Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
6. Conclusion
The idea that technical evolution is socially constructed implies that technology and its
institutional embeddedness are inseparable. It is not clear how this demonstrates co-
evolution in the narrower sense of 'bi-causality' that we have used here. For all historical
experience has shown that a newly emerging technology is always implemented in new
institutional forms. In this chapter I dif erentiated between three institutional forms, the
i rm (or the regulatory systems prevalent in the i rm that Nelson and Winter, 1982, call
routines), the 'social' regulatory systems af ecting i rms (which often exist at a national
or even international level), and the region as a specii cally institutional construct that
is a major focus of geographical interest. So, this is all about evolution and co-evolving
institutions. The justii cation for analysing co-evolution and co-evolving institutional
'populations' was perceived as lying in its capacity to explain mechanisms of selection and
retention among competing evolving populations of technology and i rms. Murmann's
study of the competing US, British and German dye industries in the nineteenth century
presented an impressive example of this. Theoretical discussion and empirical analysis of
the co-evolution of technology and the i rst two types of institution are only just begin-
ning, as the preceding sections have made clear. This is also true for the third type of
institution. The issue of the possible co-evolution of technology and institutions is a little
more complex for geographers than for other social scientists, as the former see the region
as a further dimension. If, and only if, co-evolution of another i rm population (section
3) and/or co-evolution of institutional arrangements do emerge locally, that is, if 'place'
matters in a very restricted sense, can geographers speak of co-evolution of regions.
What consequences could this have for future research in economic geography? I am
far from being able to develop a full research programme from this chapter. In order to
start with research on co-evolution in economic geography, Malerba's advice should be
taken seriously: 'go to a much i ner analysis'. This would require:
Careful selection of cases where the concept of co-evolution may apply - not
●
'everything is co-evolving with everything else' - that is, a selection of those cases
in which co-evolution does not simply refer to more or less simultaneous processes
of technology being conditional on institutions, but where reciprocal ('bi-causal')
processes occur.
Precise pre-selection of units of co-evolving populations for empirical studies.
●
Further theoretical rei nement of the concepts of institutions and institutional
●
change - maybe new institutions such as dynamic transaction costs or 'old' institu-
tions.
For geographers in particular, a focus on why co-location of two evolving popula-
●
tions matters; that is, selection of those cases where the conditionality of reciprocal
development requires an institutional region.
Also, careful rel ection on methodology. Following Staber (2007) who recently
●
called for a 'contextualised' view of social capital in regional clusters, one may
suggest dense description as a means to clearly identify and separate 'environ-
ment' from 'co-evolving population' in empirical studies, to focus on processes
and events, thus emphasising dynamism in historical time, and to be precise in
analysing the mechanisms of reciprocal self-reinforcement or retention of the two
or more populations considered.
