Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T04:58:30.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Science, Technology and the Large Corporation*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Stephen Wilks
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

ECONOMIC HISTORY IS FAR REMOVED FROM PRECISE SCIENCE and cannot offer an unambiguous explanation of the initiation, pace and causes of rapid industrial growth. Nevertheless, few economic historians would disagree that the pattern of growth is not random; and that in evaluating it, technological innovation must be a central element.

The landmarks of industrial development are conventionally thought of in terms of science and technology. From the adoption of the stirrup and the plough, which heralded the feudal age in Europe; to the spread of the silicon chip and the microprocessor, which lie at the core of the emergent IT economy, the development of society can be charted in terms of technological change. And just as the analysis of technological change has become one of the dominant tools of the economic historian, so ‘futurology’ is centred around trajectories of innovation. Over the next century changes are projected which are just as profound as those experienced since 1890. The world of 2090 will be different, and while the fundamental political differences may be unpredictable, there is a presumption that it will be technologically very different from the present. It is appropriate that popular speculation about future society is termed not ‘future fiction’ but ‘science fiction’.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , 01 April 1992 , pp. 190 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1992

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.)

Footnotes

*

The author acknowledges the helpful comments of Philip Gummett, Roger Williams and John Ziman; and the financial support of the ESRC under grant YEO 5250015.

References

1 Carson, Rachel, Silent Spring, London, Hamish Hamilton, 1963.Google Scholar She attaches no explicit blame but mentions government agencies most frequently.

2 World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, 1987, p. 4.

3 Dickson, David, Alternative Technology: and the Politics of Technical Change, Glasgow, Fontana/Collins, 1973, p. 44.Google Scholar

4 Cooley, Mike, Architect or Bee? The Human Price of Technology, London, Chatto & Windus, Revised edn. 1987, p. 93.Google Scholar

5 Including William Moms, Samuel Butler and even the young Coleridge who in the 1790s was set to embark on a pure and simple life in the Americas.

6 Noble, David, America by Design: Science, Technology and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism, Oxford University Press, 1977, p. xxvi.Google Scholar

7 Bernal, J. D., The Social Function of Science, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1939.Google Scholar The debate is nicely reviewed in Blume, Stuart, Towards a Political Sociology of Science, New York, The Free Press, 1974.Google Scholar The ‘social construction’ argument is still not fully accepted, see Rüdig, Wolfgang, Towards a ‘New’ Political Science of Technology, Working Paper 63, Department of Politics, University of Strathdyde, 1989;Google Scholar or Jordan Goodman, review in the Times Higher Education Supplement, 6 September 1991 in which he terms it the ‘radical’ interpretation.

8 Schmookler, Jacob, Patents, Inventions and Economic Change, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1972, p. 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 See Jewkes, John, Sawers, David and Stillerman, Richard, The Sources of Invention, London, Macmillan, second edn. 1969 CrossRefGoogle Scholar for an interesting early treatment that argues for diverse sources of invention.

10 Loveless, Stephen, ‘Political Economy of Research and Development: An Institutional Analysis’, Teaching Political Science, 14 (4) Summer 1987, p. 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 The literature here is very sparse. In a recent review Tushman and Nelson observe that ‘there is no systematic work on how organizations actually shape technological change’: Tushman, Michael and Nelson, Richard, ‘Introduction: Technology, Organisations and Innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Special Issue: Technology, Organizations and Innovation, 36 (1) March 1990, p. 7.Google Scholar

12 See Merton, Robert, ‘Science and the Social Order’ (1937) reprinted as chapter 15 of his Social Theory and Social Structure, New York, Free Press, 1957;Google Scholar Kuhn, Thomas, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago University Press, second edn., 1970.Google Scholar

13 Cotgrove, Stephen and Box, Steven, Science, Industry and Society: studies in the sociology of science, London, Men & Unwin, 1970, p. 16 Google Scholar, emphasis in the original.

14 See, for instance, the chapters by Dasgupta, Barber and White and Ergas in Dasgupta, Partha and Stoneman, Paul (eds), Economic Policy and Technological Performance, Cambridge University Press, 1987 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Gummett, Philip, ‘Science and Technology Policy’ in Hawkesworth, Mary and Kogan, Maurice (eds), Routledge Encyclopaedia of Government and Politics, London, Routledge, 1992.Google Scholar

15 Henry Ergas, ‘The importance of technology policy’ in P. Dasgupta and P. Stoneman (eds), ibid., pp. 52–3.

16 See, for instance, Papon, Pierre, ‘Science and Technology Policy in France: 1981–1986’, Minerva, XXVI (4), Winter 1988.Google Scholar

17 For a review of current policy see Wilks, S. and Cini, M., ‘The Redirection of Science and Technology Policy Under the Thatcher Governments’, Public Money and Management, 11 (2), Summer 1991;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nicholson, Sir Robin, Cunningham, C. and Gummett, P. (eds), Science and Technology in the United Kingdom, Harlow, Longman, 1991.Google Scholar

18 Peter Weingart, ‘The Scientific Power Elite—A Chimera; the Deinstitutionalisation and Politicisation of Science’, in Elias, N. et al. (eds), Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies, Sociology of the Sciences: A Yearbook, Vol. VI, Dordrecht, Reidel, D., 1982, pp. 84–5;Google Scholar emphasis in the original.

