social networks || making sense of chaos: socio-technical networks, careers and entrepreneurs

Making Sense of Chaos: Socio-Technical Networks, Careers and EntrepreneursAuthor(s): Arni SverrissonSource: Acta Sociologica, Vol. 37, No. 4, Social Networks (1994), pp. 401-417Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4200922 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 17:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ActaSociologica.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.177 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 17:10:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4200922?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Acta Sociologica (1994) 37:401-417

Making Sense of Chaos:

Socio-technical Networks, Careers

and Entrepreneurs

Ami Sverrisson Research Policy Institute, University of Lund, Sweden

A number of problems are explored which arise when social network theory, and particularly the concept of structural equivalence, is used to analyze technological change. Field studies in two African towns provide empirical illustrations. First, production processes and mechanization are discussed. Network flexibility and mobility within networks are considered next. The article then moves on to strategies available to proprietors of enterprises. Lastly, conceptual problems arising in the discussion are summarized and related to an analysis of entrepreneurship. The article argues throughout for a network concept based on interrelations between positions and analysis in terms of the structural equivalence of such positions in a number of intersecting One-dimensional' networks.

Arni Sverrisson, Research Policy Institute, University of Lund, PO Box 2071, 220 02 Lund, Sweden

1. Introduction

This article explores a number of problems which arise when a social network approach is applied to production activities and production systems, and changes in their tech-

nological configuration.1 The relevant networks will be called socio/technical networks in what follows. The focus is on the

utility of the network approach in the analysis of technical change in production collectives composed of loosely related and

loosely organized entities, such as small and medium sized enterprises. Network analysis is in effect substituted for analysis which assumes the existence of markets constituted by highly organized and goal- oriented agents completely independent of each other.

The present analysis mainly uses material collected in a study of mechanization in

furniture-making networks in two African

towns, Mutare in Zimbabwe and Nakuru in Kenya.2 However, it is not my intention to provide here an exhaustive account of the chaotic reality of furniture making in

these locations. Neither do I attempt to

present an analysis of small enterprises in

general. Rather, I focus here on enterprises which are located around the interface between the Modern' and the 'traditional,' but vary widely in size, degree of specialization, technical sophistication and profit- ability. Further, this article is limited to

exploring the implications of a network

approach for analysis of techniques, tech-

nologies and technical change in this and similar contexts.

In discussions of technical and industrial change, two network approaches have been

developed in particular, namely the 'actor/ network' approach (Call?n 1987,1991; Law 1987; Akrich 1992 ) and the industrial networks' approach (H?kansson 1989; Axels- son and Easton 1992; Grabher 1993). I will

largely pass over the latter on this occasion.3

2. Actor/network analysis and

social network analysis The type of analysis demonstrated below can be characterized as an attempt to combine elements from actor/network analysis and structural social network analysis.4 ?Scandinavian Sociological Association, 1994

401



However, these two strands of thought are

just about as far from each other as possible within the universe of sociological theories, and moreover, each raises important problems of their own which merit preliminary discussion.

The core proposition of the actor/ network school which deserves further elaboration is as follows: In order to analyze technologies in their social aspect, they must be seen as social actors or, to use the original term, actants5. Technological artifacts or non-human actors are considered as essentially equivalent to human actors in socio/technical networks. They act, as it were, in their own right (Call?n 1987, 1991; Latour 1991).

This immediately raises the problem of

subjectivity; the ability to be a subject, the

capability to act in a social context. Can artifacts be subjects? The actor/network solution to this problem is to endow artifacts with consciousness via human repre- sentatives. The common-sense view of the relations between people and techniques is turned on its head, as it were: techni-

ques are not always the tools of people -

people can also be and often are the 'tools of techniques', i.e. people are caused to act by technical circumstances. When people are the instruments of artifacts, artifacts

acquire, as it were, a vicarious consciousness.

The affinity with Marx' analysis of com-

modity exchange in the section of the first volume of Capital devoted to the 'fetishism of commodities' should be noted here. Due to the commodity form, maintains Marx, 'the relations connecting the labour of one individual with that of the rest appear, not as direct social relations between individuals at work, but as what they really are, material relations between persons and social relations between things' (Marx undated: 78). Further: '. . . social action takes the form of the action of objects, which rule the producers instead of being ruled by them* (Marx undated: 79). According to this view, things - including techniques - can be seen as expressions of

existing social (including economic) relations. Domination, power and depen- dence are inscribed into the material

aspects of things exchanged as commodi-

ties, things produced to become commodities and things used to produce commodities.

However, in Marx' analysis nothing is

implied about the subjectivity of artifacts, vicarious or otherwise, and the analysis presented later in this article proceeds on the

assumption that this is not necessary. Tech-

niques can still be accorded a major role in

defining the social structure of production networks. The issue of subjectivity is in other words abstracted out of the way. A further difference from the actor/network theory is that the concept of individuals/ persons is dissolved: what remains are particular foci of relations, foci created by intersections of distinct networks, foci at which people do or do not find themselves, but can also actively create or change. These foci replace actors as our 'nodes' but machines are also seen from this same

vantage point, and conceptualized as foci of socio/technical relations. This leads to an emphasis on the function of technical artifacts, on what they 'do' in different contexts, which can be analyzed from the point of view of their position in production processes. Lastly, this leads us to practices, in which people and artifacts are united.

Sawing requires a saw and a sawer. Such

practices can be seen as related to each other in networks, particularly production networks.

In pursuit of this type of analysis, nothing needs to be assumed about individual sub-

jectivity (and even less, omniscient ration-

ality) in order explain how people respond to circumstances, constraints and opportunities. They can form a natural part of

production networks nonetheless, along with the material components, by engaging in practices.6 Relativizing subjectivity in this way brings us closer to structural social network analysis, but the fundamental

insight of the actor/network theory, the essential equivalence of people and things in terms of socio/technical networks, is retained.

