Advertisement

Sektoraler Wandel durch Technik

  • Ulrich Dolata
Living reference work entry

Zusammenfassung

Der Aufsatz geht der Frage nach, wie sich Wirtschaftssektoren unter dem Eindruck grundlegend neuer technologischer Möglichkeiten, die dort ein enormes Entwicklungs- und Einsatzpotenzial haben, verändern und wie sich ein solcher sektoraler Wandel durch Technik analysieren lässt. Dazu werden zunächst ausgewählte Zugänge zum Thema und anschließend forschungspragmatische Überlegungen zur Untersuchung technikgeprägten sektoralen Wandels vorgestellt.

Schlüsselwörter

Wirtschaftssektoren Soziotechnischer Wandel Technologische Eingriffstiefe Adaptionsfähigkeit Graduelle Transformation 

Literatur

  1. Ahuja, Gautam, Curba M. Lampert, und Vivek Tandon. 2008. Moving beyond Schumpeter: Management research on the determinants of technological innovation. The Academy of Management Annals 2(1): 1–98.Google Scholar
  2. Athanasopolou, Alexia, Harry Bouwman, Fatemeh Nikayin, und Mark de Reuver. 2016. The disruptive impact of digitalization on the automotive ecosystem: A research agenda on business models, platforms and consumer issues. In 29th Bled eConference ‚Digital Economy‘. Bled: Manuscript.Google Scholar
  3. Breschi, Stefano, und Franco Malerba. 1997. Sectoral innovation systems: Technological regimes, schumpeterian dynamics, and spatial boundaries. In Systems of innovation. Technologies, institutions and organizations, Hrsg. Charles Edquist, 130–156. London/Washington: Pinter.Google Scholar
  4. Bresnahan, Timothy F., und Franco Malerba. 1999. Industrial dynamics and the evolution of firms’ and nations’ competitive capabilities in the world computer industry. In Sources of industrial leadership. Studies of seven industries, Hrsg. David C. Mowery und Richard R. Nelson, 79–132. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Burns, Tom, und G. M. Stalker. 1961 (rev. version 1994). The management of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chandy, Rajesh K., und Gerard J. Tellis. 2000. The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation. Journal of Marketing 64(3): 1–17.Google Scholar
  7. Christensen, Clayton M. 1997. The innovator’s dilemma. Harvard: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cloodt, Myriam, John Hagedoorn, und Nadine Roijakkers. 2010. Inter-firm R&D networks in the global software industry: An overview of major trends and patterns. Business History 52(1): 120–149.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, Wesley M., und Daniel A. Levinthal. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35:128–152.Google Scholar
  10. DiMaggio, Paul J., und Walter W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–160.Google Scholar
  11. Dolata, Ulrich. 2003. Unternehmen Technik. Akteure, Interaktionsmuster und strukturelle Kontexte der Technikentwicklung: Ein Theorierahmen. Berlin: Edition Sigma.Google Scholar
  12. Dolata, Ulrich. 2008. Technologische Innovationen und sektoraler Wandel. Eingriffstiefe, Adaptionsfähigkeit, Transformationsmuster: Ein analytischer Ansatz. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 37(1): 44–61.Google Scholar
  13. Dolata, Ulrich. 2009. Technological innovations and sectoral change. Transformative capacity, adaptability, patterns of change. An analytical framework. Research Policy 38(6): 1066–1076.Google Scholar
  14. Dolata, Ulrich. 2011. Wandel durch Technik. Eine Theorie soziotechnischer Transformation. Frankfurt/New York: Campus.Google Scholar
  15. Dolata, Ulrich. 2013. The transformative capacity of new technologies. A theory of sociotechnical change. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Dolata, Ulrich. 2018. Internet companies: Market concentration, competition and power. In Collectivity and power on the internet. A sociological perspective, Hrsg. Ulrich Dolata und Jan-Felix Schrape, 85–108. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Dolata, Ulrich, und Jan-Felix Schrape, Hrsg. 2013. Medien in transformation. Radikaler Wandel als schrittweise Rekonfiguration. In Internet, Mobile Devices und die Transformation der Medien. Radikaler Wandel als schrittweise Rekonfiguration, 9–36. Berlin: Edition Sigma.Google Scholar
