “Les transferts de technologie”, collection “Repères”, La Découverte Maspéro, Paris, 1983.Google Scholar
- F. Perroux. “L'économie du XXe siècle”, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1969.Google Scholar
- A. Rallet. “Choix de proximité et processus d'innovation technologique”, Université de Paris Dauphine.Google Scholar
- H.V Zon. “Alternative Scenarios for Central Europe”, Monitor-Fast, CCE, 1991.Google Scholar
- “Politique Scientifique et Technologique”, Bilan et Perspectives, Les éditions de l'OCDE, OCDE, 1991 “La mondialisation industrielle”, Les éditions de l'OCDE, OCDE, Paris, 1992.Google Scholar