Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PDF Paradigm Shift in Technologies and Innovation Systems John Cantwell Ebook Full Chapter
PDF Paradigm Shift in Technologies and Innovation Systems John Cantwell Ebook Full Chapter
https://textbookfull.com/product/parables-of-enoch-a-paradigm-
shift-1st-edition-darrell-bock/
https://textbookfull.com/product/soft-computing-in-chemical-and-
physical-sciences-a-shift-in-computing-paradigm-1st-edition-
kanchan-sarkar/
https://textbookfull.com/product/climate-change-and-arctic-
security-searching-for-a-paradigm-shift-lassi-heininen/
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-emergence-paradigm-in-
quality-management-a-way-towards-radical-innovation-teun-
hardjono/
Disruptive Technologies, Innovation and Development in
Africa Peter Arthur
https://textbookfull.com/product/disruptive-technologies-
innovation-and-development-in-africa-peter-arthur/
https://textbookfull.com/product/news-media-and-the-financial-
crisis-how-elite-journalism-undermined-the-case-for-a-paradigm-
shift-1st-edition-cox/
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-customer-success-economy-
why-every-aspect-of-your-business-model-needs-a-paradigm-
shift-1st-edition-nick-mehta/
https://textbookfull.com/product/emerging-wireless-communication-
and-network-technologies-principle-paradigm-and-performance-karm-
veer-arya/
https://textbookfull.com/product/executive-decision-synthesis-a-
sociotechnical-systems-paradigm-victor-tang/
John Cantwell · Takabumi Hayashi
Editors
Paradigm Shift
in Technologies
and Innovation
Systems
Paradigm Shift in Technologies and Innovation
Systems
John Cantwell Takabumi Hayashi
•
Editors
Paradigm Shift
in Technologies
and Innovation Systems
123
Editors
John Cantwell Takabumi Hayashi
Rutgers University Rikkyo University
Newark, NJ, USA Tokyo, Japan
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
Preface
v
vi Preface
Here we would like to highlight some of the key themes to emerge from each
chapter.
Chapter 1 of the first part, entitled “The Philosophy of Paradigm Change in the
History of Social Evolution” by John Cantwell, begins by defining and explaining
the meaning of a technological paradigm, and of paradigm shift. The chapter places
the idea of paradigm change in a philosophical context, arguing that a paradigm
shift can be seen as representing a Hegelian evolutionary process in a social or
cultural setting. The development of a techno-socio-economic paradigm at a
society-wide level is a process of continual co-evolution between three sets of
factors: knowledge, institutions, and technology in production.
In Chap. 2, “Paradigm Changes in Technological Knowledge Connections in
Urban Innovation Systems” by Salma Zaman, it is argued that innovation today
cannot be realized by only one company or even by one location in isolation, and
often there is a need for cross-city and cross-firm knowledge exchange. Therefore,
taking the world’s largest cities for innovation leading to patenting, this study
examines between which cities knowledge flows occur more intensively. For this
purpose, by analyzing the pattern of connections between cities from a mapping
of the locations of the inventors of pairs of citing and cited patents, based on the
data of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, this chapter elucidates the
city-based knowledge network that shows the geography of knowledge exchange
relationships. The chapter discusses the effect of paradigm shift on this subnational
geography of knowledge sourcing in innovation.
Chapter 3, “World-Wide Dispersion of Research and Development (R&D)
Capabilities” by Takabumi Hayashi and Atsuho Nakayama, examines to what
extent R&D capabilities have been geographically disseminated and dispersed
worldwide over the past 40–50 years, analyzing scientific papers and US patents as
R&D outputs. The analysis shows that the number of different nationalities of
author affiliations on papers and the range of locations of the first-named inventors
of U.S. patents have increased and diversified.
Chapter 4, “International Standardization of the New Technology Paradigm: A
Strategy for Royalty-Free Intellectual Property” by Yasuro Uchida, starts from the
point that in the past, the international standardization of intellectual property
(IP) was an important strategy. One of the roles of IP has been to generate a source
of revenues from royalties, but what is now increasing in IT-related business fields
is actually royalty-free exchange. This means that we have witnessed a paradigm
shift in IP strategy in the IT-related fields. This chapter examines in detail why such
royalty-free cases are increasing, and the background to this emergent phenomenon.
Chapter 5, “New Roles for Japanese Companies at the Knowledge-Based
Economy” by Fumio Komoda, examines how the technology paradigm has shifted
from being hardware-oriented to becoming software-oriented in accordance with
trends in the progress and adaptation of IT. The author argues here that one of the
reasons for the downturn of Japanese companies is that they had not been suc-
cessful in adapting themselves to the transition from hardware to software tech-
nologies, remaining overly committed to their hardware heritage.
viii Preface
In Chap. 6, moving into the second part of the book, “Paradigm Shifts in the
TFT-LCD Industry and Japan’s Competitive Position in East Asia”, by Kazuhiro
Asakawa, identifies paradigm shifts in the TFT-LCD industry that have directly or
indirectly led to a change in Japan’s competitive position. The chapter shows that
the declining competitiveness of a country and a firm cannot be fully understood
without closely relating it to the shifts in the paradigm of the industry. In addition,
this chapter shows the mutual alignment between paradigm shifts in the industry,
the changing competitive positions of a country and a firm, as well as the changing
locus of innovation, in terms of the distribution of efforts between domestic versus
international or in-house versus collaborative activities.
