The document discusses how the formal structures of many institutionalized organizations arise from myths and rules in their institutional environment, rather than the technical demands of their work. It argues that organizations adopt structures that mimic prevailing institutional rules and myths in order to gain legitimacy and resources, even if those structures do not align well with the organizations' activities. Structures may become decoupled from the work and from each other. The document also examines theories for the origins of rationalized formal structures and their limitations, and proposes that societal forces like modernization and rationalized rules functioning as myths can better explain the rise of formal organizational structures.

1. Student ID No. 1619853
Contemporary Issues in International Management
(MOD004160)
List (A) - The Population Ecology of Organisations
Introduction
The journal paper of Hannan and Freeman (1977) looks at the
relationship between organisations and the environment and
how organisations emerge, grow and die over a long period of
time. They apply the population ecology theories to the
population of organisations, which they use as their level of
analysis, as opposed to the organisation or community level.
Their research is debating that the selection model is favoured
over the adaption model, which at the time of their research, the
majority of literature was focussed on the adaption model. They
favour the selection model due to the structural inertia limiting
the organisations ability to adapt to changing environments.
They mention the inertial pressures that arise from both internal
structural arrangements and environmental constraints and argue
that in order to deal with the various inertial pressures the
adaption perspective must be supplemented with a selection
orientation (pp. 933).
Two broad issues are considered, the first regarding the unit of
analyses where they argue for an explicit focus on populations
of organisations, rather than the view of a single organisation
and the environment. The second is the application of
population ecology models to the study of human social
organisations.
All the above they hope to answer their research question ‘why
are there so many kinds of organisations?’

2. Literature Review
The fundamental part of their research started with Hawley’s
(1950, 1968) statement on human ecology, they state that
Hawley’s perspective serves a useful starting point for
population ecology theories when extended to include
competition models and niche theory.
When reviewing competition theory they continue to focus on
the process of selection, in that isomorphism happens because
nonoptimal forms are selected out of a community of
organisations (pp.939) and that competition is a mechanism for
producing isomorphism (pp.940). They use the literature of
Hummon, Dorian, and Teuter (1975) and Blau and Scott (1962)
to construct their ecological model of competition by stating the
nature of the population growth process and to support their
view that the rate of growth or decline in populations of
organisations is due to environmental changes.
They represent this environmental change by using
Hutchinson’s (1957) formulation model to show Levins (1962,
1968) theory of niche width.
Methodology
The paper is a conceptual paper and does not include any
empirical research to support their theories. Throughout the
paper there are several references to empirical research and at
one point the authors expressed their frustration at the lack of
empirical research available on rates of selection in populations
of organisations (pp.959).
Rather than start from the beginning, Hannan and Freeman
(1977) chose to adopt the methodology of Hawley’s (1950,
1968) work and extend it further in two ways. One by using
competition models to specify the process producing
isomorphism between organisational structure and
environmental demands, the second by using niche theory to
extend the problem to dynamic markets. In their competition
model they used the Lotka-Volterra equations to represent the
growth stage of competing populations of organisations.
Findings and Discussion

3. In their search to answer the research question they consider
Hawley’s (1968) answer which suggests that the reason there
are so many kinds of organisations is due to the diversity of
organisational forms being isomorphic to the diversity of
environments. Their views are that this doesn’t satisfactorily
answer the research question for two reasons. One being that the
principle of isomorphism must be supplemented by a criterion
of selection and completion theory. The second being the need
to consider the multiple, dynamic environments which
organisations face.
Through their exploration into selection and competition theory
they found that competition among populations of organisations
strive when there are fixed resources and an unlimited capacity
to expand. Through their ecological model of competition, first
they established a model that indicated the growth of
populations of organisations. They then re-introduced
competition into that model and their findings were that the
greater the similarity of the competitors, the less likely that the
environment can support both of them in equilibrium.
The niche theory explored the capacity levels within
organisations and how they reacted and adapted to uncertain
environments to either form generalist or specialist forms. Their
findings indicated that in stable environments, taking the
generalist approach is costly and the organisations will be
outcompeted by specialist organisations. When introducing the
idea of the organisations facing two environments and showing
this using the “fitness set”, their findings contributed to the
theory that, in cases where the two environmental states are
similar (convex cases) then generalism is optimal. However
when the two environmental states differ (concave cases),
specialism is optimal.
Reflective Conclusion
On reflection, I found this paper quite difficult to comprehend.
It took several attempts to identify what they key areas of
research were and this only became clearer when the research
question was discussed at the end of the paper. Although the

