Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T05:54:06.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institutions, Elites, and Technological Change in France and Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

J. Nicholas Ziegler
J. Nicholas Ziegler
Affiliation:
Sloan School of Management, MIT
Get access

Abstract

Most comparative studies of public strategies for competitiveness focus on the links between public agencies and industrial sectors. This paper argues that the professions—or knowledge-bearing elites—that animate these organizational links are equally significant. For public policies to promote technological advance, the visions and self-images of knowledge-bearing elites are particularly important. By examining administrative and technical elites in France and Germany in the 1980s, the paper identifies characteristics that enable these elites to implement policy in some cases but not in others. France's “state-created” elites were well positioned to initiate and implement large technology projects, such as digitizing the telecommunications network. By contrast, Germany's state-recognized elites were better positioned to facilitate framework-oriented programs aimed at the diffusion of new technologies throughout industry. The linkages between administrative and technical elites also explain why French policymakers had difficulty adapting policy to changing circumstances over time, whereas German policymakers managed in many cases to learn more from previous policy experiences and to adapt subsequent initiatives accordingly.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , April 1995 , pp. 341 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1995

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

1 Interest in this concept can be traced back to Shonfield, Andrew, Modem Capitalism: The Changing Balance of Public and Private Power (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965)Google Scholar. More recent examples include Albert, Michel, Capitalism against Capitalism (London: Whurr, 1993)Google Scholar; Garten, Jeffrey E., A Cold Peace: America, Japan, Germany, and the Struggle for Supremacy (New York: Times Books, 1992)Google Scholar; Hart, Jeffrey A., Rival Capitalists: International Competitiveness in the United States, Japan, and Western Europe (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Porter, Michael, The Competitive Advantage of Nations (New York: Free Press, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Soskice, David, “The Institutional Infrastructure for International Competitiveness: A Comparative Analysis of the U.K. and Germany,” in Atkinson, Anthony B. and Brunetta, Renato, eds., The Economics of the New Europe (London: Macmillan, 1993)Google Scholar.

2 For example, Best, Michael, The New Competition (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Wernerfelt, Birger, “A Resource-Based View of the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal 5 (April-June 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Peteraf, Margaret A., “The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View,” Strategic Management Journal 14 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Romer, Paul, “Endogenous Technical Change,” journal of Political Economy 98 (October 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Grossman, Gene and Helpman, Elhanan, Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

3 For example, Kogut, Bruce, ed., Country Competitiveness: Technology and the Organizing of Work (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Porter (fn. 1); Reich, Robert, The Work of Nations (New York: Random House, 1991)Google Scholar; and Thurow, Lester, Head to Head: The Looming Economic Battle among Japan, Europe, and America (New York: Morrow, 1991)Google Scholar.

4 For important examples, see Katzenstein, Peter, Small States in World Markets: Industrial Policy in Europe (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Wright, Maurice and Wilks, Stephen, eds., Comparative Government-Industry Relations: Western Europe, the United States, and Japan (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Zysman, John, Government, Markets, and Growth: Financial Systems and the Politics of Industrial Change (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

5 March, James P. and Olsen, Johan P., “The New Institutionalism,” American Political Science Review 78 (September 1984)Google Scholar.

6 Skocpol, Theda, “Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research,” in Evans, Peter B., Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and Skocpol, Theda, eds., Bringing the State Back In (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 16Google Scholar.

7 Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol, “On the Road toward a More Adequate Understanding of the State,” in Evans, Rueschemeyer, and Skocpol (fn. 6), 351, 359.

