Search

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are pushed to introduce new technologies due to different requirements and changes in the business setting. The SMEs' transformation to exploit new technologies is challenging given their lack of resources and the complexity of technological transformation, which encompasses technology assimilation and business model innovation (BMI). Although studies recognize the complementarity of technology assimilation and BMI for benefiting from technology, the literature is fragmented, and the technological transformation phenomenon remains abstract, especially in the SMEs' context. To improve understanding of technological transformation in SMEs, a systematic literature review was performed on 165 peer-reviewed papers published from 1999 to 2022, building upon BMI and technology assimilation constructs. The descriptive analysis outlines the field's evolution in terms of research and technological trends. The content analysis shows that: most papers focus on factors; the literature falls short of providing theoretical conceptualization and guidelines for the technological transformation process; only a few studies are dedicated to assessing the outcomes of technological transformation in SMEs; and the papers suggest that SMEs present a low transformation level. Finally, we inductively built a framework for technological transformation and suggest five research avenues.

Abstract:Research on institutional change has flourished ever since the debate on agency and structure has moved away from the previously uncompromising positions in which either agency or structure was emphasized. A conceptual compromise is sought here in a focus on the processes of institutionalization, which allows one to move beyond the idea that institutions are mere mental constructs or the point of view that behavior is the mere reproduction of institutional patterns. Contributing to an understanding of the processes of institutional change, this paper analyzes institutional change as instigated by tensions, triggered by agents’ discrepancies berween concrete institutional settings and the socio-economic values these are to represent. The Social Value Nexus that is presented introduces an emphasis on the perceived legitimacy of institutions. Describing (types of) tensions berween socio-cultural values and institutional settings, the paper explores how structure, agency and values interact in processes of institutional change.

AbstractNew Institutional Economics (NIE) claims that Silent Trade exists. Indeed, it would constitute the first step ‘as trade moves beyond the border of the village’ (North). In this brief article we show both that Silent Trade – trade between parties who have only the most minimal of a shared frame of reference, without direct contact – has not existed and that NIE cannot account for the representational re-description and change in governance structure that it would entail. At least on the issue of language and learning, NIE is categorically different from Original Institutional Economics (OIE).

In recent years, economics has paid increasing attention to the phenomenon of consumption. Insights from outside of the mainstream and from outside of economics proper have found inroads as well. Largely neglected in previous decades, consumption theory in economics was the exclusive domain for technical discussions only for a long time, as the articles selected by the late Kevin Lancaster show. Consumption of many goods is, however, highly symbolic—consumption behavior is in large part about institutionalized communication where instrumental considerations do not necessarily play an important role. Some of the most promising ideas that can be developed further in economics to better understand consumption behavior are presented.

Economists can reflect on their own field of research and themselves in a number of ways. The philosophy of science has long been the dominant way to reflect on the work of scientists, to be joined in more recent times by both the sociology of science and the rhetoric of science. In this paper I do not argue that these approaches are wrong, but I do argue that they should be complemented with a study of the individual scientist. A psychology of economists, in other words, is called for. One important theory in recent psychological literature (social learning/cognitive theory) is introduced as an instance to indicate what kind of suggestions concerning the reflective position of individual scientists might be derived. It would be preferable from this perspective that scientists set high standards for themselves, have an open mind to what happens in different disciplines, and set high standards by which to judge others. Then follows a discussion where some potential objections to the approach in general, or to the specific psychological theory in particular, are refuted.