19 A particular classic is Smith, Alice Kimball, A Peril and A Hope: The Scientists’ Movement in America 1945–1947, Chicago University Press, 1965.Google Scholar

20 Gummett, Philip and Reppy, Judith, ‘Military Industrial Networks and Technical Change in the New Strategic Environment’, Government and Opposition, Vol. 25, No. 3, Summer 1990, p. 292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Kevles, David, ‘An Analytical look at R&D and the Arms Race’, in Mendelsohn, E. et al. (eds), Science, Technology and the Military, Dordrecht, Kluwer, Sociology of the Sciences: A Yearbook, Vol. XII, 1988, p. 471.Google Scholar

22 For a thoughtful review see Gummett, Philip and Walker, William, ‘The Industrial and Technological Consequences of the Peace’, RUSI Journal, Vol. 135, Spring 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Rosenberg, Nathan, Inside thc Black Box: Technology and Economics, Cambridge University Press, 1982, p. vii.Google Scholar

24 See, for instance, Dasgupta and Stoneman (eds), op. cit.; or texts such as Coombs, Rod et al., Economics and Technological Change, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Schumpeter, Joseph, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, London, Allen & Unwin, third edn., 1950, p. 84.Google Scholar

26 For a concise summary see Philip Gummett, op. cit.

27 For a discussion of how this works in the Japanese firm see Aoki, Masahiko, ‘The Participatory Generation of Information Rents and the Theory of the Firm’, in Aoki, M., Gustafsson, B. and Williamson, O. (eds), The Firm as a Nexus of Treaties, London, Sage, 1990.Google Scholar

28 John Ziman, ‘The Collectivization of Science’, Bernal lecture to the Royal Society, April 1983; a theme taken up more recently in John Ziman, ‘Research as a Career’ in Cozzens, S. et al. (eds), The Research System in Transition, Kluwer, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 P. Dasgupta, ‘The economic theory of technology policy: an introduction’, in P. Dasgupta and P. Stoneman (eds), op. cit., p. 10.

30 Landes, David, The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present, Cambridge University Press, 1969, p. 15.Google Scholar

31 Dickson, David, Alternative Technology, op. cit.; The New Politics of science, New York, Pantheon, 1984; David Noble, America by Design, op. cit.Google Scholar

32 Lindblom, Charles, Politics and Markets, New York, Basic Books, 1977 Google Scholar, esp. chapters 13 and 14; Galbraith, John Kenneth, The New Industrial State, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1967.Google Scholar

33 D. Noble, America by Design, op. cit., p. 31.

34 J. K. Galbraith, The New Industrial State, op. cit., chapter 2.

35 Porter, Michael, The Competitive Advantage of Nations, London, Macmillan, 1990;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Lazonick, William, Value Creation on the Shop Floor: Organisation and Technology in Capitalist Development, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1990.Google Scholar

36 M. Porter, ibid., p. 20.

37 See, for instance, Williamson, Oliver, ‘The Modem Corporation: Origin, Evolution, Attributes’, Journal of Economic Literature, XIX (4), 12 1981 Google Scholar, reprinted as chapter 8 in Williamson, O., Economic Organization: Firms, Markets and Policy Control, Brighton, Wheatseaf, 1986.Google Scholar

38 Gilpin, Robert, The Political Economy of International Relations, Princeton University Press, 1987, p. 235;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Vernon, Raymond, ‘International Investment and International Trade in the Product Cycle’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80, 1966 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Sovereignty at Bay, New York, Basic Books, 1971.

39 Dunning, John, Multinationals, Technology and Competitiveness, London, Unwin Hyman, 1988, p. 103.Google Scholar

40 Best, Michael, The New Competition: Institutions of Industrial Restructuring, Cambridge, Polity, 1990.Google Scholar

41 ibid., p. 252.