8 Important examples include Katzenstein, Peter, “Conclusion,” in , Katzenstein, ed., Between Power and Plenty: Foreign Economic Policies of Advanced Industrial States (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Atkinson, William and Coleman, Michael, “Strong States and Weak States: Sectoral Policy Networks in Advanced Capitalist Economies,” British Journal of Political Science 19 (January 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Stephen Wilks and Maurice Wright, “Conclusion: Comparing Government-Industry Relations: States, Sectors, and Networks,” in Wright and Wilks (fn. 4). This literature is reviewed in Rhodes, R. A. W., “Policy Networks: A British Perspective,” Journal of Theoretical Policies 2, no. 3 (1990)Google Scholar; and Kenis, Patrick and Schneider, Volker, “Policy Networks and Policy Analysis: Scrutinizing a New Analytical Toolbox,” in Marin, Bernd and Mayntz, Renate, eds., Policy Networks: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations (Frankfurt: Campus, 1991)Google Scholar.

9 For such informal links, see Peter Katzenstein, “Small Nations in an Open International Economy,” in Evans, Rueschemeyer, and Skocpol (fn. 6), 233, 243; and Wilks and Wright (fn. 8), 284ff.

10 Atkinson and Coleman (fn. 8); Wilks and Wright (fn. 8); and Feigenbaum, Harvey B., The Politics of Public Enterprise (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 See Vogel, David, National Styles of Regulation: Environmental Policy in Great Britain and the United States (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1986), esp. 284Google Scholar; and Samuels, Richard J., The Business of the Japanese: State Energy Markets in Comparative and Historical Perspective (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1987)Google Scholar.

12 The literature on elites is critically reviewed in Bottomore, Tom B., Elites and Society, 2d ed. (New York: Basic Books, 1964), esp. chaps. 1, 3Google Scholar; and Putnam, Robert D., The Comparative Study of Political Elites (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976)Google Scholar.

13 For example, Keller, Suzanne, Beyond the Ruling Class: Strategic Elites in Modern Society (New York: Random House, 1963)Google Scholar.

14 Lipset, Seymour Martin and Solari, Aldo, eds., Elites in Latin America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967)Google Scholar. See also Putnam (fn. 12), chap. 5.

15 Putnam, Robert D., Beliefs of Politicians: Ideology, Conflict, and Democracy in Britain and Italy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973)Google Scholar; Suleiman, Ezra, Elites in French Society: The Politics of Survival (Princeton University Press, 1978), esp. 9–10Google Scholar.

16 See the essays in Haas, Peter M., ed., International Organization 46 (Winter 1992)Google Scholar; and Hall, Peter A., ed., The Political Power of Economic Ideas: Keynesianism across Nations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989)Google Scholar.

17 Meyer, John W. and Rowan, Brian, “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony,” in Powell, Walter W. and DiMaggio, Paul J., eds., The New Institutionalise! in Organizational Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

18 March, James and Olsen, Johan, Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics (New York: Free Press, 1989), 160ffGoogle Scholar.

19 Ergas, , “Does Technology Policy Matter?” in Guile, Bruce R. and Brooks, Harvey, Technology and Global Industry: Companies and Nations in the World Economy (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1987)Google Scholar.

20 The term “occupational group” is central to Emile Durkheim's work, where it refers to groups of individuals who perform similar activities in the division of labor, but whose traditional capacity for “corporative” organization was lost in nineteenth-century France through industrialization and the replacement of town-based commerce by national markets. See Durkheim, , Durkheim on Politics and the State, ed. Giddens, Anthony and trans. Hall, W. D. (Cambridge: Polity, 1986), 73–77Google Scholar. Among the important contributions on Germany's craft occupations that have been informed by the Durkheimian perspective, see especially Sabel, Charles F., Work and Politics: The Division of Labor in Industry (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Streeck, Wolfgang, Social Institutions and Economic Performance: Studies of Industrial Relations in Advanced Capitalist Economies (London: Sage, 1992)Google Scholar. For the related concept of occupational prestige, see Ganzeboom, Harry B. G., Graaf, Paul M. De, and Trieman, Donald J., “A Standard International Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Status,” Social Science Research 21 (March 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Prandy, Ken, “The Revised Cambridge Scale of Occupations,” Sociology 24 (November 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Parsons, , “The Professions and Social Structure,” quoted in Larson, Magali Sarfatti, The Rise of Professionalism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), xiiiGoogle Scholar.