4. structure of the paper seemed clear on first glance, once you
began to read each section it diversified into several other areas
which made it difficult to pinpoint what arguments the research
were contributing to.
I believe that the paper achieved the key points it was
addressing in the majority of instances. It was clear from their
examples using the banks (pp. 946) and the organisations on the
Fortune 500 list (pp. 959), that those organisations that become
incompatible with the environment are eventually replaced
through competition with new organisations better suited to
external demands. I found their research around niche theory
particularly interesting and believe their use of Levins (1962,
1968) fitness-set theory enhanced the quality of their argument.
However, an area where I do not think the paper achieved the
key points it was addressing was in relation to the inertial
pressures and constraints that organisations face. It was
outlined at the beginning of their paper however this area was
not fully explored therefore hindering the strength of their
argument. This could also be said for the lack of empirical
research around the rates of selection in populations of
organisations.
It could be argued that only when follow-on empirical research
is conducted can their theories be fully supported and the
answer to their research question be identified.
Word Count – 969
References
Hannan, M., and Freeman, J., 1977. American Journal of
Sociology. The Population Ecology of Organizations, [e-
journal] Vol 82, No. 5, pp.929-964. Available through: JSTOR
< http://www.jstor.org/stable/2777807> [Accessed 7 October
2017].

5. List (B) – The long-term trajectories of institutional change in
European capitalism
Introduction
The paper presents case studies on the path of institutional
change over a 30 year period from 1979 to 2009 in selected
European Countries and the United States. The paper
contributes to four key areas on comparative capitalism, these
are:
1. the long-term historical perspective of institutional change
2. the links between the four levels of institutions that regulate
the economy (international, macro, meso and micro)
3. the changes and links across six core institutional domains
(finance, corporate governance and responsibility, industrial
relations, education/skill formation, industrial policy and the
welfare state)
4. how institutions are shaped by different sets of socio-
political comprises.
Their aim of the paper is to contribute to the understanding of
institutional change in comparative capitalism and below
demonstrates how they have achieved this.
Literature Review
First the authors reviewed existing conceptual typologies within
comparative capitalism literature, where they covered Hall and

6. Soskice 2001 ‘varieties of capitalism’ approach. This theory
identifies two types of capitalism, liberal market economies and
co-ordinated market economies where the degree of co-
ordination is linked to the political strength. Due to some
criticism of this theory they also explored alternative
frameworks to contribute to the understanding of institutional
diversity. These alternative frameworks stem from literatures on
governance (Crouch and Streeck 1997; Hollingsworth and Boyer
1997), national business systems (Whitley 2007) or social
systems of innovation (Amable 2003).
The authors use their own previous work (Jackson and Deeg
2006) which describes the six institutional domains in terms of
institutional typologies alongside the work of Jackson and
Wylegala 2012 which shows a basic political chronology of
significant institutional reforms within each of the domains.
When reviewing the four levels of institutions that regulate the
economy, again they used their own previous work (Deeg and
Jackson 2007) which categorised what the four levels were. By
the authors using their own previous research papers it helps to
build their main arguments and contributions to the literature on
comparative capitalism.
Methodology
Section 2 of the paper provides a brief conceptual overview of
the frameworks used to map the diversity of institutions and
their change over time. The authors acknowledge that there are
many differentiating theories on various aspects that they are
exploring, including the distinct types of capitalism and the
institutional domains that constitute those distinct types.
Following the conceptual overview, the paper then goes on to
summarise their main findings based on the empirical research
that they have identified.
The methodologies adopted by Jackson and Deeg (2012) follow
a common approach to ensure a comparative understanding of
the patterns and drivers of institutional change. They allowed
for easy comparison in two ways. First, by setting out each
institutional domain, its general classification and providing

