Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T08:53:15.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technological innovation, globalization, and varieties of capitalism: the case of Siemens AG as example for contingent institutional adaptation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stefan Fritsch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Contemporary discussions in the comparative political economy of innovation revolve specifically around the question of globalization's impact on the observable diversity of innovation patterns, institutionally grounded comparative advantages of firms and countries as well as their evolution over time. The paper develops the concept of “contingent institutional adaptation” to trace institutional evolution at the firm level. It advances the idea that contingent adaptation can cause institutional hybridization, an evolutionary path defined by change and continuity, thereby offering a more nuanced concept of institutional evolution over time. In a historic single-case study the paper investigates the German Siemens AG and its efforts to remain on the cutting-edge of major information and communication technologies in two time periods (1847–1914; 1989–2013), both marked by institutional adaptations resulting in hybridization. Ultimately, institutional hybridization led to Siemens’ retreat from all information and communication technology sectors.

Type
Research articles
Information
Business and Politics , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , April 2015 , pp. 125 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © V.K. Aggarwal 2015 and published under exclusive license to Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albrow, Martin. 1996. The Global Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Allen, Matthew. 2004. “The Varieties of Capitalism Paradigm: Not Enough Variety?” Socio-Economic Review 2 (1): 87–108.Google Scholar
Archibugi, Daniele, and Pianta, Marion. 1992. The Technological Specialization of Advanced Countries. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Archibugi, Daniele, and Michie, Jonathan. 1995. “The Globalisation of Technology: A New Taxonomy.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 19 (1): 121–140.Google Scholar
Archibugi, Daniele, and Michie, Jonathan. 1997. “Technological Globalisation and National Systems of Innovation: An Introduction.” In Technology, Globalisation and Economic Performance, edited by Archibugi, Daniele, and Michie, Jonathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aronson, Jonathan D., and Cowhey, Peter F. 1988. When Countries Talk: International Trade in Telecommunications Services. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing.Google Scholar
Blau, Peter. 1970. “A Formal Theory of Differentiation in Organizations.” American Sociological Review 35 (2): 201–218.Google Scholar
Blau, Peter M., and Schoenherr, Richard A. 1971. The Structure of Organizations. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bloch, Harry, and Metcalfe, Stan. 2011. “Complexity in the Theory of the Developing Firm.” In Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, edited by Antonelli, Cristiane. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Breschi, Stefano, and Malerba, Franco. 2006. Clusters, Networks, and Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burns, T., and Stalker, G. M. 1961. The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Casper, Steven, Rogers Hollingsworth, J., and Whitley, Richard. 2005. “Varieties of Capitalism: Comparative Institutional Approaches to Economic Organization and Innovation.” In Innovation and Institutions: A Multidisciplinary Review of the Study of Innovation Systems, edited by Casper, Steven, and Warden, Frans. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Casson, Mark, Pearce, Robert D., and Singh, Satwinder. 1992. “Global Integration Through the Decentralization of R&D.” In International Business and Global Integration, edited by Casson, Mark. London: The MacMillan Press.Google Scholar
Chandler, Alfred. 1962. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chandler, Alfred. 1977. The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Chandler, Alfred. 1990. Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Chandler, Alfred. 2001. Inventing the Electronic Century: The Epic Story of the Consumer Electronics and Computer Industries. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Channon, Derek F. 1973. The Strategy and Structure of British Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