22 Treiman, Donald J., Occupational Prestige in Comparative Perspective (New York: Academic Press, 1977)Google Scholar.

23 See Torstendahl, Rolf and Burrage, Michael, eds., The Formation of Professions: Knowledge, State and Strategy (London: Sage, 1990)Google Scholar; and Burrage, Michael and Torstendahl, Rolf, eds., Professions in Theory and History: Rethinking the Study of the Professions (London: Sage, 1990)Google Scholar.

24 Abbott, Andrew, The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988)Google Scholar. See also Maanen, John Van and Barley, Stephen R., “Occupational Communities: Culture and Control in Organizations,” Research in Organizational Behavior 6 (1984)Google Scholar.

25 Larson (fn. 21), esp. 50ff.

26 Hughes, , “Professions,” Daedalus (Fall 1963), 657Google Scholar.

27 Jürgen Kocka, “‘Bürgertum' and the Professions in the Nineteenth Century,” and other essays, in Torstendahl and Burrage (fn. 23). See also McClelland, Charles E., The German Experience of Professionalization: Modern Learned Professions and Their Organizations from the Early Nineteenth Century to the Hitler Era (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 The French profession and German Beruf both translate as occupation, whereas the Germany freie Berufe refers specifically to self-employed rather than salaried specialists. These issues are discussed in McClelland (fn. 27), 15–16; and Kocka (fn. 27).

29 This term is from Suleiman (fn. 15). See also Shinn, Terry, “Reactionary Technologists: The Struggle over the Ecole Polytechnique, 1880–1914,” Minerva 22 (Autumn 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Lund-green, Peter, “Engineering Education in Europe and the U.S.A., 1750–1930: The Rise to Dominance of School Culture and the Engineering Professions,” Annals of Science 47 (January 1990)Google Scholar.

30 Hoffmann, Stanley, “Paradoxes of the French Political Community,” Hoffmann, in, In Search of France (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), 73Google Scholar.

31 On French occupational hierarchies, see Crozier, Michel, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965)Google Scholar; Maurice, Marc, Sellier, François, and Silvestre, Jean-Jacques, The Social Foundations of Industrial Poiver: A Comparison of France and Germany, trans. Goldhammer, A. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1982, 1986)Google Scholar; and Crawford, Stephen, Technical Workers in an Advanced Society: The Work, Careers and Politics of French Engineers (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989)Google Scholar.

32 Lundgreen, Peter, “Die Vertrerung technischer Expertise 'im Interesse der gesamten Industrie Deutschlands' durch den VDI 1856 bis 1890,” and other essays in Ludwig, Karl Heinz, ed., Technik, Ingenieure und Gesellschaft: Geschìchte des Vereins Deutscher Ingenieure, 1856–1981 (Düsseldorf: VDI-Verlag, 1981)Google Scholar. See also the essays in Conze, Werner and Kocka, Jürgen, eds., Bildungsburgertum im 19. Jahrhundert: Bildungssystem und Professionalisierung in international Vergleichen (Stuttgart: KlettCotta, 1985)Google Scholar; Cocks, Geoffrey and Jarausch, Konrad H., eds., German Professions, 1800–1950 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990)Google Scholar; and Nolan, Mary L., Visions of Modernity: American Business and the Modernization of Germany (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

33 Schriewer, Jürgen, “Intermediäre Instanzen, Selbstverwaltung und berufliche Ausbildungsstrukturen im historischen Vergleich,” Zeitschriftfiir Padagogik 32, no. 1 (1986)Google Scholar.

34 Sorge, Arndt and Streeck, Wolfgang, “Industrial Relations and Technical Change: The Case for an Extended Perspective,” in Hyman, Richard and Streeck, Wolfgang, eds., New Technology and Indus-trial Relations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1988)Google Scholar.

