Search results

This paper is an initial attempt to discuss the American institutionalist movement as it changed and developed after 1945. Institutionalism in the inter-war period was a relatively coherent movement held together by a set of general methodological, theoretical, and ideological commitments (Rutherford, 2011). Although institutionalism always had its critics, it came under increased attack in the 1940s, and faced challenges from Keynesian economics, a revived neoclassicism, econometrics, and from new methodological approaches derived from various versions of positivism. The institutionalist response to these criticisms, and particularly the criticism that institutionalism “lacked theory,” is to be found in a variety of attempts to redefine institutionalism in new theoretical or methodological terms. Perhaps the most important of these is to be found in Clarence Ayres’ The Theory of Economic Progress (1944), although there were many others. These developments were accompanied by a significant amount of debate, disagreement, and uncertainty over future directions. Some of this is reflected in the early history of The Association for Evolutionary Economics.

There can be no doubt that the small and medium sized enterprise (SME) plays a pivotal role in most if not all economies, and that social policy makers have an interest in ensuring the viability of this sector of the economy, which plays a crucial role in the contract culture of national and international competitiveness. Quite apart from the essential symbiosis between the large multinationals and public limited companies and this sector, the sustainability of unemployment benefit payouts would be jeopardised should the sector experience a significant downturn. There are already worldwide concerns about the ability to continue to finance state pensions at anything like the present scale, and any loss of viability of the SME sector will simply exacerbate this situation. There are also useful reciprocations to be achieved by comparisons across sectors, including in significant areas such as internal control (Vinten, Lane, Hayes, 1996). The recent flurry of activity has included initiatives of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales 1996) and the information needs of owners (Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales 1996a), an Auditing Practices Board (1996) Practice Note, and a Department of Trade and Industry Consultation Document (DTI 1996).

Scholars have examined, in various ways, the complexity of knowledge in innovation. Recently, research has begun to focus on the role of a continuous process of knowledge recombination in our understanding of a changing structure of knowledge complexity and knowledge accumulation. Furthermore, we also claim that this process may reflect changes in the underlying innovation paradigm, or in other words the arrival of the information age. Yet, little is known about how knowledge complexity is increasing in the broader context of globalization, in which the influence of a rising diversity of locational sources may feature more prominently. We consider how knowledge recombination that relies upon the global spread of innovation activities will affect our theory of the relationship through which earlier contributions to knowledge become inputs to subsequent knowledge building that generates more (or less) complex knowledge artifacts. We propose that knowledge complexity rises when recombined elements are sourced across two dimensions of distance simultaneously, namely when sources which are derived from (i) disparate knowledge fields and (ii) distinct geographic locations are combined. We thereby develop an international business perspective on knowledge complexity through recombination by better appreciating the processes that may be necessary when knowledge is combined along global value chains. We also suggest some implications for changing organizational forms by highlighting the value of connecting previously unconnected geographically distant elements, which suggests a greater potential for more informal and indirectly diffused knowledge-based connections.

MOST aircraft manufacturers would like to be able to check completely the functioning of all electrical installations while the aircraft is still in the rigging shop and without having to start the engines. Some tests, such as those for continuity of circuits and for “earths,” have for long been made at an early stage in the assembly; and much thought has, without doubt, gone on ways and means of increasing the amount of testing which can be done without running the engines.

This paper describes a comprehensive approach to examine how technological innovation contributes to the renewal of a firm’s competences through its dynamic and reciprocal relationship with R&D and product commercialization. Three theories of technology and innovation (the R&D and technological knowledge concept, product‐process concept, technological interdependence concept) are used to relate technology and innovation to strategic management. Based on these theories, this paper attempts to identify the dynamic relationship between product innovation and process innovation using system dynamics by investigating that aspect of the dynamic changes in the closed feedback circulation structure in which R&D investments drive the accumulation of technological knowledge.

Strategy scholars have long argued that breakthrough innovation is generated by recombining knowledge from distant domains. Even if firms have the ability to access and absorb knowledge from distant domains, however, they may fail to pay attention to such knowledge because it is seemingly irrelevant to their tasks. We draw attention to this problem of knowledge relevance and develop a theoretical model to illuminate how ideas from seemingly irrelevant (i.e., peripheral) domains can generate breakthrough innovation through the cognitive process of analogical reasoning, as well as the conditions under which this is more likely to occur. We situate our theoretical model in the context of teams in order to develop insight into the microfoundations of knowledge recombination within firms. Our model reveals paradoxical requirements for teams that help to explain why breakthrough innovation is so difficult.

In a recent article dealing with the crimes against humanity committed by Germany, The Daily Telegraph remarks that thousands of innocent men, women, and little children murdered in cold blood by airship and submarine appeal for vengeance. The acts of Germany from the early days of the war onwards have filled decent‐minded people with feelings of loathing, and it is well that the last bonds uniting the two nations should be severed. This is no ordinary war. It has cut a deep chasm between the British and German peoples. By every means in our power we must remove, root and branch, those enemy influences in our midst which, by a process of “peaceful penetration,” were undermining our social, financial, and industrial power.

Research on antecedents of organizational learning generally ignores the fact that organizational learning is at least a two‐dimensional construct and that its dimensions may be conflicting. This research often fails to investigate the simultaneous effects of antecedents on these dimensions. To address this gap in the literature, this paper aims to discuss the effects of empowerment and knowledge conversion, two factors often considered to be important antecedents of organizational learning.

The approach adopted involves a review of and reflection on the pertinent literature on learning organizations, organizational learning, empowerment and knowledge conversion.

It is found that both antecedents have contradictory effects on two dimensions of organizational learning. Empowerment affects second‐order learning in a positive sense, but first‐order learning in a negative sense. Knowledge conversion is positively related to first‐order learning, but negatively to second‐order learning. Thus, it appears that efforts to improve organizational learning on one dimension may have (unintended) effects on the other, unmeasured dimension.

The paper connects disjointed streams of theory and research in a novel way that is of interest and importance to both the academic literature and to organizational practitioners.