7. examples of the key areas for political reform in each domain.
Second, by mapping the paths of change across those six
institutional domains for each country within the case study.
Findings and Discussion
Their methodologies used allows for easy identification of the
key findings in relation to the four areas their paper is
contributing to. The first two common patterns they identified
were the growling liberalisation in relation to the role of the
state and a growing segmentation in terms of employment
conditions and social protection (pp. 1113). They explored these
two areas further by looking at the links across the institutional
domains.
To gauge how institutions are shaped by different sets of socio-
political comprises they reviewed the links between the four
levels of institutions that regulate the economy. They found that
there was a decline in international policies due to the
fragmentation across a multi-level political regime (pp.1120)
and at the national level the consideration of whether the
political system was consensual or majoritarian needed to be
taken into account when looking at how the institutions were
shaped. At the meso level there were clear findings on how the
institutional domains were connected and a change within one
domain may impact/support another. Finally, their findings at
the micro level identified that institutional change is shaped by
how different types of organisations utilise, avoid or
strategically respond to dominant institutions (pp. 1121).
Reflective Conclusion
The structure and style adopted by the authors made the paper
very easy to digest and analyse. The beginning of the paper
clearly set out the four areas that the authors were contributing
to as part of their research. Within each section of the paper you
were then able to clearly identify which of the four areas were
being discussed. By adopting the style of setting out their
findings in tables, it made for easy review and reflection for the
reader.
Throughout the paper the authors ensured that they were

8. consistent in displaying their findings in a comparable way. I
believe that this contributed to the strength of their findings as
the reader is able to compare the information set out in the
tables with their further discussions and highlights which
followed.
When reviewing the literature in relation to the conceptual
typologies not only did they explore existing literature they also
identified limits to these theories. In doing this I feel that it
improves the quality of their paper as they are able to take into
account all views when applying it to their work.
To allow for the level of comparison that they wanted to
achieve they had to ensure that there were clear definitions
around areas such as the institutional domains and the
international, macro, meso and micro levels. To do this they
made reference to their own previous work. To ensure their
arguments were fair, when providing examples linked to these
areas they also referenced the work of several other literatures.
By clearly setting out the four key objectives at the beginning
of their paper it is clear to see that they have achieved what
they set out to do. Throughout the paper there is a clear
distinction between each area that they are reviewing and they
summarise each section as they progress through their paper.
This is clearly visible in their use of the two tables of
information as well as their discussions around liberalisation
and segmentation and the international, macro, meso and micro
levels of institutions that regulate the economy.
The only improvement I could suggest is to have a summary
outlining the key contributions that they have made across the
four areas they identified, within a conclusion section at the end
of the paper.
Word Count – 1,016
References
Deeg, R., and Jackson, G., 2012. Journal of European Public
Policy. The long-term trajectories of institutional change in
European capitalism, [e-journal] 19:8, pp.1109-1125 Available
through: Anglia Ruskin University Website

9. <http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk> [Accessed 14 October 2017].
Page 1 of 9
Page 2 of 9
Institutionalized organization 1
Institutionalized organization 4
INSTITUTIONALIZED ORGANIZATION: FORMAL
STRUCTURE AS MYTHS AND CEREMONY
by (Name)
The Name of the Class (Course)
Professor (Tutor)
The Name of the School (University)
The City and State where it is located
The Date
Article Summary
Formal structure of most institutionalized organizations
arise as myths and as reflections of rationalized rules of specific
institutions. Elaboration of these rules in modern states and
societies are accountable for the expansion and increment of
complexity of the structures of formal organizations. The rules
of different institutions normally function as myths,
incorporated by organizations for the purpose of gaining
legitimacy, resources, stability as well as enhancement of

10. survival prospects. Organizations whose structures are
isomorphic with myths of institutional environment, in contrast
to those primarily structures by the demand of technical
production and exchange, decrease internal coordination and
control for the purpose of maintaining legitimacy. Structures
may be decoupled from each other and ongoing activities.
Instead of coordination, inspection and evaluation, a logic of
good faith and confidence is normally employed. This summary
is a clear analysis of three aspects, that is, the prevailing
theories of origin of formal structures and problems these
theories confront, alternative sources of formal structures and
arguments that reflect the institutionalized environment
maintaining gaps to their formal structures and their ongoing
activities(Meyer $ Rowan,1977, p.343).
In the formal structure of many organizations in
postindustrial society, it involves the reflection of myths in the
institutional environment rather than the demands of their work
activities. The prevailing theories of formal structure involves
the distinction of formal structure involves distinction of formal
structures of an organization and its routine activities. Formal
structure can be said to be the blueprint of activities, which
include table of organization, that is, listing of office, positions,
departments and program activities, linked with goals and
policies comprise the rational theory of how and to what end the
activities can be fixed together ( Shafritz ,Jang & Ott,
2013,p.374). Importance of modern bureaucratic organization is
rationalization and impersonal character of the elements of the
structure and goals linked to them.
The core problem of these theories is description of
conditions giving rise to the rationalized formal structure.
Theory works on assumption that rationale formal structures is
assumed to be most effective way of coordinating and
controlling aspects in work activities. Some issues confronted
by these theories are: expansion on markets, size, division of
labor and technology. The weakness of the theory is assumption
coordination and control of activities are crucial for dimension