35 Important examples include Sabel (fn. 20); Piore, Michael and Sabel, Charles, The Second Indus-trial Divide: Possibilitiesfor Prosperity (New York: Basic Books, 1984)Google Scholar.

36 Sources for this account include Bertho, Catherine, Télégraphies et téléphones: de Valmy au microfrocesseur (Paris: Livres de Poche, 1982)Google Scholar; and Cohen, Elie, Le Colbertisme “High Tech”: Economic des telecommunications et du grand projet (Paris: Hachette, 1992)Google Scholar.

37 For the ingénieurs des télécommunications, see Vedel, Thierry, “Les ingénieurs des télécommunications,” Culture technique 12 (March 1984)Google Scholar; Bertho (fn. 36), 453ff. For most of this century the full name of the French PTT—which combined postal, telegraph, and telephone administrations—was Postes, Télégraphes et Téléphones. Details are provided in Libois, Louis-Joseph, Genèse et croissance des télécommunications (Paris: Masson, 1983), 196, 202Google Scholar.

38 Rugès, , Le téléphone pour tous (Paris: du Seuil, 1970)Google Scholar.

39 Libois (fn. 37).

40 With semielectronic switches control and billing functions were controlled by computers, and contact between parties was still made by miniature physical relays. With fully electronic switches the contact function is also effected by computer, but voice signals are transmitted as digitized bit streams.

41 For French telecommunications in the 1970s and 1980s, see Ziegler, J. Nicholas, “The State and Technological Advance: Public Efforts for Industrial Change in France and the Federal Republic of Germany, 1972–1986” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1989)Google Scholar; as well as Alan Cawson, Peter Holmes, and Anne Stevens, “The Interaction between Firms and the State in France: The Telecommunications and Consumer Electronics Sectors,” in Wright and Wilks (fn. 4).

42 For German telecommunications, see Ziegler (fn. 41); Cawson, Alan et al. , Hostile Brothers: Com-petition and Closure in the European Electronics Industry (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990)Google Scholar; and Werle, Raymund, Telekommunikation in der Bundesrepublik: Expansion, Differenzierung, Transformation (Frankfurt: Campus, 1990)Google Scholar.

43 Kocka, Jürgen, Unternehnemsverwaltung und Angestelltenschaft am Beispiel Siemens, 1847—1914 (Stuttgart: Ernst Klett, 1969), 148–92Google Scholar.

44 Siemens, Georg, Geschichte des Houses Siemens (Munich: Karl Alber, 1952), 3:38ffGoogle Scholar.

45 Loesche, Karl-Heinz and Leuthold, Dieter, DeTeWe Chronik: Tecbnisch-historisch Betrachtung des Firmengeschehens (Berlin: Deutsche Telephonwerke und Kabelindustrie, 1970), 131, 199 n. 72Google Scholar.

46 Deutsche Bundespost, Geschaftsbericht (1982, 1983, 1984); Niopek, Walter, Innovationsverhalten offentlicher Unternehmen: Determinanten, Typen und Funktionen (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1986), 179, 181Google Scholar.

47 Bundespost memorandum, quoted in Mettler-Meibom, Barbara, Breitband technologie: über die Chancen soxialer Vernunft in technologiepolitiscben Entscheidungsprozessen (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1986), 301Google Scholar; translation by author.

48 Author interview with former official of the Bundespost, Bonn, November 1988. See also “Schwarzer Freitag in Miinchen: die Entwicklung des elektronischen Wählsystems für das Telephon muß gestoppt werden,” Die Zeit, February 2, 1979Google Scholar; “Die Post ist frei,” Die Zeit, March 2, 1979Google Scholar.