The main problems related to social network analysis, as it is exemplified by e.g., Scott (1991) or different contributions in Wellman (1988), are of a different order.

Linking this approach to the analysis of

technology is at one level straightforward:

402



the proposition that e.g., machines are actants in networks can, when shed of its more contentious connotations of machine

politics, mobilizing non-humans, etc., be

relatively easily translated into social network analysis. Relations between people and machines and between people in roles defined by relations to machines (e.g., pho- tographers who are above everything else

people-using-cameras) need only to be added to the gamut of relations already covered.

However, leading figures who belong to this group, who have studied economic

phenomena, have not considered system- atically the place of technology and technical change in the overall context of social networks (e.g., Burt 1992; White 1988, 1992 and Berkowitz 1992, an exception being Burt 1987). The strong focus of these authors on explaining the structure of markets tends to overshadow issues related to

technology, even when they are highly relevant.

Burt for example analyzes the pattern of transactions in the American economy, and

particularly what he calls structural holes, that is 'separation between nonredundant contacts' of a firm (1992: 18; also 1988 and 1989, cf. Swedberg 1994). The pattern of structural holes is then used to explain dif- ferences in profits. However, it is also reasonable to ask to what extent the transaction options of firms are constrained by available production technologies, and what are firms doing about it? To what extent is the observed structure of transactions determined by technological relations embodied in production networks

(including of course, structural holes in such

networks); and to what extent does the observed structure reflect purchasing, mar-

keting and other commercial networking strategies which can be derived from the structural hole argument when applied to

buying and selling things? All this becomes rather important, when it comes to

explaining technological change and, I would maintain, in any network analysis of economic relations.

Similar questions can be raised in regard to Berkowitz' contribution (1988). He dis-

tinguishes between different activities, as well as different enterprises (estab-

lishments, firms), and considers how such activities are networked in 'production chains.' However, the activities are not dis-

tinguished on the basis of technological criteria (e.g., machinery used, method of

production etc.), but only on the basis of the product. Production of women's clothes is seen as an activity different from production of men's clothes, etc. Enterprises can either specialize in an activity or be involved in several. Considerable overlap is found between some activities in enter-

prises but enterprises which specialize are also found. Berkowitz suggests, that an

explanation could be found by referring to the customers (e.g., final, intermediate, or

gender of final consumers) but this begs the

question, as activities have already been defined on the basis of the relation between users and producers, or to be exact, its manifestation in the design of the product. Consideration of techniques can solve this

problem: after all the techniques for men's and women's clothes are rather similar in

many cases, to name one example, and therefore overlaps can be expected. How- ever, a number of techniques also entail

specialization at some level. This in turn is reflected in enterprise morphologies.

In both cases, Burt's (1992) and Berkow- itz' (1988), systematic consideration of

technological issues would, I believe, add to and enhance the explanatory power of the analysis. This is particularly evident if their discussion of different types of firms within industries is considered. Both briefly discuss what can loosely be termed industrial dualism, but this phenomenon remains

unexplained in their contributions. On the one hand there are small enterprises, such as discussed below, which are often fairly specialized and either produce for local customers or as sub-contractors or both. On the other hand there are large enterprises or to be exact, large mass-production facilities. These two categories often operate with very different techniques, which imply different forms of organizing work as well as different modes of relating to other

enterprises and final customers (cf. Piore & Sabel 1984). It is difficult to analyze this dual structure without recourse to systematic analysis of technology and production networks, which can explain why

403



structural holes appear in markets, and why activities sometimes overlap in enterprises and sometimes not. The approach presented here therefore posits an alternative to the transaction cost approach to enter-

prise morphology and a complement to the social network approach to market structure. We need to 'bring production back in,' and in doing that, we cannot ignore technological issues.

Below, I develop an analysis based on the work discussed above as well as suggestions from the growing theoretically informed literature in English on industrial networks in Japan (e.g., Yamazaki 1981; Dore 1986; Imai 1987; Pathcell and Hayter 1992), and elsewhere (e.g., Asheim 1994; Myung-Rae 1994; Nadvi 1994).7 The aim is to present a

way of accounting explicitly for technology in social network analysis. I start from the

socio/technical equivalence posited by the actor network theory, on the one hand, and the concept of structural equivalence from social network analysis, on the other hand. These two concepts are used to present an

analysis of two concrete networks, which I have lived with for a number of years. The theoretical issues involved are then expli- cated further, and it is suggested how the

approach developed here could enrich social network analysis as well as the soci-

ology of technology.

3. Production networks

The starting point of the analysis is that different stages in any production process, through which raw materials are trans- formed in successive stages into consumer

products, can be organized, and hence can be analyzed, as a network. This applies regardless of whether the production process under scrutiny spans several social entities (countries, regions, firms), or is confined entirely within one entity.

In furniture making, production is organized according to a number of fairly well defined moments. Starting with logging and other forest operations, the sequence con- tinues with sawmilling and curing of the timbers. Manufacturing is the next step, and this moment can in turn be divided into a number of steps or sub-moments. In the case of softwood furniture, which is typical

in the production collectives discussed here, the main manufacturing sequence starts with sawing, followed by planing, then

thicknessing, then moulding or carving, then cutting or drilling of joints, then sand-

ing followed by joining, then final planing and sanding, and lastly varnishing. The moments are carried out more or less in the order indicated. However, sometimes

turning takes the place of moulding. There are other variations: ad hoc adjustment of

components (filing, sawing) is common, and sometimes no sanding is performed before the piece is joined, etc., but we will

pass over this here. It is important to note that this process is defined largely on the basis of 'technical' criteria. Each stage cor-

responds to one or more tools which are

applied to the material in a fashion determined by the design of the product and the traditions of the craft. However, (wo)men set machines and tools in motion and it is the resulting practice which is our point of

departure here. The process created by the combination

of these moments and sub-moments is the main axis of a network of practices.8 Each of the moments/practices can in turn be seen as a position in this network. Each

position can be occupied by any worker with the requisite skills. Further, different

types of tools can be used at each position. For the purpose of the present analysis they can be classified roughly as either hand tools or machines. At this levels of analysis the network is fairly stable insofar as its essential configuration is concerned.