11. that formal organization have succeeded in modern world.
Based on assumption that organizations follow the blue print,
though may be violated and adjusted accordingly in different
scenarios. This thus calls for the explanation for the need of the
rise in particular formal structure for coordinating and
controlling their work, which account for elaboration of
positions, policies and procedural rules, a characterization of
formal organization ( Vanagas & stankevic, 2015 , p.118).
Changes are due to legitimacy of organization, public view and
opinions, prestige and the understanding of social reality.
Additionally, the alternative sources of formal structures
can be alluded to four aspects, namely societal modernization,
the complexity of networking of social organization and
exchange, the prevalence of rationalized institutional elements
and the presence and elaboration of formal organizational
structures. The reason for the rationalization of bureaucracies
are assertion of prevailing theories and modern societies filled
with institutional rules functioning as myths depicting different
formal structures as rational means for the attainments of
desired goals. The origin of rational institution myths is
associated to three aspects, the elaboration of rational complex,
relational networks, the degree of collective organization of the
environment and leadership efforts of the local
organization(Poole,2004, p.268).
Consequently, the impact of isomorphism had crucial
consequence for organizations in two distinct ways, they
incorporated the elements of legitimated externally rather than
in terms of efficiency. Secondly, they employ external
assessment criteria for the definition of value of structural
elements and thirdly, the dependence on externally fixed
institutions for reduction of turbulences and maintenance of
stability (Srikantia & Bilimonia, 1997, p.403). As a result,
institutional isomorphism promotes success and survival of
organization, incorporation of external legitimate formal
structure help in increment of commitment and external
assessment criteria enable organization to remain successful

12. through social definition, hindering the organization from
failure( Popadiuk, Rivera & Batagala,2014,p.469).
Rationalized formal structure arise as a result of demand of
local relational network encouraging development of structures
for coordinating and controlling the activities and
interconnection of social relations, collective organization of
society and leadership of organizational elites for the creation
of higher context of institutionalization (Shafritz ,Jang & Ott,
2013,p.384).. Nevertheless, the survival of organization depends
on management demand of internal and boundary-spanning
relations. Different ways have been suggested for resolution of
inconsistencies in organizations. The two main ones are
decoupling and the logic of confidence (Stephen, 2018, p.96).
The partial solution to resolving inconsistencies include the
organization can neglect ceremonial requirements, organization
can maintain rigid conform to institutionalized prescriptions by
limiting external relations, organization acknowledgement of its
structural inconsistencies with the requirements of work and the
organization can promise to reform(Dacin,1997, p.50).
The survival of an organization depends on one core
aspects, inclusive of elaboration of rationalized institutional
myths, organizational efficiency, organizational conformity
with institutional myths and legitimacy and resources(Tolbert
&Zucker,1996,p.177). The survival of some organizations
depend on management of demands of internal, basically
dictated by ceremonial demand of institutional
environment. Core causes of inconsistencies in organization can
be technical activities and demand for efficiency for creation of
conflicts and inconsistencies in efforts of the organization to
conform to the ceremonial rules of
production(Dobin,2004,p.101).
In conclusion, isomorphism with an elaborated
institutional environment has three core effects namely, the
decoupling of structural subunits from each other and from
activity, rituals of confidence and good faith and the avoidance
of inspection and effective evaluation inspection.