49 French policies toward this sector are analyzed in Ziegler (fn. 41). For the sector's performance, see Maurice, Marc and Sorge, Arndt, “Dynamique industrielle et capacité d'innovation de l'industrie de la machine-outil en France et en RFA: Analyse sociétale des rapports entre ‘espace de qualification’ et ‘espace industriel’” (Aix-en-Provence: LEST, January 1989)Google Scholar; and Lutz, Burkart and Veltz, Pierre, “Maschinenbauer versus Informatiker,” in Dü;ll, Klaus and Lutz, Burkart, eds., Technikentiuicklung und Arbeitsteilung itn intemationalen Vergleich (Frankfurt and New York: Campus, 1989)Google Scholar.

50 Author interviews with former officials from the Ministry of Industry, Paris, December 1988. See also Le Monde, January 13, 1976; Nouvel Economiste 297 (August 3, 1981), 28–29Google Scholar; Le Monde, December 3, 1981, p. 1; I'Usine nouvelle, December 3, 1981, pp. 66–68; and I'Usine nouvelle, December 10, 1981, pp. 82–83.

51 Shonfield, Andrew, Modern Capitalism (London: Oxford University Press, 1965), 138Google Scholar.

52 This debate within the Comité d'Orientation des Industries Stratégiques (CODIS) is recounted in Dacier, Pierre, Levet, Jean-Louis, and Tourret, Jean-Claude, Les dossiers noirs de tindustrie française (Paris: Fayard, 1985), 345–54Google Scholar, an account by individuals involved in subsequent policy-making.

53 Le Monde, December 2, 1980; l'Usine nouvelle, January 29, 1981, p. 52; I'Usine nouvelle, June 25, 1981, p. 38.

54 For instruments and projected disbursements, see “Machine-outil: une industrie refaçonnée,” l'Usine nouvelle, December 10, 1981.

55 Unidentified observer quoted in l'Usine nouvelle, June 10, 1982, p. 147: “Siles dépôts de bilan et les liquidations de biens se poursuivent, je vois mal comment on constituera des entreprises fécondes en mariant des cadavres.”

56 Boucher, Eric Le, “La Crise de la machine-outil francaise,” Le Monde, June 11, 1983Google Scholar.

57 Beaujolin, François, Vouloir l'industrie: pratique syndicale et politique industrielle (Paris: Editions ouvrières, 1982), 152Google Scholar.

58 Dacier, Levet, and Tourret (fn. 52), 343.

59 Edmonson, James M., From Mé;camcien to Ingénieur: Technical Education and the Machine Building Industry in Nineteenth-Century France (New York: Garland, 1987)Google Scholar.

60 Maurice, Sellier, and Silvestre (fn. 31).

61 Dacier, Levet, and Tourret (fn. 52), 342; translation by author.

62 This view is given in Maurice and Sorge (fn. 49), who document the discontinuities in France's skill base for metalworking but emphasize the mismatch between France's largely “artisanal” machine-tool producers and their Taylorist customers. For an analysis that stresses the skill deficit, see Lutz and Veltz (fn. 49).

63 Author interview with personnel director, Societe NUM, Nanterre, December 1988. This figure compares favorably with the legal minimum (1.1%), the average for mechanical engineering (1.26%), and the average for all French business (1.83%), according to Groupe de Strategie Industrielle, no. 11, “De la mécanique traditionelle a la productique” (Paris: Commmissariat Général du Plan, April 1983).

64 Revenues and exports from l'Usine nouvelle, March 26, 1981; l'Usine nouvelle, June 10, 1982; and information supplied by NUM.

65 On NUM's relations with Swiss and German firms, see especially Les Echos, December 14, 1981; and NC Fertiping (July 1988), 70ff.

66 This account is extracted from Ziegler (fn. 41). Additional sources on the German machine-tool sector include Hirsch-Kreinsen, Hartmut, “Technische Entwicklungslinien und ihre Konsequenzen fur die Arbeitsgestaltung,” in Hirsch-Kreinsen, and Schultz-Wild, Rainer, eds., Rechnerintegrierte Produktion (New York: Campus, 1986)Google Scholar; Lutz and Veltz (fn. 49); and Herrigel, Gary, “Industrial Order and the Politics of Industrial Change: Mechanical Engineering,” in Katzenstein, Peter, ed., Industry and Politics in West Germany: Toward the Third Republic (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press, 1989)Google Scholar.