42 Graves, Samuel, ‘Long Run Patterns of Corporate R&D Expenditure: A Descriptive Analysis of the Period 1965 to 1984’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 35, 1989, p. 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 S. Blume, op. cit. (note 7), p. 22. A situation termed by Ziman and his colleagues ‘steady state’ funding. See Ziman, J., Science in a Study State: The Research System in Transition, London, Science Policy Support Group, 1987.Google Scholar

44 Pan Patel and Keith Pavitt, ‘Large Firms in the Production of the World’s Technology: an Important Case of Non-Globalisation’, first draft, March 1990 for The Journal of International Business Studies, p. 10.

45 ibid., Table 3.

46 D. Noble, America By Design, op. cit., p. 95, quoting Danielson, N., AT&T: The Story of Industrial Conquest, New York, Vanguard, 1939, p. 117.Google Scholar

47 D. Noble, ibid., p. 100.

48 Bertin, Gilles and Wyatt, Sally, Multinationals and Industrial Property: The Control of the World’s Technology, Hemel Hempstead, Harvester, 1988, p. 1.Google Scholar

49 ibid., pp. 23–4.

50 See ibid. pp. 51–3 and Clark, Rodney, Aspects of Japanese Commercial Innovation, Technical Change Centre, 1984, p. 44.Google Scholar

51 Hounshell, David and Smith, John Kenly, Science and Corporate Strategy: Du Pont R&D, 1902–1980, Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. 200.Google Scholar

52 G. Bertin and S. Wyatt, Multinationals and Industrial Property, op. cit., p. 122.

53 Rose, Hilary and Rose, Steven, Science and Society, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1969, p. 211.Google ScholarPubMed

54 Shepard, Herbert, ‘Nine Dilemmas in Industrial Research’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1, 1956, p. 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55 S. Cotgrove and S. Box, Science, Industry and Society, op. cit. (note 13), pp. 6–7.

56 D. Hounshell and D. Kenly Smith, Science and Corporate Strategy, op. cit., p. 1.

57 ibid., pp. 586–87 and 600.

58 For a good exploration of the current orthodoxy see the House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology, Innovation in Manufacturing Industry, in three volumes, 1990–91 HL Paper 18, London, HMSO, 1990; especially Volume I, Report, pp. 7–12.

59 Report, Rothschild, A Framework for Government Research and Development, Cmnd. 1272, London, HMSO, 1972;Google Scholar Report, Haldane, Machinery of Government, Cmnd. 9230, London, HMSO, 1918.Google Scholar

60 Woolf, Harry, ‘Basic Research and Industrial Enterprise’, Minerva, XXII (2), Summer 1984, pp. 193, 194.Google Scholar

61 D. Noble, America By Design, op. cit., chapter 7, esp. pp. 137, 147.

62 Select Committee on Science and Technology, Innovation in Manufacturing Industry, op. cit., HL 18 III, p. 147, ‘Memorandum by ICI’.

63 David Culpin quoted in Clive Cookson, ‘A Shift in Balance’, Financial Times, 10 September 1991.

64 Cummings, William, ‘The Culture of Effective Science: Japan and the United States’, Minerva, XXVIII (4), Winter 1990, p. 445.Google Scholar

65 Sigurdson, Jan and Anderson, Alun, Science and Technology in Japan, Harlow, Longman, second edn., 1991, p. 93.Google Scholar

66 W. Cummings, ‘The Culture of Effective Science in Japan’, op. cit., p. 432.

67 ibid., p. 441.

68 Rodney Clark, Aspects of Japanes. Commercial Innovation, op. cit. (note 50), p. 17

69 ‘The new face of Japanese science’, New Scientist, 21 March 1985, p. 30.

70 Keiichi Kanaga in an interview with New Scientist, ibid., p. 32.

71 For an expression of indigenous Japanese dissatisfaction see Shimada, Haruo, ‘The Desperate Need for New Values in Japanese Corporate Behaviour’, The Journal of Japanese Studies, 17 (1), Winter 1991, pp. 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

72 Goto, Akira and Wakasugi, Ryuhei, ‘Technology Policy’ in Komiya, R., Okuno, M. and Suzumura, K. (eds), Industrial Policy of Japan, Tokyo, Academic Press, 1988, p. 185.Google ScholarPubMed

73 See S. Wilks and M. Cini, ‘The Redirection of Science and Technology Policy Under the Thatcher Governments’, op. cit. (note 17).

74 For an excellent summary of the debate see chapter 6 in S. Blurne, Towards a Political Sociology of Science, op. cit. (note 7).

75 David Dickson, The New Politics of Science, op. cit. (note 31).

76 Merton, Robert, Foreword to Ellul, Jacques, The Technological Society, New York, Random House, revised American edition, 1964.Google Scholar

77 The movement for corporate social responsibility notwithstanding; see, for instance, Etzioni, A., The Moral Dimension, New York, Free Press, 1988, p. 206.Google Scholar