In Chap. 7, “Business-University Collaboration in a Developing Country in the
Industry 4.0 Era—The Case of Hungary” by Annamaria Inzelt, discusses how in
recent years the majority of Hungarian business R&D expenditure has come from
companies wholly, or majority-owned by foreign interests. This high proportion
indicates the substantial role of foreign companies in the Hungarian research agenda
and in business-university collaboration. This chapter focuses on how foreign
companies are shaping business-university collaboration in research and experi-
mental development and touches upon the role of government as facilitator.
Chapter 8, “Text Mining Method for Building New Business Strategies” by
Fumio Komoda, Yoshihiro Muragaki and Ken Masamune, examines how under a
new technology paradigm, identifying market needs and finding appropriate tech-
nical ideas become much more unpredictable. In order to solve this problem, using
pinpoint focus type text mining may successfully provide useful solution methods
for companies. To demonstrate this, the authors use the illustration of a neurosur-
gical robot and discuss how well-founded ideas for the development of a surgical
robot can successfully be discovered.
Chapter 9, “Paradigm Change in the History of the Pharmaceutical Industry” by
Sarah Edris, argues that with the advancement of molecular biology as a science,
we see a paradigm shift in the nature of R&D in the development of new drugs from
around the 1990s. As a result, many new forms of cooperation in R&D among
private companies, universities, and public research institutions have now become
unavoidable.
Chapter 10, “Knowledge Transfer and Creation Systems: Perspectives on
Corporate Socialization Mechanisms and Human Resource Management” by
Tamiko Kasahara, explores the role played by corporate socialization mechanisms
(CSMs) and human resource management (HRM) practices in knowledge sharing
and creation in multinational corporations. Drawing on a longitudinal case study of
Cambridge Technology Partners (CTP), the findings of this study show that CSMs
were incorporated into HRM practices. Specifically, training and development
practices played a role in transferring knowledge from the headquarters to a focal
subsidiary at the corporate level, and from senior to junior consultants at the
individual level. At present, CSMs have laid the foundation for further knowledge
creation for CTP.
Preface ix
xi
xii Contents
xiii
xiv Editors and Contributors
2016) received the award from Japan Scholarly Association of Asian Management
(JSAAM) in 2018. He has been sitting on the editorial board of several academic
journals.
Contributors
John Cantwell
Keywords Technological paradigm Techno-socio-economic paradigm
Paradigm shift Hegelian approach Social evolution Technological evolution
J. Cantwell (&)
Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
transition between paradigms, since social institutions must be adapted to the new
requirements, and this creates problems and resistance from those who believe their
interests to be threatened by the change. Another key implication of the gradual
adaptation of social institutions during phases of paradigm change, allied to the
cumulative nature of technological knowledge which always builds upon and
recombines some elements of prior knowledge (Pavitt 1987; Cantwell 1989; Arthur
2007), is that each new paradigm partially incorporates and synthesizes earlier
paradigms in the process of reconstituting a new social formation. Thus, for
instance, in the realm of technology we move from the centrality of the mechanical
to the electro-mechanical, and then to the electronic, as we move from one age to
another. In other words, shifting from one paradigm to another is an evolutionary
process, not a revolutionary overthrow of the paradigms that preceded it.
Another frequently used and somewhat related construct in the innovation
studies literature is the concept of a system of innovation. This has been variously
used to refer to a national system of innovation (Nelson 1993; Freeman 1995), a
regional system of innovation (Asheim and Gertler 2005), or a sectoral system of
innovation (Malerba 2004). This conceptualization might be extended to include
the emergence of a global system of innovation in the information age of ‘intel-
lectual capitalism’ (Granstrand 2018). Just as with the idea of a paradigm, an
innovation system generally supposes a framework of interconnectedness across
multiple actors, a given institutional context, and a prevalence of certain kinds of
business organization and relationships between organizations engaged in pro-
ductive activities. However, the difference with paradigm shift is that an innovation
system is a comparative construct intended to analyze variation across some
characteristic forms of innovation arranged in a typology, whether across countries,
regions or industries, or for the more (versus less) globally connected forms of
activities. It is designed to answer the question ‘what is distinctive about the
structure of innovation in this country, region or industry, or kind of activity,
compared to others?’. In this respect e.g. the national systems of innovation liter-
ature bears some relationship to the varieties of capitalism literature, or that on
national business systems, and so on.
In contrast, the notion of paradigm shift is intended to focus attention on an
evolutionary process over time. In particular, a paradigm shift refers to the occa-
sionally punctuated character of evolutionary change. The counterpart of this social
process in evolutionary biology is the normal stability of a species once it has been
established (corresponding to the conduct of normal science within some estab-
lished settled framework in Kuhn’s (1962) terminology of the workings of scientific
communities), but with occasional processes of speciation (akin to the occasional
scientific revolutions that episodically transform the nature of science according to
Kuhn 1962). Once a new species emerges it shares many of the characteristics of
the species from which it has descended, and yet it also has some new distinctive
features that ensure that there is a structural shift in the way in which it interacts
with its environment, thereby implying a shift in its path of evolutionary devel-
opment. Likewise, occasional scientific revolutions lay the foundation for a new
theoretical and methodological framework for science, setting it on some new
4 J. Cantwell
argues that the period between 1930 and 1975 in which inequality fell was a kind of
temporary aberration.