  18. Dosi, Giovanni, Christopher Freeman, Richard Nelson, Gerald Silverberg, und Luc Soete, Hrsg. 1988. Technical change and economic theory. London/New York: Pinter.Google Scholar
  19. Flowers, Stephen. 2008. Harnessing the hackers: The emergence and exploitation of outlaw innovation. Research Policy 37:177–193.Google Scholar
  20. Freeman, Christopher, und Carlota Perez. 1988. Structural crises of adjustment, business cycles and investment behaviour. In Technical change and economic theory, Hrsg. Giovanni Dosi, Christopher Freeman, Richard Nelson, Gerald Silverberg und Luc Soete, 38–66. London/New York: Pinter.Google Scholar
  21. Geels, Frank W. 2007. Analyzing the breakthrough of rock’n’roll (1930–1970). Multi-regime interaction and reconfiguration in the multi-level perspective. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 74:1411–1431.Google Scholar
  22. Geels, Frank, und René Kemp. 2007. Dynamics in socio-technical systems: Typology of change processes and contrasting case studies. Technology in Society 29:441–455.Google Scholar
  23. Geels, Frank W., und Johan Schot. 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy 36:399–417.Google Scholar
  24. Giachetti, Claudio, und Gianluca Marchi. 2017. Successive changes in leadership in the worldwide mobile phone industry: The role of windows of opportunity and firms’ competitive action. Research Policy 46:352–364.Google Scholar
  25. Hannan, Michael T., und John Freeman. 1977. The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology 83:929–964.Google Scholar
  26. Hannan, Michael T., und John Freeman. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review 49:149–164.Google Scholar
  27. Henderson, Rebecca, und Kim B. Clark. 1990. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of existing firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 9–30.Google Scholar
  28. Henderson, Rebecca, Luigi Orsenigo, und Gary P. Pisano. 1999. The pharmaceutical industry and the revolution in molecular biology: Interactions among scientific, institutional, and organizational change. In Sources of industrial leadership. Studies of seven industries, Hrsg. David C. Mowery und Richard R. Nelson, 267–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hollingsworth, J. Rogers. 2000. Doing institutional analysis: Implications for the study of innovations. Review of International Political Economy 7:595–644.Google Scholar
  30. Kitschelt, Herbert. 1991. Industrial governance structures, innovation strategies, and the case of Japan: Sectoral or cross-national comparative analysis? International Organization 4:453–493.Google Scholar
  31. Küng, Lucy, Robert G. Picard, und Ruth Towse, Hrsg. 2008. The internet and the mass media. Los Angeles/London: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Leblebici, Huseyin, Gerald R. Salancik, Anne Copay, und Tom King. 1991. Institutional change and the transformation of interorganizational fields: An organizational history of the U.S. radio broadcasting industry. Administrative Science Quarterly 36(3): 333–363.Google Scholar
  33. Lee, Keun, und Franco Malerba. 2017. Catch-up cycles and changes in industrial leadership: Windows of opportunity and responses of firms and countries in the evolution of sectoral systems. Research Policy 46:338–351.Google Scholar
  34. Lüdtke, Nico. 2016. Die Praxis der Innovationsforschung – im Spannungsfeld von Wissenschaft, Ökonomie, Steuerung und Organisation. Soziologische Revue 39(1): 74–90.Google Scholar
  35. Mahoney, James, und Kathleen Thelen, Hrsg. 2010. A theory of gradual institutional change. In Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power, 1–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Malerba, Franco. 2002. Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy 31: 247–264.Google Scholar
  37. Malerba, Franco. 2004. Sectoral systems of innovation. Concepts, issues and analyses of six major sectors in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Malerba, Franco. 2005. Sectoral systems of innovation: A framework for linking innovation to the knowledge base, structure and dynamics of sectors. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 14(1–2): 63–82.Google Scholar
