Innovation Through Time

Conclusion

History rarely presents neat lessons for generalization, and the historical study of innovation is no exception. The primary lessons from our historical discussion concern the heterogeneity of the innovation process across time, across sectors and across countries.

Much of the surviving historical evidence that guides the historical study of innovation tends to highlight the formal and obscures the informal processes of knowledge accumulation, learning, and dissemination that underpin technological change and that contribute to its economic benefits. An important area for further research is the enrichment of our historical understanding of the informal processes for knowledge accumulation and diffusion that have been neglected in historical research on the “First Industrial Revolution” in particular. In addition, as we pointed out in our introductory discussion, a key historiographical mystery remains—why was northwest Europe the locus of the first transition to sustain ed, innovationled growth, rather than Asia or some other region of the global economy? Much of the discussion of this age-old question relies heavily on sweeping generalizations, and more research on the (asserted) failure of non-European economies to make the transition to sustained economic growth during this early period is needed.
One of the defining characteristics of innovation through time is change in the structure of the innovation systems that influence the development and dissemination of knowledge and innovations. The “innovation system” characteristic of the First Industrial Revolution relied on a craft-oriented, trial-and-error process, in which familiarity with basic woodworking and metalworking techniques was valuable. Inasmuch as demand factors appear to have influenced the upsurge of innovation on a broad front during this period, the institutional changes that laid the groundwork for growth in incomes and the expansion of markets for consumer goods also were important.
By contrast, the scale and organizational complexity of the innovation system that characterizes the Second Industrial Revolution are vastly greater. A new system of innovation emerged, pioneered by German and U.S. firms in the electrical-equipment and chemicals industries, characterized by organized innovation activities in large firms interacting with a public R&D infrastructure. The innovation process during this period was institutionalized within large enterprises of unprecedented scale, and the Second Industrial Revolution in the United States relied heavily on the creation of a national market of great size and homogeneity.
The Third Industrial Revolution defies summary description, but its characteristic innovation system relied on the state to an even greater extent than the Second Industrial Revolution. The role of the state as R&D funder and (in many cases) “first customer” for the high-technology industries that develop during the Cold War also contributed to another
novel feature of the innovation system of the Third Industrial Revolution that is highlighted in Pavitt’s chapter in this volume—increased collaboration and interaction among different institutions. State actions also contributed to the spread of innovation-led development to Asia, as the military alliances and economic institutions of the post-1945 period supported the expanded international trade and capital flows that were indispensable to “catch-up.” In addition, Asian governments’ strategies for technology transfer and industrial development were of great importance (see Fagerberg and Godinho in this volume)
Recent historical research stresses the wide distribution of innovation within the industrializing economies of the First Industrial Revolution, in many cases involving sectors overlooked by the previous historical research that has  emphasized the “key sectors” of steam and textiles. This characterization of the process of technological innovation has not been sufficiently integrated into conceptual and theoretical work in innovation studies. The integration of recent historical evidence with the broader conceptual frameworks employed in the field of innovation studies represents an important task for future research. More research also is needed on the factors underpinning innovation in sectors other than the “leading industries” of the First Industrial Revolution. Although the patent data indicate that consumer goods were an important focus for such innovation, the factors triggering this upsurge remain poorly understood. Similarly, the development of organized innovation during the Second Industrial Revolution outside of the electrical equipment and chemicals industries has received far too little attention.
Institutional change in areas ranging from managerial hierarchies and enterprise control to the training of scientists and engineers are of central importance to innovative performance and to change in the structure of innovation systems over time. In many cases, these institutional changes have occurred in response to pressure from innovators and entrepreneurs, and are best characterized as “co-evolving” with change in industries and technologies (See Engerman and Sokoloff, 2003, for a useful discussion of this point). The transformation of the German and U.S. university systems, as well as the much more limited restructuring of British universities, is but one example of this coevolution; the development of intellectual property rights systems is another. But the conditions under which such political pressure arises, as well as the factors contributing to the success of failure of such pressure, remain poorly understood.
Although it now is widely celebrated as a hallmark of 21s t-century “knowledgebased economies,” science-based innovation is in fact a relatively recent development. 
Indeed, it appears well after the institutionalization of R&D within industry in the early 20th century in the United States and Germany. Moreover, even “high-technology” sectors such as biotechnology and semiconductors continue to rely on experimental methods that at their heart are “trial and error” approaches (see Pisano, 1997; Hatch and Mowery, 1998).
Our approach has been limited both in time and geographical coverage. Perhaps the two most important omissions from this account are the spread of industrialization beyond Germany within 19th-century Europe, and a full account of the rise of the Asian economies after 1945 (see Fagerberg and Godinho in this volume for a fuller account of the process of
economic “catch-up” in Asia). In the first of these cases it is important to remember that the smaller European economies, now among the wealthiest in the world, have benefited from the import and adaptation of technology during the 19th century, and that Ireland since 1970 has enjoyed rapid grow th from similar sources. The post-1945 growth of Japan and Korea was originally based on altogether different scales and types of innovative industrialization - adaptation of foreign technologies, largely in such mature industries as automobiles, steel, and shipbuilding (see also the chapter by Fagerberg and Godinho in this volume). But both of these episodes highlight the importance of broad institutional change, rather than the “strategic importance” of any single industry or technology, similarly to the three “Industrial
Revolutions” described in this chapter. 

