201August 21June 13:50 Source: academic journal of zhongzhou (Zhengzhou) 2002 0 1 Page 5 1 ~ 53 Author: Yuan Qingming font size.
Print, modify and share the recommended opinions1111.
Economists have been arguing about the relationship between technological innovation and institutional innovation, whether the former determines the latter or the latter determines the former. This paper holds that the relationship between technological innovation and institutional innovation, whether it is the "technological determinism" of old institutional economists or the "institutional determinism" of new institutional economists, is one-sided, and the relationship between technological innovation and institutional innovation should be an "interactive decision" relationship.
Keywords: technological innovation, institutional innovation, technological determinism and institutional determinism reciprocal determinism
About the author: Yuan Qingming (1966-), male, from Xiangtan, Hunan Province, is an associate professor at the School of Finance of Hunan University, engaged in the research of new institutional economics. School of Finance, Hunan University, Changsha, Hunan 4 10079
Van Buren and Aris' Theory on the Relationship between Technological Innovation and Institutional Innovation
On the relationship between technological innovation and institutional innovation, Van Buren and Aris believe that technological innovation determines institutional innovation, not institutional innovation determines technological innovation, that is, they advocate "technological determinism".
Van Buren's "technological determinism" mainly includes the following three aspects: 1. The material environment (technology) determines the system, because the system, in essence, is a habitual way of thinking when dealing with the stimulation caused by this environment. Therefore, the system will inevitably change with the change of material environment (technology). 2. The material environment (technology) is constantly changing, and the system is the product of the past process. If you adapt to the past environment, you can't keep up with the changing environment (technology) anyway. 3. The system tends to be conservative, unless it has to be changed because of the oppression of the environment (technology), and generally always wants to stick to it indefinitely. (Note: Van Buren: On the Leisure Class, Commercial Press, 1964 Chinese translation, p. 139- 142. While emphasizing that technological change determines institutional innovation, Van Buren does not deny that institutional innovation has certain influence on technological innovation. Van Buren pointed out that the ideological habits contained in the development of the price system "have a lot to do with the rise of modern machine technology." At the same time, the commercial system leads to the introduction and utilization of new technologies based on private interests rather than social interests. (Note: Rutherford: "Institutions in Economics: Old Institutionalism and New Institutionalism", Chinese Social Sciences Press, 1999 Chinese translation, p.115-16. )
Aris's technological determinism is more thorough than Van Buren's. In Aris's view, the system will only hinder technological innovation. Aris believes that human behavior is essentially divided into two kinds: one is technical activities that use tools or affect production, and the other is etiquette activities that strengthen status and authority, that is, systems. The former is dynamic and progressive, while the latter is static and conservative. System has always been an obstacle to progress and change.
North and Ratan on the Relationship between Technological Innovation and Institutional Innovation
On the relationship between technological innovation and institutional innovation, North believes that institutional innovation determines technological innovation, and North advocates "institutional determinism". Ratan believes that although technological innovation and institutional innovation influence each other, one party cannot decide the other, and they are independent of each other, that is, they advocate "mutual indeterminism".
North believes that institutional innovation plays a decisive role in economic growth. Efficient economic organizations are the key to economic growth, and efficient organizations need to make institutional arrangements and establish ownership (Note: North and Thomas: The Rise of the Western World, Huaxia Publishing House, 1999 Chinese translation, p. 5. While affirming the decisive role of institutional innovation in technological innovation, North does not deny that technological innovation has a certain role in institutional innovation.