Child, John. 1975. “Managerial and Organizational Factors Associated with Company Performance, Part 2: A Contingency Analysis.” Journal of Management Studies 12 (1): 12–27.Google Scholar
Child, John, and Mansfield, Roger. 1972. “Technology, Size, and Organization Structure.” Sociology 6 (3): 369–393.Google Scholar
Cohen, Stephen D. 2007. Multinational Corporations and Foreign Direct Investment: Avoiding Simplicity, Embracing Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Collier, David. 2011. “Understanding Process Tracing.” Political Science and Politics 44 (4): 823–830.Google Scholar
Collins, Randall. 1979. The Credential Society. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cyert, Richard, and March, James. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Czada, Peter. 1969. Die Berliner Elektroindustrie in der Weimarer Zeit. Berlin: Coloquium.Google Scholar
Decurtins, Daniela. 2002. Siemens: Anatomie eines Unternehmens. Frankfurt/Main: Ueberreuter.Google Scholar
Deeg, Richard. 1999. Finance Capitalism Unveiled: Banks and the German Political Economy. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Deeg, Richard, and Jackson, Gregory. 2007. “The State of the Art: Towards a More Dynamic Theory of Capitalist Variety.” Socio-Economic Review 5 (1): 149–179.Google Scholar
De Geus, Arie. 1997. “The Living Company.” Harvard Business Review 75 (2): 52–59.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, Paul J., and Powell, Walter W. 1983. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48 (2): 147–160.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, Paul J., and Powell, Walter W. 1994. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Donaldson, Lex. 2001. The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Dore, Ronald. 1986. Flexible Rigidities: Industrial Policy and Structural Adjustment in the Japanese Economy, 1970–1980. London: Athlone.Google Scholar
Dosi, Giovanni. 1982. “Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories. A Suggested Interpretation of the Determinants and Directions of Technical Change.” Research Policy 11 (3): 147–162.Google Scholar
Dosi, Giovanni, Freeman, Christopher, Nelson, Richard, Silverberg, Gerald, and Soete, Luc, eds. 1988. Technical Change and Economic Theory. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Drake, William J., and Noam, Eli M. 1997. “The WTO Deal on Basic Telecommunications: Big Bang or Little Whimper?” Telecommunication Policy 21 (9–10): 799–818.Google Scholar
Edquist, Charles, ed. 1997. Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Ellul, Jacques. 1964. The Technological Society. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Feldenkirchen, Werner. 1999. Siemens 1918–1945. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Feldenkirchen, Werner. 2003. Siemens: Von der Werkstatt zum Weltunternehmen. Munich: Piper.Google Scholar
Feldenkirchen, Werner. 2008. “Werner von Siemens: Erfinder und Internationaler Unternehmer.” In Lebenserinnerungen, edited by Feldenkirchen, Werner. Munich: Piper.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. 1977. “U.S. House Members in Their Constituencies: An Exploration.” The American Political Science Review 71 (3): 883–917.Google Scholar
Fligstein, Neil. 1985. “The Spread of the Multidivisional Form Among Large Firms, 1919–1979.” American Sociological Review 50 (3): 377–391.Google Scholar
Fransman, Martin. 1997. “Is Technology Policy Obsolete in a Globalised World? The Japanese Response.” In Technology, Globalisation and Economic Performance, edited by Archibugi, Daniele and Michie, Jonathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, Christopher. 1987. Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Fukuyama, Francis. 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Galunic, D. Charles, and Eisenhart, Kathleen M. 1994. “Renewing the Strategy-Structure Performance Paradigm.” Research in Organizational Behavior 16 (1): 215–255.Google Scholar
George, Alexander L., and Bennett, Andrew. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gereffi, Gary, Humphrey, John, and Sturgeon, Timothy. 2005. “The Governance of Global Value Chains.” Review of International Political Economy 12 (1): 78–104.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 2006. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ghoshal, Sumantra, and Nohria, Nitin. 1993. “Horses for Courses: Organizational Forms for Multinational Corporations.” Sloan Management Review 34 (2): 23–35.Google Scholar