 

역사는 일반화를 위한 깔끔한 교훈을 거의 제시하지 않으며, 혁신에 대한 역사적 연구도 예외가 아니다. 우리의 역사적 논의에서 얻은 주요 교훈은 시간, 부문 및 국가 간 혁신 프로세스의 이질성에 관한 것이다.
혁신의 역사적 연구를 안내하는 현존하는 역사적 증거의 대부분은 공식을 강조하는 경향이 있으며 기술 변화를 뒷받침하고 경제적 이익에 기여하는 지식 축적, 학습 및 보급의 비공식적 과정을 모호하게 한다. 추가 연구를 위한 중요한 영역은 특히 "1차 산업 혁명"에 대한 역사적 연구에서 간과되었던 지식 축적과 확산을 위한 비공식적 과정에 대한 우리의 역사적 이해의 풍부함이다. 또한, 우리가 서론에서 지적했듯이, 왜 북서유럽이 아시아나 세계 경제의 일부 다른 지역이 아닌 지속적이고 혁신적인 성장으로 전환하는 첫 번째 중심지였는가 하는 중요한 역사적 미스터리가 남아 있다? 이 오래된 질문에 대한 논의의 상당 부분은 전면적인 일반화에 크게 의존하고 있으며, 이 초기 기간 동안 지속적인 경제 성장으로 전환하기 위한 비유럽 경제의 (주장된) 실패에 대한 더 많은 연구가 필요하다.
시간을 통한 혁신의 정의적 특성 중 하나는 지식과 혁신의 개발과 보급에 영향을 미치는 혁신 시스템의 구조의 변화이다. 1차 산업혁명의 '혁신체제' 특성은 공예 중심의 시행착오 과정에 의존했는데, 이 과정에서 기본적인 목공과 금속공법에 대한 친숙함이 중요했다. 이 기간 동안 광범위한 분야에서 혁신의 급증에 수요 요인이 영향을 미친 것으로 보이는 만큼, 소득 성장과 소비재 시장 확대의 토대를 마련한 제도적 변화도 중요했다.
대조적으로, 2차 산업 혁명을 특징짓는 혁신 시스템의 규모와 조직적 복잡성은 훨씬 더 크다. 공공 R&D 인프라와 상호 작용하는 대기업의 조직적인 혁신 활동으로 특징지어지는 전기 장비 및 화학 산업의 독일 및 미국 기업이 개척한 새로운 혁신 시스템이 등장했다. 이 시기의 혁신 과정은 전례 없는 규모의 대기업 내에서 제도화되었고, 미국의 2차 산업혁명은 거대한 규모와 동질성을 지닌 국가 시장의 창출에 크게 의존하였다.
제3차 산업혁명은 간단히 설명할 수 없지만, 그 특징적인 혁신 시스템은 제2차 산업혁명보다 훨씬 더 큰 범위로 국가에 의존했다. 냉전 기간 동안 개발된 첨단 기술 산업을 위한 연구 개발 자금과 (많은 경우) "첫 번째 고객"으로서의 국가의 역할 또한 또 다른 것에 기여했다
이 책의 파빗의 장에서 강조되는 3차 산업 혁명의 혁신 시스템의 새로운 특징 - 서로 다른 기관 간의 협력과 상호 작용의 증가. 1945년 이후의 군사 동맹과 경제 기구가 "따라잡기"에 필수적인 국제 무역과 자본 흐름의 확장을 지원했기 때문에 국가 조치는 또한 아시아로의 혁신 주도 발전의 확산에 기여했다 또한, 기술 이전과 산업 발전을 위한 아시아 정부의 전략은 매우 중요했다(이 책의 파거버그와 고디뉴 참조)
최근의 역사적 연구는 증기와 직물의 "핵심 부문"을 강조해온 이전의 역사적 연구에 의해 간과된 많은 부문과 관련된 1차 산업화 경제 내의 광범위한 혁신의 분포를 강조한다. 기술 혁신 과정의 이러한 특성화는 혁신 연구에서 개념적 및 이론적 작업에 충분히 통합되지 않았다. 최근의 역사적 증거와 혁신 연구 분야에서 채택된 더 광범위한 개념적 프레임워크의 통합은 미래 연구를 위한 중요한 과제를 나타낸다. 1차 산업혁명의 "선도 산업" 이외의 분야에서 혁신을 뒷받침하는 요소들에 대해서도 더 많은 연구가 필요하다. 비록 특허 자료가 소비재가 그러한 혁신을 위한 중요한 초점이었다는 것을 보여주지만, 이러한 급증을 촉발하는 요인들은 여전히 잘 이해되지 않고 있다. 마찬가지로, 전기 장비 및 화학 산업 외부에서 2차 산업 혁명 동안 조직화된 혁신의 발전은 너무 적은 관심을 받았다.
경영 계층과 기업 통제에서 과학자와 엔지니어의 훈련에 이르는 영역의 제도적 변화는 혁신 성과와 시간이 지남에 따라 혁신 시스템의 구조를 변화시키는 데 중요하다.