13. Organizational structures are created and made more elaborate
with the rise of institutionalized myths, and in highly
institutionalized contexts, organizations actions should support
these myths.
References
Meyer, J.W. & Rowan, B., 1977. Institutionalized
Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and
Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), pp.340–363.
Shafritz, J.M., Jang, Y.S. & Ott, J.S., 2016. Classics of
organization theory, Boston: Cengage Learning.
Vanagas, R. & Stankevič, J., 2015. Impact of coordination for
organization process. Intellectual Economics, 8(2), p.112-125
Srikantia, P. & Bilimoria, D., 1997. Isomorphism in
Organization and Management Theory. Organization &
Environment, 10(4), pp.384–406.
Dacin, M.T., 1997. Isomorphism In Context: The Power And
Prescription Of Institutional Norms. Academy of Management
Journal, 40(1), pp.46–81.
Dobbin, F., 2004. The new economic sociology: a reader,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tolbert, P.S. & Zucker, L.G.,1996. The Institutionalization of
Institutional Theory. Studying Organization: Theory & Method,
pp.169–184.
Stephen, M.D., 2018. Legitimacy Deficits of International
Organizations: design, drift, and decoupling at the UN Security
Council. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 31(1),
pp.96–121.
Popadiuk, S., Rivera, E.R. & Bataglia, W., 2014. Heterogeneity

14. of Isomorphic Pressures: Intertwining the Resource-Based View
and the Neoinstitutional Approach. BAR - Brazilian
Administration Review, 11(4), pp.455–475.
Poole, M.S., 2004. Handbook of organizational change and
innovation, New York: Oxford University Press.
INNOVATION 1
INNOVATION 2
FROM SECTORAL SYSTEM OF INNOVATION TO SOCIO-
TECHNICAL SYSTEMS INSIGHTS ABOUT DYNAMICS AND
CHANGE FROM SOCIOLOGY AND INSTITUTIONAL
THEORY
By (Name)
The Name of the Class (Course)
Professor (Tutor)
The Name of the School (University)
The City and State where it is located
The Date
Article Summary
System innovation is defined from various levels, including
regional, sectoral and national level. At the sectoral system
levels, systemic innovations are firm’s activities in the
development and making of product sectors. The generalization
and utilization of technologies such as the firms' systems and

15. different ways are included through interaction processes and
cooperation in the artifact-technology development, as well as
through selection and competition processes in the market and
innovation activities (Malerba & Adams, 2013, p. 6). The
technological system involves the interaction of network agents
in a particular technical area under specific institutional
infrastructure that generates, diffuses and also utilizes
technology. The System innovation definition is explicit
because it braided the understanding of the concepts beyond the
creation of technology to its utilization and diffusion, while
technological system definition is narrowed down to the social
systems level.
First, the inclusion of both supply and demand side in the
definition of the system. The Sectoral systems approach focuses
on developing knowledge, but pay less attention use and
diffusion of technology, its impact and the societal
transformation caused. At times, the user sides are ignored or
narrowed down the selection environments (Mayrudi, 2002, p.
248). Therefore, there is a need to widen the sectoral innovation
systems to the socio-technical systems which fulfill the societal
functions such as communications, transport, housing, and
material supply.
The second contributions involve the regards to the type of
elements under discussion whereby there is a need to make
analytic distinctions between actors involved in the maintenance
of the system and the institution as well as rules guiding the
activities and perception of actors. There is a need to use the
analytical distinctions which are useful due to the currents
literature that groups together various heterogeneous elements
(Eggink, 2013, p. 9).
The third contribution which links other open issues involves
paying more attention to the institutions. In some cases,
institutions are left over in the analysis or are wrongly equated
with organizations. There is a need to conceptualize the essence
of institutions in the process of innovation. There is a need to
explain the role played by institutions in dynamic development

16. instead of focusing on stability and inertia (Geels, 2004, p.
899).
Finally, the article addresses, change of the systems. The main
focus on the innovative approach is the functioning of the
systems. The study of innovations should be discussed from
dynamic points of view which focus in the emergency of new
industries and systems. The current discussion of sectoral
innovation does not consider the change from one system to
another. Therefore, there is a need to determine how new
sectoral systems emerge or develop and their link to the existing
sectoral systems (Montobbio, 2004, p. 38).
In the process of transition from innovation systems to the
achievement of social, technical systems, there is a need to
analyze the existing innovation process, especially the
production side which is the basis of the emergence of
innovations. The first step toward this achievement is widening
the analytic which focus on the user side and begin looking at
the socio-technical systems that encompass diffusion,
production, and technology use. Socio-Technical Systems is the
linkage between various necessary elements in the fulfillment of
societal functions such as communications, transport, and
nutrition (Borrás & Edler, 2011, p. 31). Technology is a crucial
element in the current society; hence they are needed to
distinguish between distribution, production, and technologies
used as sub-functions. The necessary component in the
fulfillment of the sub-function is recognized to be resources. In
modern societies, especially in the west, production and use of
technologies have increasingly been categorized in separate
clusters and the differentiation of social sciences. For instance,
evolutionary business studies, economics and innovation studies
focus mainly on the creation of knowledge and production and
innovation but pay less attention to the users (Geels, 2004, p.
902). On the other hand, domestication and cultural studies
focus more on the user than the process of production. The
benefit of focusing on the social-technical systems from an
explicit point of view is that it allows co-evolution of