Hage, Jerald, and Aiken, Michael. 1970. Social Change in Complex Organizations. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A., and Soskice, David. 2001. “An Introduction to Varieties of Capitalism.” In Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, edited by Hall, Peter A., and Soskice, David. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A., and Thelen, Kathleen. 2009. “Institutional Change in Varieties of Capitalism.” Socio-Economic Review 7 (1): 7–34.Google Scholar
Hannan, Michael T., and Freeman, John. 1984. “Structural Inertia and Organizational Change.” American Sociological Review 49 (2): 149–164.Google Scholar
Harrison, Bennett. 1994. Lean and Mean: The Changing Landscape of Corporate Power in the Age of Flexibility. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hay, Colin. 2004. “Common Trajectories, Variable Paces, Divergent Outcomes? Models of European Capitalism under Conditions of Complex Economic Interdependence.” Review of International Political Economy 11 (2): 231–262.Google Scholar
Headrick, Daniel R. 1988. The Tentacles of Progress: Technology Transfer in the Age of Imperialism 1850–1940. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Held, David, McGrew, Anthony, Goldblatt, David, and Perraton, Anthony. 1999. Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Herriegel, Gary. 1996. Industrial Constructions: The Sources of German Industrial Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hertner, Peter. 1986. “Financial Strategies and Adaptation to Foreign Markets: The German Electro-Technical Industry and Its Multinational Activities 1890–1939.” In Multinational Enterprise in Historical Perspective, edited by Teichova, Alice, Levy-Leboyer, Maurice, and Nussbaum, Helga. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Highman, Beth W. 1996. “Siemens AG.” In International Directory of Company Histories Vol 14, edited by Grant, Tine. Detroit, MI: St. James Press.Google Scholar
Hilger, Susanne. 2004. “Amerikanisierung” deutscher Unternehmen: Wettbewerbsstrategien und Unternehmenspolitik bei Henkel, Siemens und Daimler-Benz 1945/49–1975.” VSWG-Beihefte 173. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Hodgson, Geoffrey M. 1996. “Varieties of Capitalism and Varieties of Economic Theory.” Review of International Political Economy 3 (3): 380–433.Google Scholar
Höpner, Martin. 2005. Corporate Governance in Transition: Ten Empirical Findings on Shareholder Value and Industrial Relations in Germany. MPIfG Discussion Paper 1/05. Cologne: Max Planck Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung.Google Scholar
Hollingsworth, J. Rogers. 1997. “Continuities and Changes in Social Systems of Production: The Cases of Japan, Germany, and the United States.” In Contemporary Capitalism: The Embeddedness of Institutions, edited by Rogers Hollingsworth, J., and Boyer, Robert. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hollingsworth, J. Roger. 2000. “Doing Institutional Analysis: Implications for the Study of Innovations.” Review of International Political Economy 7 (4): 595–644.Google Scholar
Hollingsworth, J. Rogers, and Boyer, Robert. 1997. “Coordination of Economic Actors and Social Systems of Production.” In Contemporary Capitalism: The Embeddedness of Institutions, edited by Rogers Hollingsworth, J., and Boyer, Robert. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hollingsworth, J. Rogers, Schmitter, Philippe C., and Streeck, Wolfgang, eds. 1994. Governing Capitalist Economies: Performance and Control of Economic Sectors. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, Thomas P. 1969. “Technological Momentum in History: Hydrogenation in Germany 1898–1933.” Past and Present 44 (3): 106–132.Google Scholar
Hughes, Thomas P. 1983. Networks of Power: Electrification of Western Society 1880–1930. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, Thomas P. 1994. “Technological Momentum.” In Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism, edited by Roe Smith, Merritt, and Marx, Leo. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hugill, Peter J. 1999. Global Communications since 1844: Geopolitics and Technology. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Johnson, Björn. 1992. “Institutional Learning.” In National Systems of Innovation, edited by Lundvall, Bengt-Åke. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Jones, Geoffrey. 1988. “Foreign Multinationals and British Industry Before 1945.” The Economic History Review 41 (3): 429–453.Google Scholar