67 For Strukturpolitik, see Hauff, Vblker and Scharpf, Fritz, Technologiepolitik als Strukturpolitik (Frankfurt: Europäische Verlagsanstalt, 1975)Google Scholar; BMFT, Bundesbericht Forschung vi (Bonn: BMFT, 1979), 15–16Google Scholar; and Wirtschafts-woche (March 14, 1980).

68 Osnabrücker Zeitung, October 22, 1982; BMFT brochure, Neuorientierung der Forschungs- und Technologiepolitik (Bonn: BMFT, 1984)Google Scholar. For further analysis of these developments, see Stucke, Andreas, Institutionahsierung der forschungspohtik: Entstehung, Entwicklung und Steuerungsprobleme des Bundesforschungsministeriums (Frankfurt: Campus, 1993)Google Scholar, esp. 171, 173.

69 For an analysis of this program and component projects, see Lütz, Susanne, Die Steuerung industrieller Forschungskooferation: Funitionsweise und Erfolgsbedingungen des staatlichen Fb'rderinstrumentes Verbundforschung (Frankfurt: Campus, 1993)Google Scholar.

70 For the pilot program on the application of microelectronics, see BMFT, program brochures; and Revermann, Heinrich, ed., Wirkungsanalyse zum “Sonderprogramm Anwendung der Mikroelektronik” (Haar bei Miinchen: Markt ScTechnik, 1986)Google Scholar. For the other programs, see BMFT brochures; Lütz (fn. 68), 46–47; and Pfirrmann, Oliver, “The Diffusion of Microsystem Technologies: The Case of the German Innovation Support Programme ‘;Microsystem Technology,’” Research Evaluation 2 (April 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71 The German debate on computer-integrated manufacturing can be traced in Martin, T., Ulich, E., and Warnecke, Hans-Jürgen, “Angemessene Automation für flexible Fertigung,” Werkstatttechnik 78 (1988), 17–23Google Scholar, 119–222; Schultz-Wild, Rainer, “An der Schwelle zur Rechnerintegration,” VDI-Z 130 (September 1988), 40–45Google Scholar; Weber, Wolfgang, “CNC Steuerungen fur qualifizierte Facharbeit,” Technische Rundschau 28 (1988), 14–18Google Scholar; and other sources cited in Ziegler (fn. 41).

72 Figures from the National Machine Tool Builders Association, Economic Handbook (various years).

73 For examples among electrical engineers, see Westney, Eleanor and Sakakibari, Kiyonori, “Designing the Designers: Computer R & D in the United States and Japan,” Technology Review 89 (April 1986)Google Scholar.

74 Nelsen, Bonalyn J. and Barley, Stephen R., The Social Negotiation of a Recognized Occupational Identity, Working Paper (Philadelphia: National Center for the Educational Quality of the Work-force, University of Pennsylvania, 1993)Google Scholar. See also Wilensky, Harold, “The Professionalization of Everyone?” American Journal of Sociology 70 (September 1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 Johnson, Chalmers, MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy (Stanford: Stan-ford University Press, 1982)Google Scholar.

76 The important role of the Japanese Union of Scientists and Engineers in disseminating quality and process improvements among Japanese firms is discussed in Cole, Robert, Strategies for Learning: Small-Group Activities in American, Japanese, and Swedish Industry (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), chap. 13, pp. 301–3Google Scholar. For the importance of professional ties in diffusing Japanese aero-space technologies, see Samuels, Richard J., ”Rich Nation, Strong Army”: National Security and the Technological Transformation of Japan (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

77 For example, Osborne, David, Laboratories of Democracy: A New Breed of Governor Creates Models for National Growth (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1988)Google Scholar; and Stephen, Hamilton, Apprenticeship for Adulthood (New York: Free Press, 1990)Google Scholar.