Yet we should recall that during that same period Kuznets (1955) had convinced
many with his ‘stylized facts’ that income inequality tends to fall with economic
development, while the capital-output ratio remains roughly constant—which
trends again fitted well the context of the period in which he was writing. So rather
than referring to a lengthy period of exceptional circumstances, it seems more
plausible to simply say that the techno-socio-economic paradigms of the mechan-
ical age, the science-based mass production age, and the information age are dis-
tinct, and aggregate tendencies change as we move from one to the other. One
feature shared by the mechanical age and the information age is an increase in rents
from land and natural resources, associated with a rising price of land and hence
substantial gains by landowners in their holdings of wealth. Yet the institutional
context for this commonality varies considerably between the 19th and 21st cen-
turies: in the 19th century there remained an aristocracy, or those who aspired to
join an aristocracy, whereas in the 21st century holdings of land and natural
resources are more linked to financial institutions.
I will argue that in philosophical terms the course of paradigm change can be
depicted as an Hegelian evolutionary or dialectical process. In an Hegelian per-
spective as humans or human societies or groups interact with our environment we
may consolidate or change our way of life, our knowledge about ourselves and
about our environment. As we reflect on the relationship between ourselves and our
environment we may also come to reconfigure and to challenge not just our prior
knowledge, but the very way in which we think about ourselves, our values or
beliefs, our actions, and our way of life. Thus, a contradiction may arise between
our old way of looking at the world and some new way of thinking about it. Since
the new way of thinking and acting is likely to also imply challenges to our existing
norms or institutions, to the prevailing social or organizational structures, and to the
interests that may be embedded within them, the contradiction is liable to give rise
to a period of conflict or tension between the old and the new, as well as giving rise
to increased uncertainty. Yet ultimately some form of reconciliation is generally
found between the old and the new approaches, some way of combining the two
that preserves aspects of both in some form of synthesis.
Any synthesis between the old ways and the new provides a generally more
profound and distinctive way of thinking about the world, which tends to facilitate
the scope for sustaining greater diversity or pluralism both within and between
societies or social structures such as organizations, by increasing the extent of
mutual recognition of relational interdependencies between the various elements of
a complex social system. In the Hegelian perspective an evolutionary process of
social transformation is inherently systemic or interconnected, the different parts or
6 J. Cantwell
particulars of a system must move together or co-evolve. Thus, it is not just our way
of thinking about the world that comes to be reshaped, but the nature of the
reasoning we give for our actions (how we interpret rationality), and our system of
practice. Much of this has been reflected in the re-thinking of Hegel that has been
under way in recent years among philosophers in the English language literature.
These scholars have shown how, in an Hegelian view, through mutual recognition
and acceptance of common norms or institutions we can exercise free and rational
agency in collaborative endeavors, which may lead to social transitions if crises
arise in the authority of norms (Pippin 2008); how human knowledge and ideas are
rooted in practice (Westphal 2003); and how there is always a social or relational
content in the exercise of rational intentionality (Pinkard 1994), requiring us to
move beyond methodological individualism.1
An Hegelian approach to paradigms and paradigm change is therefore grounded
in the historical evolution of technological or social practice, and is concerned with
how the parts of an innovation system interact with one another, and thereby move
the system as a whole. Since, as we have seen, a techno-socio-economic paradigm
is an interconnected or complex social system, we can think of a paradigm as an
historically specific form of interaction between knowledge, institutions, and
technology and production, and paradigm shift as the emergence of a new form of
capitalism characterized inter alia by a shift in the nature of innovation. The nature
of knowledge, beliefs or institutions, and practice or conduct of actors within a
paradigm is shaped by the system in which they live and operate (which Hegel
referred to as a shape of consciousness, or the spirit of an age as a self-conscious
way of life). Thus, a paradigm incorporates an outlook on innovation in terms of
what are regarded as being the most relevant problems that need to be addressed,
and how they can be solved, which includes some understanding about how pre-
vailing practice works, and its limits (Dosi and Nelson 2013). As an outlook, a
paradigm includes both the cognitive frames shared by practitioners that orient their
innovative or problem-solving activity (Constant 1980), and the normative con-
siderations involved in judgments about how to search for and to share knowledge,
and how to set and assess the goals of innovation. In this kind of Hegelian evo-
lutionary process there is a continual interaction and interdependence between the
subjective side of knowledge, values and beliefs, and the objective side of the use of
technologies in production and their impacts on organizations, society and the
natural world.
1
I note in passing that these re-readings of Hegel have the effect of bringing our interpretation of
his work closer to that of the early Marx, whose writings were deeply Hegelian in these senses.
