Socio-technical system innovation
An analysis of the dynamics of the poultry meat production sector in Argentina
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-534Keywords:
socio-technical system innovation, convergent framework, poultry meatAbstract
This article presents the results of the analysis of the dynamics of the socio-technical system of production and innovation of poultry meat in Argentina. Starting from a convergent framework, with contributions from the social studies of technology and the neo-Schumpeterian evolutionary economics oriented to complex systems, it focuses on analyzing the historical evolution of the aforementioned system. The authors of this study have used several inputs from the Actor Network Theory (ART) and the statistical analysis of social networks. The conclusions suggest that there are theoretical and political questions involved. From a theoretical point of view, this article demonstrates the potentially explanatory framework from both academic trajectories converged in the Latin American field of Science, Technology and Society (STS). From a political point of view, it allows a critical analysis of techno-economic and sociopolitical networks of the production hubs of poultry meat in Argentina, its development limitations and challenges to renew the country’s present science and technology policies.
Downloads
References
ANTONELLI, C. (2011): Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, Cheltenham, Cheltenham y Northampton, Edward Elgar.
BARABASI, A. (2002): Linked - The new science of networks, Cambridge, Perseus Publishing.
BIJKER, W.; HUGHES, T. y PINCH, T. (1987): The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, Cambridge, The MIT Press.
BRUUN, H. y HUKKINEN, J. (2003): “Crossing boundaries: An integrative framework for studying technological change”, Social Studies of Science, vol. 33, nº 1, pp. 95- 116.
CALLON, M. (1992): “The dynamics of Techno-economic Networks”, en R. Coombs, P. Saviotti y V. Walsh: Technological Changes and Company Strategies: Economical and Sociological Perspectives, Londres, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers.
CALLON, M. (2001): “Redes Tecno-económicas e irreversibilidad”, REDES, vol. 8, nº 17, pp. 85-126.
CONSTANCE, D.; MARTINEZ, F.; y ABOITES, G. (2010): “The Globalization of the Poultry Industry: Tyson Foods and Pilgrim’s Pride in Mexico”, en Bonanno, A. (et. al) eds. “From Community to Consumption: New and Classical Statements in Rural Sociological Research. Research in Rural Sociology and Development”. Volúmen 16, UK. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. Pp. 59-76
DAGNINO, R.; THOMAS, H. y DAVYT, A. (1996): “El pensamiento latinoamericano en ciencia, tecnología, y sociedad en Latinoamérica. Una interpretación política de su trayectoria”, REDES, vol. 3, nº 7, pp. 13-51.
DIMAGGIO, P. (1995): “Comments on “What theory is not””, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 40, nro. 3, pp. 391–397.
DOPFER, K. (2011): “Mesoeconomics: A Unified Approach to Systems Complexity and Evolution”, en C. Antonelli: Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, Cheltenham y Northampton, Edward Elgar.
DOSI, G.; LECHEVALIER, S. y SECCHIY, A. (2010): “Introduction: Interfirm heterogeneity—nature, sources and consequences for industrial dynamics”, Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 19, nº 6, pp. 1867–1890.
FOSTER, J. (2005): “From simplistic to complex systems in economics”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 29, pp. 873-892.
FOSTER, J. y METCALFE, S. (2009): “Evolution and economic complexity: an overview”, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, vol. 18, nº 7, pp. 607-610.
GEELS, F. (2009): “Foundational ontologies and multi-paradigm analysis, applied to the socio-technical transition from mixed farming to intensive pig husbandry (1930- 1980”, Technolohgy Analysis & Strategic Management, vol. 21, nº 7, pp. 805-832.
GEELS, F. (2004): “From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory”, Research Policy, vol. 33, nº 6/7, pp. 897-920.
GEREFFI, G.; LEE, J. y BEAUVAIS, J. (2012): “Global Value Chains and Agrifood Standards: Challenges and Possibilities for Smallholders in Developing Countries”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 109, nº 31, pp. 12326-12331.
GIOIA, D. y PITRE, E. (1990): “Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 15, pp. 584–602.
HARAWAY, D. (1999): “Las promesas de los monstruos: Una política regeneradora para otros inapropiadosíbles”, Política y Sociedad, vol. 30, pp. 121-63.
KREIMER, P. y THOMAS, H. (2004): “Un poco de reflexividad o ¿de dónde venimos? Estudios sociales de le ciencia y la tecnología en América Latina”, en P. Kreimer et al (eds.): Producción y uso social de conocimientos, Estudios de sociología de la ciencia en América Latina, Bernal, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, pp. 11-90.
LATOUR, B. (2007): Nunca fuimos modernos. Ensayo de antropología simétrica, Buenos Aires, Siglo XXI.
LATOUR, B. (2008): Reensamblar lo social. Una introducción a la teoría del actor red, Buenos Aires, Manantial.
LAW, J. (1987): “Technology and heterogeneous engineering: the case of Portuguese expansion”, en W. Bijker, T. Hughes y T. Pinch (eds.): The social construction of technical systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology, Cambridge, MIT Press, pp. 111-134
LEPRATTE, L., THOMAS, H., YOGUEL, G. (2011): “Sistemas sociotécnicos, innovación y desarrollo”, MPRA Paper, nº 33559.
MERTON, R. (1968): Social theory and social structure, Glencoe, Free Press.
METCALFE, S. (2010): “Dancing in the dark, la disputa por el concepto de competencia”, Desarrollo Económico, vol. 50, nº 197, pp. 59-79.
PINCH, T. (1996): “The social construction of technology: A review”, en R. Fox (ed.): Technological change: Methods and themes in the history of technology, Amsterdam, Harwood, pp. 17–36.
RIVERA RÍOS, M. (2010): Desarrollo económico y cambio institucional. Una aproximación al estudio del atraso económico y el desarrollo tardío desde la perspectiva sistémica, México, UNAM.
ROBERT, V. y YOGUEL, G. (2011): “La dinámica compleja de la innovación y el desarrollo económico”, en C. Antonelli (2001): Handbook on the complexity of technological change, Reino Unido, EE Publishing, pp. 417.
SCHUMPETER, J. (1947): “The creative response in economic history”, Journal of Economic History, vol. 7, nº 2, pp. 149-159.
THOMAS, H. (2008): “Estructuras cerradas vs. Procesos dinámicos: trayectorias y estilos de innovación y cambio tecnológico”, en H. Thomas y A. Buch (voords.): Actos, actores y artefactos. Sociología de la tecnología, Bernal, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.
WEICK, K. (1999): “Theory construction as disciplined reflexivity: Tradeoff in the 90s”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 24, nro. 4, pp. 797-806.
YOGUEL, G. y ROBERT, V. (2010): “Capacities, Processes and Feedbacks, The Complex Dynamics of Development”, Seoul Journal of Economics, vol. 23, nº 2, pp. 187-237.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 CC Attribution 4.0
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All CTS's issues and academic articles are under a CC-BY license.
Since 2007, CTS has provided open and free access to all its contents, including the complete archive of its quarterly edition and the different products presented in its electronic platform. This decision is based on the belief that offering free access to published materials helps to build a greater and better exchange of knowledge.
In turn, for the quarterly edition, CTS allows institutional and thematic repositories, as well as personal web pages, to self-archive articles in their post-print or editorial version, immediately after the publication of the final version of each issue and under the condition that a link to the original source will be incorporated into the self-archive.