Jones, Geoffrey. 2005. Multinationals and Global Capitalism: From Nineteenth to the Twenty First Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kaerner, Martin. 2010. “Pioneers of the Project Business: The Siemens Brothers and the Indo-European Telegraph Line.” In Experiencing Project Management, edited by Bittner, Elisabeth, and Gregorc, Walter. Erlangen: Publicis Publishing.Google Scholar
Kimberly, John R. 1975. “Environmental Constrains and Organizational Structure: A Comparative Analysis of Rehabilitation Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 20 (1): 1–9.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Walther. 1986. Die Deutsche Industrie und die Industrialisierung Russlands 1815–1914. St. Katharinen: Scripta-Mercaturae Verlag.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert. 1991. “Industrial Governance Structures, Innovation Strategies, and the Case of Japan: Sectoral or Cross-National Comparative Analysis?” International Organization 45 (4): 453–493.Google Scholar
Kocka, Jürgen. 1971. “Family and Bureaucracy in German Industrial Management 1850-1914: Siemens in Comparative Perspective.” The Business History Review 45 (2): 133–156.Google Scholar
Kocka, Jürgen 1981. “Capitalism and Bureaucracy in German Industrialization before 1914.” The Economic History Review 34 (3): 453–468.Google Scholar
Kogut, Bruce, and Zander, Udo. 1993. “Knowledge of the Firm and the Evolutionary Theory of the Multinational Corporation.” Journal of International Business Studies 24 (4): 625–645.Google Scholar
Kranzberg, Melvin. 1986. “Technology and History: “Kranzberg's Laws”. Technology and Culture 27 (3): 544–560.Google Scholar
Landes, David. 1969. The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lane, Christel. 2008. “National Capitalisms and Global Production Networks: An Analysis of Their Interaction in Two Global Industries.” Socio-Economic Review 6 (2): 227–260.Google Scholar
Larson, Magali S. 1977. The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lawrence, Paul R., and Lorsch, Jay W. 1967. Organization and Environment. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Loewendahl, Henry Bernard. 2001. Bargaining with Multinationals: The Investment of Siemens and Nissan in North-East England. Houndmills Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Lundvall, Bengt-Åke, ed. 1992. National Systems of Innovation. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
MacLean, Donald J. 1999. “Open Doors and Open Questions: Interpreting the Results of the 1998 ITU Minneapolis Plenipotentiary Conference.” Telecommunication Policy 23 (1): 147–158.Google Scholar
Malerba, Franco. 2002. “Sectoral Systems of Innovation and Production.” Research Policy 31 (2): 247–264.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James. 1999. “Nominal, Ordinal, and Narrative Appraisal in Macrocausal Analysis.” American Journal of Sociology 104 (4): 1154–1196.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James. 2010. “After KKV: The New Methodology of Qualitative Research.” World Politics 62 (1): 120–147.Google Scholar
March, James G., and Olsen, Johan P. 1976. Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Meus, Marius, and Oerlemans, Leon. 2005. “National Innovation Systems.” In Innovation and Institutions: A Multidisciplinary Review of the Study of Innovation Systems, edited by Casper, Steven, and Warden, Frans. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Meyer, John W. 1983. “Institutionalization and the Rationality of Formal Organizational Structure.” In Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality, edited by Meyer, John W., and Richard Scott, W. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Meyer-Krahmer, Frieder, and Reger, Guido. 1999. “New Perspectives on the Innovation Strategies of Multinational Enterprises: Lessons for Technology Policy in Europe.” Research Policy 28 (7): 751–776.Google Scholar
Miller, Danny, and Friesen, Peter H. 1984. “A Longitudinal Study of the Corporate Life Cycle.” Management Science 30 (10): 1161–1183.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, Henry, and McHugh, Alexandra. 1985. “Strategy Formation in an Adhocracy.” Administrative Science Quarterly 30 (2): 160–197.Google Scholar
Mone, Mark, McKinley, William, and Barker, Vincent L. 1998. “Organizational Decline and Innovation: A Contingency Framework.” The Academy of Management Review 23 (1): 115–132.Google Scholar
Moore, Gordon E. 1965. “Cramming More Components onto Integrated Circuits.” Electronics 38 (8): 114–117.Google Scholar
Mumford, Lewis. 1934. Technics and Civilization. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Naschold, Frieder. 1997. Die Siemens AG: Inkrementale Anpassung oder Unternehmenstransformation? Eine Fallstudie über Kontinuität und Wandel eines Konzerns. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin.Google Scholar