On the relationship between technological innovation and institutional innovation, the new institutional economist Ratan believes that it is meaningless to argue between technological innovation and institutional innovation. Technological innovation and institutional innovation are interactive and interdependent. He believes that the reasons for technological innovation and institutional innovation are very similar. First, the demand for technological innovation and institutional innovation is very similar. Second, the supply transformation of technological innovation and institutional innovation is formed by similar forces. The progress of scientific and technological knowledge reduces the cost of the new income stream formed by technological innovation, and the progress of social science and related professional knowledge reduces the cost of the new income stream formed by the benefits of institutional efficiency (including the improvement of conflict resolution skills). (Noe: Ratan: Theory of Induced Institutional Change, in Property Rights and Institutional Change, Shanghai Sanlian Bookstore, Shanghai People's Publishing House, 1994, pp. 338-339. )
Marx's Theory on the Relationship between Technological Innovation and Institutional Innovation
In Marx's theory, the concepts of technological innovation and institutional innovation are not explicitly used, but Marx's principle on the dialectical relationship between productivity and production relations is actually a theory on the relationship between technological innovation and institutional innovation. In the category of Marx's productive forces, the means of production and workers are closely combined with certain science and technology. The invention and creation of production tools and the innovative utilization of labor objects are inseparable from the innovation of science and technology; Laborers must also master and apply science and technology in order to constantly solve the contradiction between people and things and promote the development of productive forces. It can be considered that technological innovation belongs to the category of productive forces, and the development of productive forces is largely the result of technological innovation. Marx's category of production relations refers to some relations that occur in social production and are not transferred by human will. In fact, it is the economic rules and contracts related to the relations between production, distribution, exchange and consumption, that is, various institutional arrangements. It can be considered that the system belongs to the category of production relations, and the change of production relations is actually a process of institutional innovation. Regarding the dialectical relationship between productive forces and production relations, Marx believes that productive forces and their development and changes determine the nature and development of social production relations, that is, the development and changes of technology determine the changes of the system. It is the internal changes of technology and productivity that cause the external inadaptability of the original production relations, thus causing the changes of production relations.
Marx not only emphasized the decisive role of productive forces in production relations, but also attached great importance to the great reaction of production relations to productive forces, that is, the great role of institutional innovation in technological innovation. When expounding the relationship between productive forces and production relations, Marx pointed out that when a production relationship adapts to the nature and conditions of productive forces, it will greatly promote the development of productive forces, while when the production relationship does not adapt to the nature and conditions of productive forces, it will hinder the development of productive forces. When a kind of relations of production can't adapt to the nature and condition of productive forces, only by revolutionary means can we overthrow the old relations of production, that is, carry out institutional innovation, thus promoting the development of productive forces and technological innovation.
The proposition of "reciprocal determinism" and the evaluation of the above viewpoints
The author thinks that technological innovation and institutional innovation not only develop dynamically, but also evolve and develop in mutual influence and promotion. In the dynamic development of technological innovation and institutional innovation, technological innovation is a basic decisive force, which promotes and determines institutional reform and innovation. With the innovation of some basic systems, the system has increasingly become the decisive driving force of technological innovation, and there is an interactive relationship between technological innovation and institutional innovation.
Productivity and technology are constantly developing and progressing, because both the development of productivity and the progress of technology have their inherent motivation, which is the internal contradiction between the components of productivity and the internal foundation of productivity development and technological progress. Among them, the interaction between laborers and labor materials (mainly production tools) is the most basic driving force for the development of productive forces, and it is the contradictory movement between them that promotes the development of productive forces. Laborers are the dominant factor in production. Workers reform production tools (that is, technological innovation) in order to reduce labor intensity and improve labor efficiency (except for the purpose of improving production tools in order to increase exploitation in class society). With the continuous improvement of production tools, workers' production experience and labor skills are also constantly improving, which in turn will promote the transformation of production tools. It can be seen that the development of productive forces and technological progress is the process of interaction between workers and production tools.
The development of productive forces and technological progress will inevitably have a decisive impact on the reform of the system. Its main performance is that the original system will not meet the requirements of productivity development and technological progress, and the core elements of productivity-the enthusiasm of workers for production and technological innovation will be suppressed to some extent. At this time, the reform and innovation of the system has become an objective and inevitable requirement. Whether the system innovation can effectively promote the development of productive forces and technological progress is the basis for judging whether the new system has vitality. It is in this sense that we say that the development of productive forces and technological progress determine the reform and innovation of the system.