  39. Malerba, Franco. 2006. Innovation and the evolution of industries. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 16:3–23.Google Scholar
  40. Malerba, Franco, und Richard R. Nelson. 2012. Economic development as a learning process: Variation across sectoral systems. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  41. Mazzucato, Mariana. 2013. The entrepreneurial state. Debunking public vs. private sector myths. London/New York/Delhi: Anthem Press.Google Scholar
  42. Mellahi, Kamel, und Adrian Wilkinson. 2004. Organizational failure: A critique of recent research and a proposed integrative framework. International Journal of Management Reviews 5/6(1): 21–41.Google Scholar
  43. Mowery, David C. 1999. The computer software industry. In Sources of industrial leadership. Studies of seven industries, Hrsg. David C. Mowery und Richard R. Nelson, 133–168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Mowery, David C., und Richard R. Nelson. 1999. Sources of industrial leadership. Studies of seven industries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. O’Mahoney, Siobhán, und Beth A. Bechky. 2008. Boundary organizations: Enabling collaboration among unexpected allies. Administrative Science Quarterly 53(3): 422–459.Google Scholar
  46. Perez, Carlota, und Luc Soete. 1988. Catching up in technology: Entry barriers and windows of opportunity. In Technical change and economic theory, Hrsg. Giovanni Dosi, Christopher Freeman, Richard Nelson, Gerald Silverberg und Luc Soete, 458–479. London/New York: Pinter.Google Scholar
  47. Popitz, Heinrich. 1992. Der Aufbruch zur Artifiziellen Gesellschaft. Zur Anthropologie der Technik. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.Google Scholar
  48. Rammert, Werner. 2010. Die Innovationen der Gesellschaft. In Soziale Innovation. Auf dem Weg zu einem postindustriellen Innovationsparadigma, Hrsg. Jürgen Howaldt und Heike Jacobsen, 21–51. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  49. Rip, Arie, und René Kemp. 1998. Technological change. In Human choice and climate change. Volume two: Resources and technology, Hrsg. Steve Rayner und Elizabeth L. Malone, 328–399. Columbus: Batelle Press.Google Scholar
  50. Roijakkers, Nadine, und John Hagedoorn. 2006. Inter-firm partnering in pharmaceutical biotechnology since 1975: Trends, patterns, and networks. Research Policy 35:431–446.Google Scholar
  51. Rothaermel, Frank T. 2001. Incumbent’s advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic Management Journal 22(6/7): 687–699.Google Scholar
  52. Schreyögg, Georg, und Jörg Sydow. 2010. Organizing for fluidity? Dilemmas of new organizational forms. Organization Science 21(6): 1251–1262.Google Scholar
  53. Smith, Adrian, Andy Stirling, und Frans Berkhout. 2005. The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Research Policy 34:1491–1510.Google Scholar
  54. Streeck, Wolfgang, und Kathleen Thelen, Hrsg. 2005. Introduction: Institutional change in advanced political economies. In Beyond continuity. Institutional change in advanced political economies, 1–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Werle, Raymund. 2005. Institutionelle Analyse technischer Innovation. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 57(2): 308–332.Google Scholar
  56. Werle, Raymund. 2012. Institutions and systems: Analysing technical innovation processes from an institutional perspective. In Innovation policy and governance in high-tech industries. The complexity of coordination, Hrsg. Johannes Bauer, Achim Lang und Volker Schneider, 23–47. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  57. Windeler, Arnold. 2016. Reflexive innovation. Zur Innovation in der radikalisierten Moderne. In Innovationsgesellschaft heute. Perspektiven, Felder und Fälle, Hrsg. Werner Rammert, Arnold Windeler, Hubert Knoblauch und Michael Hutter, 69–110. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für SozialwissenschaftenUniversität StuttgartStuttgartDeutschland

Personalised recommendations