많은 경우에 이러한 제도적 변화는 혁신가와 기업가의 압력에 대응하여 발생했으며, 산업과 기술의 변화와 "공진화"하는 것으로 가장 잘 특징지어진다(이 점에 대한 유용한 논의는 Engerman과 Sokoloff, 2003 참조). 독일과 미국 대학 시스템의 변화와 훨씬 더 제한된 영국 대학의 구조 조정은 이러한 공진화의 한 예에 불과합니다; 지적 재산권 시스템의 개발은 또 다른 예입니다. 그러나 그러한 정치적 압력이 발생하는 조건과 그러한 압력의 성공에 기여하는 요인은 여전히 잘 이해되지 않고 있다.
지금은 21세기 "지식 기반 경제"의 특징으로 널리 기념되고 있지만, 과학 기반 혁신은 사실 비교적 최근의 발전이다. 
실제로 20세기 초 미국과 독일에서 산업 내 R&D가 제도화된 이후에도 많이 나타난다. 더욱이, 생명공학과 반도체와 같은 "첨단 기술" 분야에서도 핵심은 "시행착오" 접근법인 실험 방법에 계속 의존하고 있다(Pisano, 1997; Hatch and Mowey, 1998 참조).
우리의 접근 방식은 시간과 지리적 범위 모두에서 제한되어 왔다. 아마도 이 설명에서 가장 중요한 두 가지 누락은 19세기 유럽 내에서 독일을 넘어 산업화의 확산과 1945년 이후 아시아 경제의 부상에 대한 완전한 설명일 것이다(아시아의 경제 "따라잡기" 과정에 대한 자세한 설명은 이 책의 파거버그와 고디뉴 참조). 이러한 사례들 중 첫 번째는 현재 세계에서 가장 부유한 유럽의 소규모 경제가 19세기 동안 기술의 수입과 적응으로부터 혜택을 받았고, 1970년 이후 아일랜드가 유사한 원천으로부터 빠른 성장을 누렸다는 것을 기억하는 것이 중요하다. 1945년 이후의 일본과 한국의 성장은 원래 자동차, 철강, 조선과 같은 성숙한 산업에서 주로 외국 기술의 적응이라는 완전히 다른 규모와 유형의 혁신적인 산업화에 기반을 두었다. 그러나 이 두 에피소드 모두 이 장에서 설명한 세 가지 "산업 혁명"과 유사하게 단일 산업이나 기술의 "전략적 중요성"보다는 광범위한 제도적 변화의 중요성을 강조한다.