Once the system that adapts to the development of productive forces and technological progress is innovated (inseparable from people's subjective promotion), it will in turn have a great impetus to technological progress. Especially with the establishment of intellectual property system, competitive market system and other basic systems conducive to technological progress, the promotion of system to technological innovation has far exceeded the promotion of inherent spontaneous forces in production. It is in this sense that the reform and innovation of the system really play a decisive role in technological progress. Therefore, the relationship between technological progress and institutional innovation can be seen as: dynamic technological progress is the primary driving force for institutional change and innovation, and once the fundamental system conducive to technological innovation is innovated, it will in turn have a decisive role in promoting technological progress. In this way, technological innovation and institutional innovation have evolved and developed in mutual promotion and mutual decision.
According to whether technological innovation and institutional innovation are viewed dynamically, various theories about their relationship can be roughly divided into four types: one is that technological innovation is dynamic, institutional innovation is static, and institutional innovation is only a spontaneous derivative of technological innovation; Second, institutional innovation is dynamic and technological innovation is static, and technological innovation is only a spontaneous derivative of institutional innovation; Thirdly, the dynamic process of technological innovation and institutional innovation is treated in parallel, and it is considered that although they influence each other, there is no decisive interaction, so there is no relationship between who decides who; Fourthly, the dynamic process of institutional innovation and technological innovation is cross-processing, and it is considered that there is a decisive role of dialectical interaction between them.
Obviously, Van Buren's "technological determinism", especially Aris's, belongs to the first type mentioned above. Van Buren and Aris emphasize the decisive role of technological innovation in institutional innovation, and think that only technological innovation is the only driving factor, and institutional innovation is always passive, lagging and relatively static. North's "institutional determinism" represents the second theory about the relationship between technological innovation and institutional innovation. Institutional innovation is considered to be the only decisive factor of economic growth and technological innovation, while technological innovation is only a concomitant determined by institutional innovation. In North's theory, although institutional innovation is dynamic, technological innovation is relatively static. North's problem lies in denying that the development of technological innovation itself has inherent regularity and relative independence and its decisive role in institutional innovation. In fact, the ultimate reason and fundamental driving force of institutional innovation is precisely technological progress and productivity development. As far as the patent system is concerned, it was established to meet the objective requirements of greater technological progress. Although North also talked about the influence of technological innovation on institutional innovation, in North's theoretical framework, the influence of technological innovation on institutional innovation is basically static, not in a dynamic development process.
Then, like Ratan, is it correct to regard technology and system as an innovation process determined by some * * * same reasons. Although they influence each other, there is no situation that one party takes precedence over the other? The question here is whether we can draw a conclusion from some similarities between the causes of technological innovation and institutional innovation. There is no decisive role between them, obviously not. For example, Ratan believes that the increase of land price relative to labor price is the same reason as the technological change that leads to some land saving and the change of land property right system (note: ibid., p. 338). Therefore, there is no question whether the technological change of land-saving use or the change of land property right system plays a decisive role, but we have to ask: what determines the increase of land price relative to labor price? Obviously, it is the result of population growth caused by technological progress. It still shows the decisive role of technological progress in institutional change.
Of all the theories about the relationship between technological innovation and institutional innovation, only Marx's principle of productive forces and relations of production is the only one that dialectically views the relationship between them dynamically. Therefore, compared with the above viewpoints, Marx's theory on the relationship between technological innovation and institutional innovation is more comprehensive and scientific. Of course, the relationship between technological innovation and institutional innovation can't just stay on the basic principles of Marx's productivity and production relations. We believe that technological innovation and institutional innovation are a dynamic evolution process of "interactive decision-making". Among them, technological innovation plays a fundamental and decisive role in the sense of fundamentally requiring institutional innovation; The innovation of some basic systems plays a decisive role in technological innovation and is a prerequisite for realizing technological innovation.