In Nakuru and Mutare mechanization occurred in two ways: either one or more moments were mechanized in existing enterprises formerly using hand tools, or new enterprises were started at relatively high mechanization levels (cf. Hannan & Freeman 1984). Gradual mechanization of

existing enterprises was clearly prevalent over the other alternative, although available information indicated that the reverse had formerly been the case. Gradual mechanization is possible because each of the moments and sub-moments indicated above can be mechanized without simul-

taneously mechanizing the others. In the

furniture-making collectives studied this led to uneven mechanization from the point of

404



view of the different sub-moments: there were more bench saws than rout moulders.

The reason for the current prevalence of gradual change can be summarized as

scarcity of resources or, which amounts to the same, the self-sufficiency of the network in terms of investment capital, etc. The resources for expansion were mainly generated within the carpentry network itself. However, gradual mechanization would not have been feasible were it not for the

possibility of mechanizing each moment

independently. In a handful of cases proprietors with

access to credit from commercial providers or government agencies had acquired a

package of machines and started enter-

prises which were from the outset fairly sophisticated.9 However, the technical basis of these enterprises was for all practical purposes the same type of machines as in other enterprises, that is single-function multi-purpose machinery. Further, in the most mechanized enterprises these machines were parts of production networks similar to those in less mechanized

enterprises.10 The stability of production networks de-

pends on the relations between different production moments. The connections between the moments can be embodied in the hardware, or they can also be achieved by social means, through the organisation of work within and across enterprises. An example can clarify the importance of this distinction.

A simple multi-function machine common in the wood industry is the four-cutter. The purpose of this machine is to produce panels. Four cutting tools are located suc- cessively along the path of a piece of wood, planing first one side, then another, groov- ing the third, and shaping the fourth to fit the groove. A feeding mechanism is also included, which moves the piece being formed through the machine.

This work could also be done by a series of separate single-function machines. A planer, a thicknesser, and two routers or two rounds through a router could serve the same purpose as the four-cutter. However, such a combination of machines can also be used to make a range of products, not only panels. By the simple act of uniting several

functions in a determined sequence which is built into a machine, control over the work is virtually vested in the machine. However, the flexibility and adaptability implied by the sequence of separate machines is lost.

This illustration brings out the close

relationship between the technical con-

figuration of the machines used and prevailing modes of organizing the production process. The technical interrelations of tools and machines are an integrated part of the social network known as the workplace, and to a large extent, social and technical means of establishing and maintaining combinations of production practices are inter-

changeable. The social mode of combination was

prevalent in the collectives discussed here, independent of technical sophistication. This implies considerable flexibility in the choice of products and the selection of

appropriate materials.11 However, flexible does not mean unstable in this case. If anything, the observed flexibility enables the network to absorb fairly easily changes which originate outside it, e.g., in changing customer tastes, volatile demand or

changes in relative prices of inputs, without radical breaks in the process of network evolution (cf. Piore and Sabel 1984; Sabel and Zeitlin 1985).

4. Occupying and moving between positions

Up to now, we have focused on the interrelations of networked practices in a production process. It was also shown that radically different tools can be assigned to each moment or category of positions, and that this actually happens in the two collectives we are using as an example here, without major changes in the constellation of positions within the network. However, superimposed on this level of analysis, as it were, is the enterprise morphology of the network and the movement of people in and out of positions and in and out of

enterprises. At this level, the scope of practices within enterprises varies. From another perspective, concrete production

405



networks can be analyzed as combinations of several paths, each of which combines similar or structurally equivalent positions in terms of the basic production network

(cf. Burt 1987, 1992; Scott 1991). If we consider the options for enterprises,

or to be exact, for proprietors of enter-

prises, in this context, a range of strategies appears, which we can define by describing two extreme cases. At one end of the range of options, enterprises seek to maximize the number of moments and sub-moments in the production process which are carried out under the auspices of the enterprise and, therefore, under the direct control of its proprietor. In the networks discussed here this means everything from logging to when the final product is delivered to the consumer or put on display in a shop. At the other end, enterprises specialize in one sub-moment, for example turning. Both these extremes have their counterparts in the world of tangible reality, although they are comparatively rare. Most enterprises are located somewhere in-between on the

range of options. A similar observation can be made with

respect to the product range. It is possible to focus on one or a couple of products and standardize designs or, at the other extreme, make anything anyhow, if only the main material is wood. In spite of the

potential benefits and high frequency of

product diversification, niches are exploited and standardization utilized within this type of flexible production network, in this case as well as others (cf. Pedersen et al. 1994; Nadvi 1994). Further, most designs are variations on standard themes, and the wide-

spread use of standard wooden patterns testifies to the fact that product variation is often a possibility rather than an actuality.

