Collective Action and techno-institutional transformations: a study on some selected innovation systems

Document Type : Review article



Numerous evidences exist about the effect of collective actions on techno-institutional transformations in different industries. Hence, although the firms and their individual efforts for achieving interests is a main driving force of techno-institutional transformations, but another important driving force is the collective actions to achieve aims beyond profitability of individual firms. In this article, by studying some selected innovation systems – German’s dye industry, United States’ cochlear implant industry, United States’ auto industry, and Taiwan’s IT industry- we show that a network of individuals and key actors (i.e. institutional entrepreneurs) are the main driving force in every techno-institutional transformation, and collective actions of this network cause the formation and evolution of new institutions. This article criticizes two well-known perspectives in explaining innovation system changes, i.e. state-based perspective and individual-based perspective.


  1. منابع

    1. Chandler, A. D. (1969). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise. MIT Press Books, 1.
    2. Chandler, A. D. (1977). The visible hand: The management revolution in American business. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap.
    3. Commons, J. R. (1924). Legal foundations of capitalism. Transaction Publishers.
    4. Davis, L. E., North, D. C., & Smorodin, C. 1971. Institutional change and American economic growth: CUP Archive.
    5. Demil, B., & Bensédrine, J. (2005). Processes of legitimization and pressure toward regulation: corporate conformity and strategic behavior. International Studies of Management & Organization35(2), 56-77.
    6. DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment1, 3-22.
    7. Dorado, S. (2005). Institutional entrepreneurship, partaking, and convening.Organization studies26(3), 385-414.
    8. Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research policy11(3), 147-162.
    9. Evans, P. B. (1995). Embedded autonomy: states and industrial transformation (Vol. 25). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    10. Garud, R., & Jain, S. (1996). The embeddedness of technological system.Advances in strategic management13, 389-408.
    11. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American journal of sociology, 929-964.
    12. Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2008). Institutional entrepreneurship. The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, 198-217.
    13. Hayek, F. A. 1973. Rules and Order. Law, Legislation and Liberty, Vol. 1: London and Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    14. Hodgson, G. M. (1988). Economics and institutions. In Journal of Economic Issues.
    15. Hung, S. C., & Whittington, R. (2011). Agency in national innovation systems: Institutional entrepreneurship and the professionalization of Taiwanese IT.Research Policy40(4), 526-538.
    16. Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management. Technology analysis & strategic management10(2), 175-198.
    17. Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2002). Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions.Academy of management journal45(1), 281-290.
    18. Lundvall, B. _., Joseph, K. J., Chaminade, C., & Vang, J. (Eds.). (2011).Handbook of innovation systems and developing countries: building domestic capabilities in a global setting. Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of management journal47(5), 657-679.
    20. Mahboudi, F., Hamedifar, H., & Aghajani, H. (2012). Medical biotechnology trends and achievements in Iran. Avicenna journal of medical biotechnology,4(4), 200.
    21. Murmann, J. P. (2003). Knowledge and competitive advantage: The coevolution of firms, technology, and national institutions. Cambridge University Press.
    22. Nelson, R. R. (1994). The co-evolution of technology, industrial structure, and supporting institutions. Industrial and corporate change3(1), 47-63.
    23. Nelson, R. R. (2008). What enables rapid economic progress: What are the needed institutions? Research policy, 37(1): 1-11.
    24. Nelson, R. R., & Nelson, K. (2002). Technology, institutions, and innovation systems. Research policy31(2), 265-272.
    25. Niosi, J. (2011). Complexity and path dependence in biotechnology innovation systems. Industrial and Corporate Change20(6), 1795-1826.
    26. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge university press.
    27. Rao, H., Morrill, C., & Zald, M. N. 2000. Power plays: How social movements and collective action create new organizational forms. Research in organizational behavior, 22: 237-281.
    28. Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Sage Publications.
    29. Suchman, L., Blomberg, J., Orr, J. E., & Trigg, R. (1999). Reconstructing technologies as social practice. American behavioral scientist43(3), 392-408.
    30. Van de Ven, A. H., & Garud, R. 1994. The coevolution of technical and institutional events in the development of an innovation. Evolutionary dynamics of organizations: 425-443.
    31. Veblen, T. (1912). The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions. Macmillan.
    32. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. New York, 26-30.
    33. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic intstitutions of capitalism. Simon and Schuster.