78 Sandholtz, Wayne, “Institutions and Collective Action: The New Telecommunications in Western Europe,” World Politics 45 (January 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Genschel, Philipp and Werle, Raymund, “From National Hierarchies to International Standardization: Model Change in the Governance of Telecommunications,” Journal of Public Policy 13 (July-September 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 Ezra Suleiman, “Change and Stability in French Elites,” in Gregory Flynn, ed., The New France in the New Europe (Boulder, Colo.: Westview, forthcoming).

80 Author interview, Alcatel, N.V., Division of Research and Technology, Paris, July 1992. See also Sally, Razeen, “Alcatel's Relations with the French State: The Political Economy of a Multinational Enterprise,” Communications et Strategies 9 (1993)Google Scholar.

81 Author interview, France Telecom, Service des Telecommunications de l'lmage, Paris, July 1992.

82 These efforts led to an extensive comparison of R and D resources compiled by the Bundespost's internal analytic institute. See Grupp, Hariolf and Schnoering, Thomas, eds., U.S.A., Japan, Frank-reich, und Grofibritannien: Forschung und Entivicklungfur die Telecommunikation — Internationaler Vergleich mit Zehn Ldndern, vol. 1 (Berlin: Springer, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I thank Edgar Grande for directing me to this source.

83 Salz, Jürgen, “Grofie Koalition fur Maschinenbauer: Bundeslander und Landesbanken helfen einer bedrohten Branche,” VDI-Nachrichten (May 20, 1994), 9Google Scholar.

84 Horst Kern and Charles F. Sabel, “Verblafite Tugenden: zur Krise des deutschen Produktionsmodells,” in Soziale Welt, special issue entitled, “Umbriiche Gesellschaftlicher Arbeit” (forthcoming).

85 Lebaube, Alain, “Le gouvernement prepare la reforme de l'apprentissage: filiere francaise et mod He allemand,” Le Monde, June 4, 1991Google Scholar; Tanguy, Lucie, Quelle formation pour les ouvriers et les employe's en France (Paris: Documentation francaise, 1991)Google Scholar; Mobus, M. and Verdier, E., “Le systeme de formation professionelle en Republique Federate d'Allemagne,” Collection des etudes 61 (Paris: CEREQ_Institute, February 1992)Google Scholar.

86 This concept is developed further in Ziegler, J. Nicholas, “Governance and Knowledge: Political Strategies for Technological Advance in France and Germany” (Manuscript, 1995).Google Scholar

87 On the relative salience of interpersonal and interorganizational networks, see Powell, Walter, “Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization,” Research in Organizational Behavior 12 (1990)Google Scholar; and Mayntz, Renate, “Modernization and the Logic of Interorganizational Networks,” Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization 6 (Spring 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88 Kanter, Rosabeth Moss, When Giants Learn to Dance: Mastering the Challenge of Strategy, Management, and Careers in the 1990s (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989)Google Scholar.

89 For the general problem of policy feedback, see Pierson, Paul, “When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change,” World Politics 45 (July 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

90 For policy adaptation through social learning, see Hall, Peter A., “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain,” Comparative Politics 25 (April 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For policy change through negotiation and coordination, see Scharpf, Fritz, Positive und negative Koordination in Verhandlungssystemen, Discussion Paper 93/1 (Cologne: Max-Planck-Institut fur Gesellschaftsforschung, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For policy change through the evolution of sectoral governance structures, see Kitschelt, Herbert, “Industrial Governance Structures, Innovation Strategies, and the Case of Japan: Sectoral or Cross-National Comparative Analysis?” International Organization 45 (Autumn 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91 Thelen, Kathleen and Steinmo, Sven, “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics,” in Steinmo, Sven, Thelen, Kathleen, and Longstreth, Frank, eds., Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992)Google Scholar.