Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T02:21:50.686Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Transformations in the governance of the American telecommunications industry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2010

Kenneth N. Bickers
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Rice University
John L. Campbell
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Massachusetts
J. Rogers Hollingsworth
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Leon N. Lindberg
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Get access

Summary

As many commentators have noted, public policy in the United States traditionally has favored a market-oriented economic system (Fainsod, Gordon, and Palamountain 1959; Hurst 1982). Market competition, however, has proven to be an unstable mechanism for coordinating interactions in the telecommunications industry. From the time of the telegraph and later the telephone, the telecommunications industry has been at the center of efforts to institute nonmarket governance arrangements. Nonmarket alternatives that have been adopted include obligational networks, promotional networks, and hierarchical controls.

The recent court-ordered breakup of the Bell System marks an effort to reintroduce markets as a primary means of governing transactions in the industry. It is still too soon to know if this experiment will prove successful. Nevertheless, the controversies surrounding the current attempt to institute market coordination are revealing. The experimentation with alternative governance regimes over the past 150 years makes this industry a useful laboratory to study the evolution of governance.

The model employed here for analyzing the evolution of governance builds on the framework presented in Chapter 1. In schematic form, this framework posited that transformations from one governance regime to another occur when a governance regime experiences pressures for change, which, in turn, spark a search process for a more adequate regime. As before, it is assumed here that actors search opportunistically for governance regimes that are advantageous to their interests (Williamson 1985).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×