In order to complicate the picture even more, let me introduce a category of positions which we have ignored up to now, namely that of traders and middlemen of various kinds. The most important trading moment in the networks discussed here is located between sawmilling and the first

step in manufacturing. However, the purpose of introducing this practice here is not to discuss it per se but to point out that it shares the fate of production practices: some enterprises specialize in trading at this

point in the network but more frequently, firms engaged in trading are also involved in sawmilling or manufacturing, or both. Indeed, it is fairly common that carpenters buy standardized turned legs, planed timbers in standard thicknesses etc. from the

lumberyard. Further, at another location on the main axis of the network, proprietors of carpentry enterprises sometimes trade in

products of carpenters working in or own-

ing other workshops. The scope of trading practices engaged in by proprietors is, in other words, every bit as variable as that of

production practices. The importance of multiple paths for the

form of the mechanization process becomes

apparent if we recall that each moment in the production process could be carried out either with a machine or with the appropriate hand tools. There is one exception to this, namely turning, which perforce must be carried out using a lathe (the lathe can be turned by hand but this is besides the point, and also rare nowadays).

Machines appropriate to each moment are not available in every workshop, but

they are available in some workshops and in the lumberyards in many cases. Hence, insofar as machine work is more economical than manual work, it makes sense for a

workshop proprietor who does not possess a particular machine, to farm out a part or

parts of the process to a proprietor who does, or to buy semi-processed materials.

Turning, for example, can be done in a

specialized enterprise, which is a common

practice in Kenya. Planing, thicknessing and sawing roughly to size is, in Zimbabwe, often done at the lumberyard rather than in a carpentry workshop. Other variants found in both countries are when carpenters who own a machine either let other car-

penters use it, or perform services such as

sawing or planing for their peers. The mere availability of a machine in a

workshop creates demand from other proprietors for its services. In responding to this, the machine-owner places his resources at the disposal of the entire collective (for a price, usually) and conversely, the users of the service are drawing on resources accessible within the network in order to increase their own productivity. To put it otherwise: the appearance of a

406



machine in one or a few workshops in a network potentially mechanizes every structurally equivalent position within the network. However, this potential is fully realized only if all proprietors which lack a

particular machine use the services of those who possess it, and this not at all the case.

Using the services of other workshops remains one option among others, and

switching between internal and external

production is done according to the demands of the day.

More generally, the simplest carpentry network conceivable consists of one or more enterprises which include one or more of the following moments: forestry, lum-

bering, saw-milling, furniture manufacture, transports, sales. Technically, there is noth-

ing that precludes that all these moments are subsumed under one social entity, controlled by a single person or group. However, in order to be effective, the different parts of such an integrated production network must be closely attuned to each other. A bottleneck somewhere in the system affects all parts of it, and radically reduces the performance of the system as a whole (e.g., Bagachwa 1992).

In contrast, production processes are

highly adaptable if there is a number of

supplier-purchaser relations possible at each stage. Further, as the process is broken down into smaller and smaller relatively autonomous parts, flexibility increases. As noted above the standard production sequence in the manufacture of furniture is a combination of several different operations, which can and often are carried out in the same workshop. Technically, however, this is not necessary, as we have seen. When all machines are not available in every workshop, such solutions do not only increase flexibility. They also increase the benefits of partial mechanization for the

participants in the network, reduce bottle- necks, and increase what Schmitz has termed collective efficiency, i.e., the

productivity of the enterprise collective as a whole (Schmitz 1989).

Hence, in the locations studied here, several enterprises in a network can perform each moment, and a number of enterprises do concentrate on one or a few moments. In other words, in the concrete practice

of furniture making, there is not one but several paths available at each instant in time, through which wood can be trans- formed into furniture. Further, material can enter the path at a point controlled

by one proprietor, and emerge at a point controlled by another proprietor, and pass through the domain of several other proprietors in the process: it is not only a

question of multiple paths, or multiple interchangeable paths, but multiple interrelated paths.

Integration of production processes in these types of networks happens through a multitude of everyday business transactions, rather than according to plan, and at every step, several alternative connections can be made in order to effect a

particular transaction. To name one

example: if a sawmill breaks down, furniture manufacturers simply buy their timbers elsewhere. If one turning shop is

drowning in work, another may be found where men and equipment are under- utilized (cf. Busby 1993). Connections are

constantly being made, unmade and revived.

In Accra, in addition to the locations named above, this author has had the

opportunity to observe a highly developed network of this kind, centered around the main timber market, but extending its ten- tacles to the remotest suburbs. Specialists turn, plane, mould and drill. They also

produce wooden planes. The carpentry workshops, in turn, concentrate on joining and carving. Their proprietors also spend much time on negotiations with prospective customers and making arrangements for both work and transport.

The result is maximal flexibility in the network. Any wish the customer may enter- tain with regard to the exact dimensions and form of furniture can be fulfilled. The price can be adapted to the purchasing power of each customer. In a workshop, every operation can be carried out by hand in times of low demand or high availability of skilled labour. When demand is high or labourers hard to find, mechanized services in nearby workshops can be used.12

In addition to the flexibility of enterprises, their character and connections, persons can, and regularly do, circulate

407



between positions, as well as between cat-

egories of positions, and between enter-

prises which occupy a similar or a different

range of positions. Workers who work in one workshop today can be found in another shop next week. Workers become

proprietors and (unsuccessful) proprietors become workers. Workers also move from

fairly mechanized enterprises to fairly unsophisticated ones, and in the other direction too. Sometimes workers work 'at home' and are 'subcontractors' to trading proprietors of carpentry workshops rather than their employees. Further, the status of workers in the workshops, which get paid an agreed amount for a table or a dining room set of furniture, for example, and own their own hand tools, is often similar to that of the 'sub-contractors'. Gathering a number of workers under one roof increases control possibilities but has not as yet resulted in radical changes in work

organisation, because the available tech-

niques do not call for that. The point here is that the network is quite

as fluid in terms of the relations between workers and proprietors and workers and

practices as in terms of the relations among proprietors and between them and the practices they include within the scope of their activities. Both these aspects of the car-

pentry networks discussed are extremely flexible if not outright volatile, and the same can be said about a number of other aspects which I will pass over here.13 This flexibility, which in terms of social network analysis can be characterized as a constant flow of individuals through a fairly stable network of structurally equivalent positions is, as it were, a guarantee for the survival of the network itself. If persons or enterprises were linked permanently to particular network positions difficulties in adapting to

externally imposed or internally generated changes would follow.

