Abstract

Firms and nations attempt to build their technological capabilities amidst co-existing systems of knowledge and a variety of institutions. This variety might in principle result in fragmented knowledge and learning systems with no easy adaptation, clear social connection, or shared idea of progress. High institutional variety environments may be innovative but offer an uncertain future environment in which individuals and firms act, and which can paralyze the search and learning process. This paper discusses the Ayres-Veblenian concept of institutional ‘lag’ and its links to institutional variety. Industrial policy is routinely used conceptually and administratively as a selection device to cull such institutional variety, for example, re-steering the health industry’s knowledge and production context or integrating informality in social policy design. Policy selection can thus offer valuable framing contexts to build inference and judgments about evolutionary systems and technology products. Once an evolutionary and institutional perspective is employed however, ‘lag’ and ‘progress’ are technologically contingent. The paper concludes that both industrial analysis and economics’ philosophical foundations may benefit from co-evolutionary and combinatorial approaches, and insights from a non-Western perspective.

摘要

公司和国家试图在共存的知识系统和各种机构中建立他们的技术能力。原则上，这种多样性可能会导致知识和学习系统支离破碎，不易适应、缺乏清晰的社会联系或共同的进步观念。高度制度多样性的环境可能是创新的，但提供了一个不确定的未来环境，个人和公司在其中行动，并可能使搜索和学习过程瘫痪。本文讨论了 Ayres-Veblenian 的制度“滞后”概念及其与制度多样性的联系。产业政策在概念上和行政上通常被用作剔除此类制度多样性的选择工具，例如，重新引导卫生行业的知识和生产环境，或将非正规性纳入社会政策设计。因此，政策选择可以提供有价值的框架背景，以建立关于进化系统和技术产品的推理和判断。然而，一旦采用进化和制度视角，“滞后”和“进步”在技术上是偶然的。该论文的结论是，工业分析和经济学的哲学基础都可能受益于共同进化和组合方法，以及来自非西方视角的见解。