This calls into question the exaggerated distinction between Hegel’s ‘idealism’ and Marx’s ‘ma-
terialism’ that remains commonplace in the Marxist literature. For a critique of the view that Marx
was an ontological materialist, in the sense that our ideas are essentially just a reflection of the
character of ‘matter in motion’ or what Engels termed the ‘dialectics of nature’, see Kline (1988).
1 The Philosophy of Paradigm Change in the History … 7
In political philosophy the focus of Hegelian scholarship has been on the his-
torical evolution of justice and freedom (e.g. Pinkard 2017). Part of that process of
evolution has been a change over time in the very meaning of these terms as
institutions have evolved. My focus here is on another feature, namely the
improvement and transformation of our knowledge base in the course of social
evolution. We may think of what Hegel called ‘absolute knowledge’ as that kernel
which is held in common among various societies or organizations (or other social
units), and which has been preserved or inherited from the past. Of course, this kind
of foundational knowledge base will not necessarily be held by every society or
organization, and some forms of knowledge may atrophy, recede or be lost or
forgotten over time. In the case of technological knowledge the relevant distinction
is between private knowledge which is held mainly by firms, and public knowledge
that is shared and held in common in the public domain in some social context or
setting (Nelson 1989). This latter public knowledge base constitutes the foundation
for any paradigm. The public aspect of technology is associated with knowledge
diffusion and enables the community as a whole to benefit from technological
innovation. As indicated earlier, a paradigm is constituted by some common set of
scientific principles and organizational methods.
It is worth touching here on the role of teleology in an Hegelian perspective. It is
necessary to distinguish between two senses of teleology, one of which relates to
the present day, and the other to an imagined future hypothetical state of the world,
which carry very different meanings and should not be confused.2 With respect to
the present day, an Hegelian perspective is exclusively backward looking or his-
torical. This is the contention that we can trace out from the past how we came to
have the kinds of knowledge or ways of thinking, the institutions, and the tech-
nologies that we have today. In other words, we can find the origins or roots of our
current techno-socio-economic paradigm, in the form of an historical evolutionary
path that led us to where we are now. It is important to appreciate that a social
evolutionary framework is not predictive, but explanatory. At any critical juncture
in the past where the path has shifted it did so in ways that were conditional at the
time they happened. A complex social system is open and creative, and not closed
or pre-determined. However, with respect to an imagined future hypothetical state
of the world an Hegelian perspective is forward looking, but considers a desirable
condition that can never be actually realized. This is what Hegel referred to as the
absolute, in which knowledge would be infinite, and we would enjoy perfect
relationships between ourselves and with the world. Hegel associated this state of
perfection with God. For an evolutionary approach, the relevance of this aspira-
tional state, rather like the notion of utopia (Hodgson 1999), is that it identifies our
ultimate consistent goals and purposes. While we can never attain perfect justice,
2
Confusing these two is responsible for various false attributions, such as the assertion that for
Hegel the Prussian state of the 1820s was an ideal state, or Fukuyama’s claiming as Hegelian his
notion that liberal capitalism represented the ‘end of history’.
8 J. Cantwell
In any social and economic system there is a continual interaction between the
knowledge base of a society or community, its institutions—ranging from values
and beliefs through informal norms to formal laws or regulations—and its tech-
nology developed and used in production. In a capitalist society of the kind that
took root after the first industrial revolution from the techno-socio-economic
paradigm of the mechanical age onwards, in which innovation in production
became central, all three of these elements (knowledge, institutions and technology)
have been changing and interacting with one another continuously. In the heyday of
a paradigm the three elements advance together faster and more effectively, as the
paradigm ensures a good fit between them. The nature of the interaction between
the three elements follows a consistent pattern or structure which reflects the
essential outlook of the age, and which ensures some degree of regularity of pro-
gress within that structure, although the precise form of that progress is always
characterized by some ex ante uncertainty and unpredictability. However, once a
paradigm runs out of steam, experimentation with different kinds of practical
solutions and new ways of thinking begin to spread more widely, and as they do the
three elements tend to fit less well together, creating greater frictions and conflicts at
a systemic level. Within a paradigm the structure of interaction between the three
elements of the system is largely consistent, but during windows of paradigm shift
the very nature of the structure of that interaction changes. The change in the way in
which knowledge, institutions and technology interact in a new paradigm is
3
It may be worth noting in passing the sharp difference between the simplistic and impoverished
interpretation of reason or rationality found in contemporary Economics as a pure economic
self-interest, and the much more sophisticated accounts of rationality found in the philosophical
literature of the Enlightenment era, culminating in Kant’s critical philosophy. Hegel’s critique of
Kant moved us yet another step forward in allowing for the social evolution of reason or
rationality, in the way that I echo here, and which is precluded if we treat human rationality as
being fixed or given in nature.
10 J. Cantwell
or of institutions, a third makes the case for the primacy of knowledge or ideas.
Among economic historians, Mokyr (2002) contends that the development of
knowledge and scientific breakthroughs can explain industrialization and economic
development, while McCloskey (2016) claims that it is ideas and values that have
driven economic growth.