Nelson, Richard R., and Winter, Sidney G. 1977. “In Search of Useful Theory of Innovation.” Research Policy 6 (1): 36–76.Google Scholar
Nelson, Richard R., and Winter, Sidney G. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Richard R, ed. 1993. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ohmae, Kenichi. 1990. The Borderless World: Power and Strategy in the Interlinked Economy. New York, NY: Harper Business.Google Scholar
Palmer, Donald, Devereaux Jennings, P., and Zhou, Xueguang. 1993. “Late Adoption of the Multidivisional Form by Large U.S. Corporations: Institutional, Political, and Economic Accounts.” Administrative Science Quarterly 38 (1): 100–131.Google Scholar
Patel, Parimal, and Pavitt, Keith. 1997. “The Technological Competencies of the World's Largest Firms: Complex and Path-Dependent, but Not Much Variety.” Research Policy 26 (2): 141–156.Google Scholar
Patel, Parimal. 1995. “Localized Production of Technology for Global Markets.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 19 (1): 141–153.Google Scholar
Pavitt, Keith. 1984. “Sectoral Patterns of Technical Change: Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory.” Research Policy 13 (6): 343–373.Google Scholar
Pennings, Johannes M. 1992. “Structural Contingency Theory: A Reappraisal.” Research in Organizational Behavior 12 (2): 267–309.Google Scholar
Penrose, Edith. 1985. “The Theory of the Growth of the Firm Twenty-Five Years Later.” Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Oeconomicae Negotiorum 20. Uppsala: Uppsala University Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, John, and Sharp, Margaret. 1998. Technology Policy in the European Union. Houndmills: MacMillan Press.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 1982. Organizations and Organization Theory. Marshfield: Pitman.Google Scholar
Phillips, Richard. 2000. “Approaching the Organisation of Economic Activity in the Age of Cross-Border Alliance Capitalism.” In Global Political Economy: Contemporary Theories, edited by Palan, Ronen. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pinch, Trevor J., and Bijker, Wiebe E. 1987. The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Piore, Michael J., and Sabel, Charles F. 1984. The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Porter, Michael. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. London: Collier MacMillan.Google Scholar
Quinn, James B. 1980. “An Incremental Approach to Strategic Change.” The McKinsey Quarterly 16 (4): 34–52.Google Scholar
Reich, Robert. 1991. The Work of Nations: Preparing Ourselves for the 21st Century. New York, NY: Knopf Doubleday.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Nathan. 1994. Exploring the Black Box: Technology, Economics, and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sabean, David W. 2011. “German International Families in the Nineteenth Century: The Siemens Family as a Thought Experiment.” In Transregional and Transnational Families in Europe and Beyond, edited by Jobson, Christopher H., Sabean, David W., Teuscher, Simon and Trivellato, Francesca. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Sally, Razeen. 1995. States and Firms: Multinational Enterprises in Institutional Competition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sandholtz, Wayne. 1993. High-Tech Europe: The Politics of International Cooperation. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schiller, Dan. 1999. Digital Capitalism: Networking the Global Market System. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Vivien. 2002. The Futures of European Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scott, W. Richard. 1995. Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Sharp, Margaret, and Shearman, Claire. 1987. European Technological Cooperation. Chatham House Papers 36. London: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Siemens, AG. Annual Reports 1990–1994; 1998. Munich: Siemens AG.Google Scholar
Siemens, Georg. 1977. History of the House of Siemens. New York: Arno Press.Google Scholar