Approaching the matter in this way also enables us to avoid any structuralist connotations which may be evoked by the network approach. Networks considered as combinations of interrelated positions throw up options and create constraints, but do not dictate the options to be pursued and how to evade constraints and settle conflicts. They rather pose questions and

call for decisions, which are certainly always based on imperfect information and sim-

plified conceptions, but must be made nonetheless. Active implementation of

strategies is required to make these networks work.

5. Strategies in socio/technical networks

The ambitions of many, and even most, small-scale proprietors in Africa, and in

particular in small carpentry enterprises, are rather modest. Their primary aim is to secure adequate incomes. Expansion, accumulation and mechanization may be dreamt of but rarely attempted seriously. Secondly, it is important to have a clear idea of the constraints faced by those who, in spite of the unfavorable odds, embark on such ventures, and how some have been able to succeed, if only in a limited and

gradual fashion. Combining these aspects, it is possible to understand the evolution of

socio/technical networks which are popu- lated by both survival-oriented and expan- sionist proprietors.

The volatility of the business environment and the limited resources of most small enterprise collectives impose certain survival strategies. They can be summarized under the following headings:

(1) Emphasizing scope rather than scale of

production. (2) Production financing with deposits paid by customers, minimizing the need for

working capital. (3) Minimal raw material stocks and pro- ducing to order rather than for display, minimizing the cost of inventories.

(4) Ad hoc rather than systematic man-

agement, minimizing the time spent on accounts and labour supervision. (5) Individualistic, rather than co-

operative, organization of work, making each worker responsible for his own

throughput, and paying him accordingly.

It is important to note that these strategies are perfectly rational responses to a particular kind of business environment, given the prevailing enterprise organisation, and not the result of inadequate education, tra-

ditionalism, or other commonly quoted

408



obstacles to development. Most small and intermediate woodworking enterprises in Nakuru and Mutare are in a situation

reminding the observer of the perfect com-

petition of elementary economics textbooks: none of them are in a position to control a sizeable share of total output or the supply of key inputs, and exclude the

competitors. In order to survive, risk must be minimized. Purchasing according to orders, customer financing, a wide range of

products and flexible production - all these

strategies flow from this ambition. Survival is not always the main concern of

proprietors, however. A significant number have already gone beyond this, expanding the range and increasing the sophistication of their activities. Four types of expansion strategies can be identified:

(1) Employing more workers, at the same level of technological sophistication as pre- viously, and without changing the organisation of work.

(2) Diversification, that is running two or more enterprises in different lines of business simultaneously. (3) Vertical expansion, by adding on related activities. (4) Trading in the products of other car-

penters, or in effect, becoming a merchant of the type found in putting out networks or the European Kaufsystem. (5) Gradual mechanization, mechanizing the production process one step at a time.

Increasing employment, adjusting it to the demand of the day, is the most obvious and safest expansion path. This strategy is used

by a large number of proprietors. However, such increases are not always permanent. Demand subsides again, either generally, or because other carpentry enterprises increase their share of total production.

Diversification is somewhat less common in the carpentry collectives discussed here.

Mostly, it appears in the combination of

agricultural activities and small-scale manu-

facturing. It is also possible to be engaged in two or more different kinds of small- scale enterprise in order to hedge against market fluctuations, even within the con- fines of one workshop. The purchase of a welding machine does, for instance, serve this purpose in small carpentry units. How-

ever, the most common diversification avenue in the furniture business, with the

exception of agriculture, is building work and interior fittings, where similar skills are

required as in furniture production. Run-

ning a general store on the side is also a

possibility, and in Zimbabwe rural retailers

employed carpenters and sold the products. Vertical expansion into saw-milling, or

sawmills expanding into furniture production were discussed above. A few car-

penters in Nakuru with workshops in out-

of-the-way (and cheap) locations had established up to three separate outlets in shop- ping areas. This in turn facilitated the

buying of other carpenters' products and

reselling them with a profit. The important thing about all these strat-

egies is that they do not presuppose any kind of technical change in the enterprise. Each strategy, in its own way, can create

opportunities for increased mechanization, however, by increasing and, above all, sta-

bilizing turnover, thereby reducing the risks inherent in investment. In view of this, it is not surprising that mechanization is in many cases combined with diversification, vertical expansion or trading.

6. Learning and training in

socio/technical networks

The main prerequisite of successful gradual mechanization is vocational training and

practical experience, i.e., the circulation of

people within the carpentry network and the training networks which are related to it. In the Nakuru group, most mechanizing proprietors had received formal vocational

training of some kind, and then worked in

relatively sophisticated workshops, before

setting out for themselves. In Zimbabwe, experience from sophisticated companies was also characteristic of mechanizing proprietors, but it was not necessarily gained within the furniture sector. In both cases, understanding of the idea of mechanization was diffused through these experiences. Mobility within networks and opportunities to build careers by passing through different

positions, and accumulating competence as well as confidence in the process, is in other words essential for the kind of gradual technical change discussed here.

409



Learning in this way also creates the

capability to absorb and digest information

coming through other channels which were

mainly informal in the collectives discussed here. Customers as well as main-street furniture shops were important sources of

product information, and observation of the activities of other carpenters provided information about new products and better

production techniques. These practices are

replicated in informal apprenticeships, which were frequent, either as a complement to or as a substitute for formal train-

ing. Ultimately, much of the information

spreading through these informal networks

originates elsewhere, however. It is picked up by carpenters working in other locations or in trips to the capital and other large cities. Observation of furniture produced in other places but sold in Nakuru or Mutare is another source of product ideas. Such ideas are also culled from various publications, mostly journals and magazines but

occasionally from carpentry handbooks (cf. Granovetter 1973).