These kinds of debates over the causal sequencing of the elements of social
evolution can never really be resolved, since each of the three camps can refer to
legitimate historical evidence that is supportive of their claims. From a
co-evolutionary perspective the arguments are akin to the story of the blind men and
the elephant: each school of thought provides a valid way of thinking about the
evolution of a social system historically, so long as one shares their starting point
for analysis and their framing of the critical issues. What is more, their accounts of a
complex reality are potentially consistent, even though none of these contributors is
generally willing to countenance the possibility of a synthesis, since they remain
trapped in a common belief that the fundamental question is one of establishing
causal primacy. Addressing that question all depends on how one sets up the
problem at hand. The antecedents of most knowledge or ideas can generally be
traced back a very long way. So if the question posed is ‘which came first?’ the case
for knowledge or values or beliefs as the driver is at its strongest. However, when
knowledge or ideas first arise they may be relatively little related to practice, or at
least narrowly constrained in their practical applicability. An extreme illustration
would be da Vinci’s helicopter, which was realized in practice only around
450 years later. So if instead the appropriate question is ‘what drives the devel-
opment of practice?’ the answer is the accumulation of technological knowledge
and expertise through a continual process of innovative problem-solving in and
around production (Rosenberg 1982). So this takes us back to the story of the
system of production and technology as the primary driver of social evolution. Yet
at this stage we are reminded of how Freeman and Perez (1988) showed how the
selection of viable new technologies, organizational methods and products depends
on the adaptability of institutions. So if the question becomes ‘what drives the
take-up, diffusion and survivability of lines of innovation once they have been
hatched?’ we are more likely to turn to an institutional story, such as whether
institutions are more extractive or inclusive in nature.
Once we step back in Hegelian fashion and attempt to conceptualize the
movement of a social system as a whole in history, it becomes necessary to rec-
ognize the continual relational interdependence between knowledge, institutions
and technology in production in the course of development, rather than a neat
primary causal direction of change. This is especially true if our focus of attention is
on the evolution of a holistic techno-socio-economic paradigm, as opposed to an
attempt to explain some certain specific chain of events or phenomena, or some
particular phase of history. An encompassing techno-socio-economic paradigm
evolves organically and interdependently, thereby exhibiting a kind of inner life or
vitality from within itself, rather than through a simple deterministic response to
some underlying primary exogenous mechanism or driver. The movement of the
whole entails a necessary co-evolution of the parts, such that we must consider the
12 J. Cantwell
complex relational interaction between each of the parts and the overall system. The
behavior of a system, whether within a paradigm or in a period of paradigm shift, is
related to the ever-changing and continuously tested degree of fit or compatibility
between the elements of that system, and the extent to which the goodness of fit can
be retained or improved. In an Hegelian co-evolutionary approach we must con-
sider the movement of both the whole system and the particulars within it.
Hegel once said famously that a philosopher can only present a philosophy that
reflects the context of his or her own time, and the spirit of the age in which he or
she lives. This follows from his backward-looking evolutionary approach to explain
the roots of the present and the selective absorption of ideas taken from the past,
and a belief that the future is unpredictable. It is also related to his even better
known saying that ‘the owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the
dusk’, meaning that the philosophical knowledge that captures the spirit of an age
can only reach full fruition once we have passed the zenith of that age. In other
words, only once a society or a way of life has reached maturity can we fully
conceptualize the course of its evolution over its entire lifetime. However, on this
point I believe that Hegel was not entirely right. As commented upon a moment ago
in a different context, ideas can sometimes arise well ahead of their greatest
applicability to practice. Indeed, some of the ideas that Hegel took from Aristotle
are arguably of this kind, and they were more relevant in his era than they had been
in ancient Greece. I would contend that despite his own opinion on the matter,
Hegel is more relevant to our age than he was to his own. This would help to
account for the shunning of Hegel’s work among English speaking philosophers
following his death for most of the 19th and 20th centuries, and yet the revival of
interest and rediscovery of his writings today.
The spirit of the Enlightenment era was perhaps given its ultimate expression in
the classical political economy of Adam Smith and the critical philosophy of Kant.
The progress in scientific thought and methods also inherited from the
Enlightenment laid the foundations for modern science and social science, groun-
ded on the principle of examining deterministic cause-effect relationships by iso-
lating phenomena and separating them (controlling for) any other extraneous
influences. This has led to the dramatic growth and an ever faster expansion of
increasingly specialized bodies of knowledge. Yet although these methods continue
to be highly useful and productive, we have surely now reached the stage at which
the relevance of complex interdependencies must also be given greater attention.
With regard to the topic of this paper and this book, we need to be able to analyze
the entirety of a techno-socio-economic paradigm and its constituent elements of
knowledge, institutions and technology in production, rather than treating the parts
separately or continuing to debate which of these parts should be accorded primacy
(which is just another variant of the traditional scientific focus on causality). In
today’s techno-socio-economic paradigm in the information and digital age, not
only are knowledge, institutions and technology more interconnected than ever
before, but in our way of life we have begun to increasingly appreciate the inter-
relationship between our society, our production, and the natural world around us
and the planet on which we live. In our current paradigm in which co-evolution is
1 The Philosophy of Paradigm Change in the History … 13
more pronounced than ever before, we need to be able to better conceptualize the
movement of a complex relational system. This calls for an Hegelian approach, as I
have argued here.
References
Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power prosperity and
poverty. New York: Crown Business.
Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns and lock-in by historical events.
Economic Journal, 99(1), 106–131.
Arthur, W. B. (2007). The structure of invention. Research Policy, 36(2), 274–287.
Asheim, B., & Gertler, M. S. (2005). The geography of innovation: Regional innovation systems.
In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bresnahan, T. F., & Trajtenberg, M. (1995). General purpose technologies: Engines of growth?
Journal of Econometrics, 65(1), 83–108.
Cantwell, J. A. (1989). Technological innovation and multinational corporations. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Cohen, G. A. (1978). Karl Marx’s theory of history: A defence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Constant, E. (1980). The origins of the turbojet revolution. Baltimore: John Hopkins University
Press.
Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpre-
tation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11(2), 147–162.
Dosi, G. (1984). Technical change and industrial transformation. London: Macmillan.
Dosi, G., & Nelson, R. R. (2010). Technological change and industrial dynamics as evolutionary
processes. In B. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (Vol.
1). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Dosi, G., & Nelson, R. R. (2013). The evolution of technologies: An assessment of the
state-of-the-art. Eurasian Business Review, 3(1), 3–46.
Edris, S. (2019). Paradigm change in the history of the pharmaceutical industry. In J. A. Cantwell
& T. Hayashi (Eds.), Paradigm shift in technologies and innovation systems. Berlin: Springer.
Freeman, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London:
Frances Pinter.
Freeman, C. (1995). The national system of innovation in historical perspective. Cambridge
Journal of Economics, 19(1), 5–24.
Freeman, C., & Louça, F. (2001). As time goes by: From the industrial revolutions to the
information revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Freeman, C., & Perez, C. (1988). Structural crises of adjustment, business cycles and investment
behaviour. In G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, & L. L. G. Soete (Eds.),
Technical change and economic theory. London: Frances Pinter.
Granstrand, O. (2018). Evolving properties of intellectual capitalism: Patents and innovations for
growth and welfare. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hodgson, G. M. (1999). Economics and utopia: Why the learning economy is not the end of
history. London: Routledge.
Kline, G. L. (1988). The myth of Marx’ materialism. In H. Dahm, T. J. Blakeley, & G. L. Kline
(Eds.), Philosophical sovietology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. American Economic Review, 45(1),
1–28.
14 J. Cantwell
Lipsey, R. G., Carlaw, K. I., & Bekar, C. T. (2006). Economic transformations: General purpose
technologies and long-term economic growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Malerba, F. (Ed.). (2004). Sectoral system of innovation: Concepts, issues, and analyses of six
major sectors in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCloskey, D. N. (2016). Bourgeois equality: How ideas, not capital or institutions. Enriched the
World, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mokyr, J. (2002). The gifts of Athena: Historical origins of the knowledge economy. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Nelson, R. R. (1989). What is private and what is public about technology? Science, Technology
and Human Values, 14(3), 229–241.
Nelson, R. R. (Ed.). (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Nelson, R. R. (2018). Economics from an evolutionary perspective. In R. R. Nelson, G. Dosi, C.
E. Helfat, A. Pyka, P. P. Saviotti, K. Lee, K. Dopfer, F. Malerba, & S. G. Winter (Eds.),
Modern evolutionary economics: An overview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1977). In search of a useful theory of innovation. Research Policy,
6(1), 36–76.
North, D. C., Wallis, J. J., & Weingast, B. R. (2009). Violence and social orders: A conceptual
framework for interpreting recorded human history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pavitt, K. L. R. (1987). The objectives of technology policy. Science and Public Policy, 14(4),
182–188.
Perez, C. (1983). Structural change and the assimilation of new technologies in the economic and
social systems. Futures, 15(5), 357–375.
Perez, C. (2002). Technological revolutions and financial capital: The dynamics of bubbles and
golden ages. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Perez, C. (2009). The double bubble at the turn of the century: Technological roots and structural
implications. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33(4), 779–805.
Piketty, T. (2013). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Pinkard, T. (1994). Hegel’s phenomenology: The sociality of reason. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Pinkard, T. (2017). Does history make sense: Hegel on the historical shapes of justice. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Pippin, R. B. (2008). Hegel’s practical philosophy: Rational agency as ethical life. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rosenberg, N. (1982). Inside the black box: Technology and economics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
von Tunzelmann, G. N. (1995). Technology and industrial progress: The foundations of economic
growth. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
von Tunzelmann, G. N. (2003). Historical coevolution of governance and technology in the
industrial revolutions. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 14(4), 365–384.
Westphal, K. R. (2003). Hegel’s epistemology: A philosophical introduction to the phenomenol-
ogy of spirit. Indiannapolis: Hackett.
Winter, S. G., & Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12(6),
730–743.
1 The Philosophy of Paradigm Change in the History … 15
Salma Zaman
Abstract The late twentieth century marked the advent of a new information based
and internationally networked paradigm, much different from its old science-based
predecessor. As we enter the diffusion stage of this paradigm, we expect to see
changes in the way organizations and locations interact with one another. We
envision that cities and clusters will not rely exclusively on local knowledge
sources but will need to combine local with complementary geographically distant
(trans-local) knowledge sources. This chapter contributes to the literature on the
changing geographic composition of knowledge connections in the new paradigm.