von Siemens, Werner. 1892/2008. Lebenserinnerungen, edited by Feldenkirchen, Werner. Munich: Piper.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. 1976. Administrative Behavior: A Study in Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Skolnikoff, Eugene B. 1993. The Elusive Transformation: Science, Technology, and the Evolution of International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Merritt Roe, and Marx, Leo. 1994. “Introduction.” In Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism, edited by Roe Smith, Merrit and Marx, Leo. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 1965. “Social Structure and Organizations.” In Handbook of Organizations, edited by March, James G. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Streeck, Wolfgang. 1991. “On the Institutional Conditions of Diversified Quality Production.” In The Socio-Economics of Production and Full Employment, edited by Matzner, Egon, and Streeck, Wolfgang. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Streeck, Wolfgang, and Thelen, Kathleen, eds. 2005. Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Mark Z. 2004. “Empirical Evidence Against Varieties of Capitalism's Theory of Technological Innovation.” International Organization 58 (3): 601–631.Google Scholar
Tsai, Kuen-Hung. 2009. “Collaborative Networks and Product Innovation Performance: Toward a Contingency Perspective.” Research Policy 38 (5): 765–778.Google Scholar
Tushman, Michael L., and Romanelli, Elaine. 1985. “Organizational Evolution: A Metamorphosis Model of Convergence and Reorientation.” Research in Organizational Behavior 7 (1): 171–222.Google Scholar
UNCTAD. 1995. World Investment Report: Transnational Corporations and Competitiveness. New York: UNCTAD.Google Scholar
UNCTAD. 2002. World Investment Report: Transnational Corporations and Export Competitiveness. New York: UNCTAD.Google Scholar
UNCTAD. 2012. World Investment Report: Towards a New Generation of Investment Policies. New York: UNCTAD.Google Scholar
Verbeke, Alain. 2003. “The Evolutionary View of the MNE and the Future of Internalization Theory.” Journal of International Business Studies 34 (6): 498–504.Google Scholar
Vitols, Sigurt. 2001. “Varieties of Corporate Governance: Comparing Germany and the UK.” In Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, edited by Hall, Peter A. and Soskice, David. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
von Weiher, Siefgried, and Goetzeler, Herbert. 1984. The Siemens Company, Its Historical Role in the Progress of Electrical Engineering, 1847–1980: A Contribution to the History of the Electrical Industry. Berlin: Siemens AG.Google Scholar
von Weiher, Siegfried. 1970. Werner von Siemens: Ein Leben für die Wissenschaft, Technik und Wirtschaft. Göttingen: Musterschmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Wengenroth, Ulrich. 2010. “History of Entrepreneurship: Germany after 1815.” In The Invention of Enterprise: Entrepreneurship from Ancient Mesopotamia to Modern Times, edited by Landes, David, Mokyr, Joel, and Baumol, William J. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Whitley, Richard. 1994. “Dominant Forms of Economic Organization in Market Economies.” Organization Studies 15 (2): 153–182.Google Scholar
Whitley, Richard. 1998. “Internationalization and Varieties of Capitalism: The Limited Effect of Cross-National Coordination of Economic Activities on the Nature of Business Systems.” Review of International Political Economy 5 (3): 445–481.Google Scholar
Whitley, Richard. 1999. Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change of Business Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Whitley, Richard. 2000. National Capitalisms, Global Competition and Economic Performance. Amsterdam: Benjamin.Google Scholar
Whitley, Richard. 2012. “Internationalization and the Institutional Structuring of Economic Organization: Changing Authority Relations in the Twenty-First Century.” In Capitalisms and Capitalism in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Morgan, Glenn, and Whitley, Richard. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilkins, Mira. 2010. “Multinational Enterprise and the Varieties of Capitalism.” Business History Review 84 (4): 638–645.Google Scholar
Winner, Langdon. 1977. Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-Control as a Theme in Political Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Winner, Langdon. 1986. The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, Joan. 1965. Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yoon, Woojin, and Hyun, Eunjung. 2009. “How Relevant and Useful is the Concept of National Systems of Innovation.” Journal of Technology Management and Innovation 4 (3): 2–13.Google Scholar
Zucker, Lynne G. 1983. “Organizations as Institutions.” In Research in the Sociology of Organizations, edited by Bacharach, Samuel B. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.Google Scholar