These learning processes do not only increase the competence of individual proprietors and workers. They also increase the potential of the network as a whole. The information picked up by this or that

carpenter and then embodied and made visible in his products is readily available to all. If the product in question can be sold to many customers, widespread imitation follows. When workers move between

workshops, they also bring with them what

they have learned. In the case of production techniques, the

situation is somewhat different. The basic

production techniques used by carpenters everywhere in forming wood, i.e., sawing, planing and mortising are common knowl-

edge among all carpenters. Further, most of them know how to use simpler machines such as saws and planers.

However, hands-on experience is the main teacher of production techniques of the type discussed here. Hearing about a

technique and understanding its principles is not the same as learning to apply it in

practice. Hence post-installation learning is usually needed, even in the case of fairly elementary machines. Therefore, knowl-

edge of sophisticated techniques and materials tended to be superficial and theoretical rather than based on long-standing practice in many cases. This limitation in turn was related to the modest demands of customers with regard to standardization, quality, etc., i.e., to the character of the customer network.

7. Intersecting networks and

entrepreneurs It is now time to attempt to explicate the theoretical implications of the analysis presented above. The first problem to be discussed is the difference between analysis in terms of positions, as demonstrated above, and analysis in terms of related actors.

Networks can either be analyzed from the perspective of specific actors and their interaction within a larger context; or

alternatively, the networks themselves can be in focus, leading to analysis of latent and manifest social patterns, covering a large number of actors, more or less anonymous.

If the point of departure is actors, actor

pairs or fairly small groups of actors, the focus is usually on what White has termed

'multiplex ties', i.e., the relations between the actors are multidimensional and include

typically not only exchange of products and

money, but also flows of information, influence, dependencies and power, etc.

(White 1992: 84ff.). Multiplex ties are close and intense, and often characterized by fre-

quent and stable interaction, and it is often the stability of the interaction and the

importance of the 'non-economic* aspects of the relations considered, e.g., power inequalities and/or emotional attachment, which are the center of attention (e.g., Mar-

kovsky et al. 1993; Granovetter 1985). This

approach often leads to 'ego-network- analysis,' i.e., reconstruction of networks from the point of view of a central actor

(such as the enterprise in focus in a case

study) surrounded by a number of 'alters' which are related to 'ego' in various ways (e.g., B?ngens 1993, to name a recent Swedish example).

However, it is also possible to construct one-dimensional networks, i.e., in essence focus on one aspects of relationships and

410



abstract from the others. When Burt (1992) for instance analyses markets and executive careers he reconstructs networks defined on the basis of commercial transactions between firms on the one hand, and positions in a formal management hierarchy on the other hand. The organisations (in the case of markets) and staff (in the case of

management) are classified and analyzed according the particular logic which obtains in markets and management hierarchies, and not others such as the contribution of firms to polluting the planet or executives'

membership in civic associations. This in turn enables Burt to present an internal

analysis of these networks, and by extension the universal (according to him) inner

logic of all networks. In the study reported in this article, an

intermediate strategy was adopted. Con-

sidering selected aspects of two carpentry collectives, several one-dimensional networks have been extracted, which combine

positions/practices. These positions/ practices have been classified on the basis of what has come to be called 'structural

equivalence,' that is equivalence in terms of the potential and manifest relations that can occur, given the parameters of the network. A number of such one-dimensional networks can be assumed to be in operation within any particular social collective, and each of these has its own particular inner

logic. Thus, production networks involving both complementary and competing products are interlaced with financial networks, professional networks both formal and informal, distribution networks and so on.

Everyone can occupy one or more positions in each of these networks. Anyone's position in the collective, that is in the com-

posite network, and his/her particular technological practices are therefore determined by the particular intersection of different one-dimensional networks at which

he/she finds themselves.14 Further, the number of positions occu-

pied within a one-dimensional network, such as the production network discussed above, can indicate strict specialisation, extensive versatility, and a number of intermediate alternatives.

Occupation of positions in different production networks in turn leads to diver-

sification if the networks in question are unrelated or tenuously related in terms of

production practices. An example of this is when proprietors hedge against uncertain business futures by involvement in agricultural networks. Further, positions located at junctions between production networks are shared by two or more networks. The practice/position of electrical

welding for example belongs to a number of

production networks in the towns studied, e.g., furniture, building, light engineering and automobile repair.

However, as we have seen, networks are also constructed on the basis of positions and practices which are not moments in

production processes. After all, a large part of the population is not directly involved in the production of tangible artifacts, and another large part is not involved in production at all, in the ordinary sense of the word. The networks that arise on the basis of such extra-production practices intersect with the production networks and influence their evolution in various ways.

In the carpentry collectives discussed above, this is particularly evident in the case of financial networks understood in a broad sense, and their intersection with

production networks. Some positions in financial networks are 'credit-worthy,' to a variable degree, others are not. Whether someone occupies a credit-worthy position is obviously partly related to the productive assets he or she controls. However, a credit-

worthy position implies more than control of assets suitable as collateral. Observance of the rules of the game is essential, not least in the case of varied assistance

programs, which disburse development aid in the form of loans. These programs usu-

ally demand that clients legitimate their claims for assistance by keeping orderly books and attending 'management training' and similar procedures were reported by bank staff, who also considered savings his- tories, etc. Positions in financial networks had, in other words, to be 'earned' by prospective clients and legitimized vis-?-vis others in those networks (cf. Carruthers & Espeland 1991; Takatera & Yamamoto

1989). Positions in local political patron-client

networks also influenced disbursement of

411



government support and aid to small-scale

proprietors in Kenya. Positions in agricultural networks influenced the scale of

manufacturing activities in both countries. Positions in ethnically defined personal networks (African, Asian, European) influenced the patterns of ostensibly commercial transactions.