Using social network analysis techniques, we construct a unidirectional network of
62 selected cities, since backward citations point in just one direction to prior
knowledge sources. We observe how the spatial distribution of our technological
network changes during our time period, both in the aggregate and at the level of
five selected sectors. The nodes in our network represent cities while the edges
represent citations from one city to another. We calculate network statistics such as
degree strength and eigenvector centrality to determine which cities have gained
influence over time and which cities have become relatively less important. Overall,
we observe that the technological knowledge network between our cities is getting
denser and more dispersed over our time period. We see that many developing
cities are gradually increasing in their centrality to our constructed network and that
this increase in centrality is more pronounced in certain sectors, characteristic of the
new paradigm, such as the ICT sector. We also observe that while developing cities
have become important sources of technological knowledge, they still lag in terms
of the knowledge they receive from external sources.
S. Zaman (&)
Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), Lahore, Pakistan
e-mail: [email protected]
At eight in the morning of the birthday His Majesty left his Palace
in the “Ocean Terrace” and proceeded to the Throne Hall. His
emaciated and woe-begone appearance was such, however, that the
Old Buddha took compassion upon him, and bade his attendant
eunuchs support him to his palanquin, excusing him from further
attendance. Later in the day she issued a special Decree praising
the loyalty of the Dalai Lama, and ordering him to return promptly to
Thibet, “there to extol the generosity of the Throne of China, and
faithfully to obey the commands of the Sovereign power.” The
Empress Dowager spent the afternoon of her birthday in the
congenial amusement of a masquerade, appearing in the costume of
the Goddess of Mercy, attended by a numerous suite of concubines,
Imperial Princesses, and eunuchs, all in fancy dress. They picnicked
on the lake, and Her Majesty appeared to be in the very highest
spirits. Unfortunately, towards evening, she caught a chill, and
thereafter, partaking too freely of a mixture of clotted cream and crab
apples, she had a return of the dysenteric complaint from which she
had suffered all through the summer. On the following day she
attended to affairs of State as usual, reading a vast number of
Memorials and recording her decision thereon, but on the 5th of
November neither she nor the Emperor were sufficiently well to
receive the Grand Council, so that all business of government was
suspended for two days. Upon hearing of Her Majesty’s illness, the
Dalai Lama hastened to present her with an image of Buddha,
which, he said, should be despatched forthwith to her mausoleum at
the hills, the building of which had just been completed under the
supervision of Prince Ch’ing.[127] The high priest urged all haste in
transmitting this miracle-working image to her future burial-place; if it
were done quickly, he said, her life would be prolonged by many
years, because the unlucky conjunction of the stars now affecting
her adversely would avail nothing against the magic power of this
image. The Old Buddha was greatly reassured by the Dalai Lama’s
cheerful prognostications, and next morning held audience as usual.
She commanded Prince Ch’ing to proceed without delay to the
tombs, and there to deposit the miraculous image on the altar.[128]
She ordered him to pay particular attention to the work done at the
mausoleum, and to make certain that her detailed instructions had
been faithfully carried out. Prince Ch’ing demurred somewhat at
these instructions, inquiring whether she really wished him to leave
Peking at a time when she herself and the Emperor were both ill. But
the Old Buddha would brook no argument, and peremptorily ordered
him to proceed as instructed. “I am not likely to die,” she said,
“during the next few days; already I am feeling much better. In any
case you will do as you are told.” On Monday, November 9th, both
the Empress Dowager and the Emperor were present at a meeting
of the Grand Council, and a special audience was given to the
Educational Commissioner of Chihli province, about to leave for his
post. At this audience the Old Buddha spoke with some bitterness of
the increasing tendency of the student class to give vent to
revolutionary ideas, and she commanded the Commissioner of
Education to do all in his power to check their political activities.
Shortly afterwards four more physicians, who had come up from
the provinces, were admitted to see His Majesty. That same
afternoon he had a serious relapse, and from that day forward never
left his palace. On the following morning he sent a dutiful message
(or it was sent for him) enquiring after the Empress Dowager’s
health, she being also confined to her room and holding no
audiences. The Court physicians reported badly of both their
Imperial patients: being fearful as to the outcome, they begged the
Comptroller-General of the Household to engage other physicians in
their place. The Grand Council sent a message to Prince Ch’ing,
directing him to return to Peking with all haste, his presence being
required forthwith on matters of the highest importance. Travelling
night and day, he reached the capital at about eight o’clock in the
morning of the 13th, and hastened to the palace. He found the Old
Buddha cheerful and confident of ultimate recovery, but the Emperor
was visibly sinking, his condition being comatose, with short lucid
intervals. His last conscious act had been to direct his Consort to
inform the Empress Dowager that he regretted being unable to
attend her, and that he hoped that she would appoint an Heir
Apparent without further delay. Whether these dutiful messages
were spontaneous or inspired, and indeed, whether they were ever
sent by the Emperor, is a matter upon which doubt has been freely
expressed.