17. technology, as well as society of function and forms, become
the focused attention.
In the Coordination of activities through rules and institutions,
there is a need to distinguish between normative, regulative and
cognitive rules. Regulative rules involve explicit and formal
rules that regulate interaction and constrain behaviors.
Normative rule confers norms, values, duties, role expectations,
responsibilities and rights which are internalized through the
process of socialization (Paganini, 2018, p. 131). Finally,
cognitive rules involve the real nature and frames that allow the
development of meaning and sense (Fürnkranz, Gamberger, &
Lavrač, 2012, p. 176). Social rule system structures and
regulates the social transactions which are supported by
network control and social sanctions. In the case of changing
rules it would be difficult to change an individual rule without
affecting other hence in the process of innovation there is need
to consider the regulations modified and alter them accordingly.
The dynamic interaction between the actors and rule-regime is
necessary whereby it should focus on the effects and structure.
The use of the conceptual approach when developing the
dynamic interactions solves the existing structure-agency
dilemma. Co-evolution in the ST systems is facilitated by the
communication in social groups which lead to the improvement
of the current technologies and development of new
technologies. Therefore, ST systems co-evolve through the
interaction of multiple dynamics.
Developing an understanding of the stability of current
technologies leads to the descriptions of the emerging
innovations. Socio-technical systems, social groups with rules
offer stability using different mechanisms (Geihs & Hoffmann,
2014, p. 12). Rules and regime offer stability through the
guiding of activities and perceptions. Actors and organization
are interdependent networks as well as mutual dependents and
contribute to stability. Social-technical systems, especially the
material networks, and artifacts are difficult to change. The
different paths used by the stability facts are dependent on the

18. powerful incentives for innovations in the socio-technical
systems that led to trajectories and paths of innovation (Tatnall,
2008, p. 272). Understand of the stability of content technology
is obtained through focusing on the co-evolution of various
trajectories. The existing of niches in the technology allowed
the development of new technologies and innovation.
Innovation emerges in the protected space whereby niches act as
the incubation room. Niches are essential because they offer
locations for the learning processes whereby they deviate
through the existing rules and regime.
References
Borrás, S., & Edler, J., 2011. The governance of change in
socio-technical and innovation systems: three pillars for a
conceptual framework. The Governance of Socio-Technical
Systems, pp. 23-48.
Eggink, M., 2013. The Components of an Innovation System: A
Conceptual Innovation System Framework. Journal of
Innovation and Business Best Practices, pp.1-12.
Fürnkranz, J., Gamberger, D., & Lavrač, N., 2012. Learning
Rule Sets. Cognitive Technologies, pp.171-186.
Geels, F.W., 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to
socio-technical systems. Research Policy, 33(6-7), pp.897–920.
Geihs, K., & Hoffmann, H., 2014. A Research Agenda for the
Socio-Technical Design of Ubiquitous Computing
Systems. Socio-technical Design of Ubiquitous Computing
Systems, pp. 3-18.
Malerba, F., & Adams, P., 2013. Sectoral Systems of
Innovation. Oxford Handbooks Online.
Mayrudi, A., 2002. Sectoral Systems Of Innovation And
Production. Research Policy,31(2), pp.247-264.

19. Montobbio, F., 2004. Sectoral dynamics and structural change:
stylized facts and “system of innovation” approaches. Sectoral
Systems of Innovation, pp.42-70.
Montobbio, F., 2010. Sectoral dynamics and structural change:
stylized facts and “system of innovation” approaches. Sectoral
Systems of Innovation, pp.42-70.
Paganini, E. 2018. Normative Rules for
Indeterminacy. Ontology of Theistic Beliefs, pp.129-136.
Tatnall, A., 2008. Actor-Network Theory as a Socio-Technical
Approach to Information Systems Research. Socio-Technical
and Human Cognition Elements of Information Systems, pp.
266-283.