Hence, individuals, firms or other actors which occupy structurally equivalent positions in production networks can and do

simultaneously occupy positions in other networks which are not structurally equivalent; or to put it otherwise, such composite positions can be structurally equivalent according to one criterion, and not accord-

ing to another criterion.

Concepts in everyday language which have been adopted by social theory often refer to such composite positions and the

persons which occupy them, without, however, making a clear distinction between the two. A case in point is the concept of an

entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs orchestrate a

variety of resources for production purposes, and introduce technological and

organizational novelties in contexts where

they have as yet not appeared. Hence, an

entrepreneurial position is per definition a

position in which multiple links open access to different types of networks, and what- ever resources can be drawn on through them. It is a position in which an array of different types of relations is actively focused (cf. Hughes 1987).

At least six major types of socio/technical networks directly relevant to the entre-

preneurial position can be distinguished on the basis of the discussion so far:

(1) Core Production Networks, which are constituted more or less (usually more) con-

sciously for the making of a particular product.

(2) Tool-making Networks, where machines and other implements needed in the core production process are made, according to specifications emanating from the core network or one or more of the

following. (3) Innovation Networks, which are constituted more or less consciously (usually more) for the purpose of creating inno-

vations, that is designing and testing products.

(4) Diffusion Networks, which are constituted more or less consciously for the

purpose of spreading an innovation or a cluster of innovations once it has been

designed and its utility demonstrated. Con- nections which facilitate innovation diffusion can be made on the basis of e.g., existing commercial or coll?gial relations.

(5) Professional and Training Networks, that is the networks which constitute an

occupation category as a collective which

upholds a set of standards, values and norms to which members of the occupation category subscribe, and which often

encompass organized information services, educational facilities, etc.

Each of these networks types refers to an active relation (or type of link) to tech-

nology defined through:

(1) active operation of a tool or a machine.

(2) making and selling a tool or a machine.

(3) designing and testing a tool or a machine.

(4) learning of and acquiring a tool or a machine.

(5) defining, learning and upholding skills and standards relevant to the use of a tool or machine.

To this can be added a number of Auxiliary Economic Networks, each with their own

peculiar logic, which include the production networks which provide various minor

inputs to the core production process (such as screws, glue, varnish, in this case) and also the relevant purchasing, distribution and financial networks implied by the socio/ technical character of the core process and its auxiliary processes.

The idea of intersecting networks is in a sense a response to the specific character of the entrepreneurial position which was indicated above. It is necessary for network

analysis of technical change to grow out of the case study approach which is typical of

actor/network analysis, and to avoid the conflation of different logics at work in the

process of technological change.15 At the same time one-dimensional explanations of

technological change are obviously inad-

equate. By analytically distinguishing

412



between different types of networks, which co-determine positions, with which the

people involved therefore have to cope, it is possible to move towards an adequate analysis.16

8. Concluding remarks

Recapitulating: we have journeyed through a number of stations since analyzing the

steps involved in making basic furniture. First, the flexibility implied by combining the steps socially rather than technically was established and discussed. Then, rather than reducing this to a limited number of

typical situations, we went on to other sources of flexibility, including the variable

scope of proprietor's activities and the pres- ence of alternative contacts between struc-

turally equivalent positions within the

production network. This led to a con-

ception of production collectives as con-

sisting of multiple paths, each of which can be linked with the others at every step in the process.

Avenues of mobility in production networks were then discussed as an additional source of flexibility, as well as the relatively weakly connected networks which facilitate

learning processes in socio/technical networks. Thereafter the discussion turned to survival strategies and expansion strategies within the carpentry collectives, and discussed sources of inertia and obstacles to mechanization. All this formed a - rather

long - prelude to a discussion of the idea of intersecting networks which in turn co- determine combined positions within the

production collective. The consequences of this idea for an analysis of entrepreneurship in socio/technical networks were then briefly outlined.

It has been suggested above that production networks do not primarily connect persons or actors but rather positions which

people or organisations occupy (or do not

occupy). This obviously does not obliterate the fact that the information one can get and analyze is usually related to persons and organisations in various ways. Hence, persons or organisations represent positions, but they are not the constituent elements of networks themselves.

It is important also to note that such

positions can and should be understood as

intrinsically related. Positions are not 'nodes' in networks which are then 'linked' to other nodes: positions are rather created

by relations, they are foci of relations. That the manifestations of interrelated positions can be (re)constructed and presented as 'linked nodes' is another matter.

Relations manifest in 'links' (or 'inter- faces' to use a modern term) can in turn be understood not only or merely by their intrinsic relational content (e.g., money) but also by the character of the positions they attach to each other. Developing this further, it follows that machines, tools or other artifacts are not the appropriate counterparts to socially defined positions in a production network. Rather it is the technical function of the machine which is

important, defined as it is both by its intrinsic character, what the tool can do, and by the context in which it is used, how it is related to other elements of the network. A machine or tool which is used in a social context by someone in turn constitutes what was called a technical practice above.

Hence, from a social network perspective, production activities take place in networks which are composed of a number of interrelated technical practices and the social and technical relations between them. These practices are positions in networks because:

(1) Practices can be sustained by different

people. (2) Anyone can engage in different practices, simultaneously, sequentially or cyc- lically. (3) Practices can be sustained by different

types of machines.

(4) Machines and tools can be utilized in a

variety of practices: in different contexts and for different purposes. (5) Practices can be sustained by different combinations of people and machines.