Immediately after the arrival of Prince Ch’ing, an important
audience was held in the Hall of Ceremonial Phœnixes. Her Majesty
was able to mount the Throne, and, although obviously weak, her
unconquerable courage enabled her to master her physical ailments,
and she spoke with all her wonted vehemence and lucidity. A well-
informed member of the Grand Council, full of wonder at such an
exhibition of strength of will, has recorded the fact that she
completely led and dominated the Council. There were present
Prince Ch’ing, Prince Ch’un, the Grand Councillor Yüan Shih-k’ai,
and the Grand Secretaries Chang Chih-tung, Lu Ch’uan-lin and Shih
Hsü.
Her Majesty announced that the time had come to nominate an
Heir to the Emperor T’ung-Chih, in accordance with that Decree of
the first day of the reign of Kuang-Hsü, wherein it was provided that
the deceased Sovereign’s ancestral rites should be safeguarded by
allowing him precedence over his successor of the same generation.
Her choice, she said, was already made, but she desired to take the
opinion of the Grand Councillors in the first instance. Prince Ch’ing
and Yüan Shih-k’ai then recommended the appointment of Prince
P’u Lun, or, failing him, Prince Kung. They thought the former, as
senior great-grandson of Tao-Kuang, was the more eligible
candidate, and with this view Prince Ch’un seemed disposed to
agree. The remaining Grand Councillors, however, advised the
selection of Prince Ch’un’s infant son.
After hearing the views of her Councillors, the Old Buddha
announced that long ago, at the time when she had betrothed the
daughter of Jung Lu to Prince Ch’un, she had decided that the eldest
son of this marriage should become Heir to the Throne, in
recognition and reward of Jung Lu’s lifelong devotion to her person,
and his paramount services to the Dynasty at the time of the Boxer
rising. She placed on record her opinion that he had saved the
Manchus by refusing to assist in the attack upon the Legations. In
the 3rd Moon of this year she had renewed her pledge to Jung Lu’s
widow, her oldest friend, just before she died. She would, therefore,
now bestow upon Prince Ch’un as Regent, the title of “Prince co-
operating in the Government,” a title one degree higher than that
which had been given to Prince Kung in 1861, who was made
“Adviser to the Government” by herself and her co-Regent.
The Son of Heaven. H.M. Hsüan-T’ung, Emperor of China.
Upon hearing this decision, Prince Ch’un arose from his seat and
repeatedly kowtowed before Her Majesty, expressing a deep sense
of his own unworthiness. Once more Yüan Shih-k’ai courageously
advanced the superior claims of Prince P’u Lun: he was sincerely of
opinion that the time had come for the succession to be continued
along the original lines of primogeniture; it was clear also that he fully
realised that Prince Ch’un was his bitter enemy. The Old Buddha
turned upon him with an angry reprimand. “You think.” she said, “that
I am old, and in my dotage, but you should have learned by now that
when I make up my mind nothing stops me from acting upon it. At a
critical time in a nation’s affairs a youthful Sovereign is no doubt a
source of danger to the State, but do not forget that I shall be here to
direct and assist Prince Ch’un.” Then, turning to the other
Councillors, she continued:—“Draft two Decrees at once, in my
name, the first, appointing Tsai-feng, Prince Ch’un, to be ‘Prince co-
operating in the Government’ and the second commanding that P’u
Yi, son of Prince Ch’un, should enter the palace forthwith, to be
brought up within the precincts.” She ordered Prince Ch’ing to inform
the Emperor of these Decrees.
Kuang-Hsü was still conscious, and understood what Prince
Ch’ing said to him. “Would it not have been better,” he said, “to
nominate an adult? No doubt, however, the Empress Dowager
knows best.” Upon hearing of the appointment of Prince Ch’un to the
Regency, he expressed his gratification. This was at 3 p.m.; two
hours later the infant Prince had been brought into the Palace, and
was taken by his father to be shown both to the Empress Dowager
and the Emperor. At seven o’clock on the following morning the
physicians in attendance reported that His Majesty’s “nose was
twitching and his stomach rising,” from which signs they knew that
his end was at hand. During the night, feeling that death was near,
he had written out his last testament, in a hand almost illegible,
prefacing the same with these significant words:—
At the close of a long and exciting day, Her Majesty retired to rest
on the 14th of November, weary with her labours but apparently
much improved in health. Next morning she arose at her usual hour,
6 a.m., gave audience to the Grand Council and talked for some time
with the late Emperor’s widow, with the Regent and with his wife, the
daughter of Jung Lu. By a Decree issued in the name of the infant
Emperor, she assumed the title of Empress Grand Dowager, making
Kuang-Hsü’s widow Empress Dowager. Elaborate ceremonies were
planned to celebrate the bestowal of these new titles, and to
proclaim the installation of the Regent. Suddenly, at noon, while
sitting at her meal, the Old Buddha was seized with a fainting fit, long
and severe. When at last she recovered consciousness, it was clear
to all that the stress and excitement of the past few days had brought
on a relapse, her strength having been undermined by the long
attack of dysentery. Realising that her end was near, she hurriedly
summoned the new Empress Dowager, the Regent and the Grand
Council to the Palace, where, upon their coming together, she
dictated the following Decree, speaking in the same calm tones
which she habitually used in transacting the daily routine of
Government work:—