It follows from this that such practices are the appropriate point of departure for network analysis of technology and technical

change: production networks consist of networked practices. However, the mode of

networking is not created by shop-floor relations alone: they are co-determined by

413



enterprise morphologies as well as a number of intersecting networks, each of which

operates according to a logic of its own.

Posing the matter in this way accom-

plishes three things. First, relations between tools and people and the way in which they are interconnected in production processes can be analyzed directly by drawing on the methodological and sub- stantive advances of network analysis in recent years, particularly those related to the concept of structural equivalence (Burt 1983, 1987, 1992; Scott 1991). Second, the

approach outlined above makes it possible for a sociology of technology to draw more

discriminately on the diverse industrial networks and industrial districts literature, and the wealth of empirical material presented there, a task which I have to abstain from here. Third, with this approach, the soci-

ology of technological change can develop beyond its currently almost exclusive concern with innovation processes, and consider more adequately the relation between new techniques and prevalent production practices, and thereby, bring technical inertia and structural obstacles to innovation within the range of systematic analysis.

Received May 1994 Final version accepted October 1994

Notes 1 The research reported in this paper has

received support from SAREC (Swedish Agency for Research Cooperation with Developing Countries). Comments on my dissertation work by Lars Gunnarsson, Andrew Jamison, Staffan Lindberg, Gunnar Olofsson and Arthur L. Stinchcombe materially contributed to this paper by exposing weaknesses and encouraging my search for remedies, which is gratefully acknowl-

edged. * The analysis which follows draws on material collected in several visits to five African countries, Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Uganda and Ghana, and comments from numerous col- leagues in these countries. The mainstay of this experience were two extended field visits, lasting three months in Kenya and four months in Zim- babwe, in which detailed systematic information on carpentry practices was gathered through in- depth interviews with 53 proprietors of furniture workshops, and briefer interviews with an

additional 50 proprietors, and a similar number of bankers, officials, merchants and managers of

supplier firms. * In the 'industrial networks' literature, tech-

nology is one of many issues, and the artifacts themselves and their attributes are not accorded a central place. Rather, exchange networks and other systems of social relations on the one hand and technical systems on the other hand appear as distinct complexes which mutually influence each other (e.g., H?kansson 1987; Laage-Hell- man 1989; Lundgren 1991; cf. Cook & Whit- meyer 1992). The main actors in this approach are organizations - firms or public agencies - or individuals in key positions within them. The main programmatic thrust of the 'industrial networks' approach can be briefly characterized as documentation and conceptualization of the role of cooperation and other types of non-competitive interaction in economic life, and by extension, in the innovation process. In this, the industrial networks literature is similar to the industrial district literature, which focuses on cooperation between enterprises in particular regions (e.g., Pyke et al. 1990; Pyke & Sen- genberger 1992). In this literature it is argued that regional cooperation creates possibilities for innovation and growth in small enterprises, and even that a reversal of the secular trend towards increasing average size of enterprises is under way. (See, however, Blim 1992). 4

Although suggestive in a number of ways, the industrial networks and industrial districts discourses are too disparate theoretically to be amenable to systematic comparison with the approach developed here. Further, they mostly reflect the immediate concerns of business administration and economics, and address theoretical issues in sociology only indirectly. 5 The actor/network literature mainly deals with the question of how particular artifacts are socially constructed through negotiations and conflicts. Their agenda is in other words a network variant of the problematic which has grown out of the interface between the sociology of science and the history of technology in recent years. The aim of this collection of more or less related research programs is to document and conceptualize the role of social forces in forming the technical attributes of artifacts, and social actors are analyzed primarily from the viewpoint of their relationship to the artifact under study (Bijker et al. 1987; Law 1991; Law & Bijker 1992; for critique see Sverrisson 1993 and Winner 1993). 6 This discussion refers only to how people relate to the socio/technical networks of which they are a part. More general attempts to super- sede the individual/society dualism are Harrison White's discussion (1992:166 ff.) and Bourdieu's

414



habitus/field theory (e.g., Bourdieu 1992: 120 ff.). 7 The literature which one can conceivably draw on here is already voluminous and growing and the theoretical approaches proposed are very heterogenous. networks' has become something of a catchword, particularly in business studies, and metaphorical use of the network concept often, moreover, signifies a general stance towards preferred forms of industrial organization. Networks are contrasted with hierarchy, and the role of power, of monopoly and other competitive strategies and of conflict generally is down-played. Informal and 'non-economic' relations and cooperation are emphasized in opposition to neo-classical assumptions and their derivatives. The proponents of 'industrial networks' seem to this author to be united by sharing such critical positions rather than by a common theoretical approach (Easton 1992). 8 The inflow of varied inputs such as glue, screws, sandpaper etc., as well as the acquisition and maintenance of tools and machinery, obviously make the relations in and around this network more complex. Further, besides production, there is also trading and transport, which are likewise ignored for the moment.

9 Technical sophistication was measured as the relative number of moments which had been mechanized in combination with the range of hand tools available for each operation. 10 The exceptions were enterprises which had, as a sideline, installed dedicated product lines for doors, one in each country. " Cf. Yamazaki 1981, who discusses the construction of integrated mass production systems in the Japanese furniture industry. He emphas- izes the relation between mass production methods and the use of materials with evenly distributed characteristics, such as chipboard, and the substitution of dowelled joints for mortising. 12 Demand or availability of labourers varies seasonally and conjuncturally for the enterprise collective as a whole. However, the share of each enterprise in this demand or the labour pool also varies for different reasons. It is this latter phenomenon which is referred to here.

13 See Sverrisson 1988, 1990, 1993 for a more complete analysis end empirical details.

14 If this is starting to look to the reader like an inverse image of roles and role-sets, seen from the 'outside' rather than from the viewpoint of the individual, this is no coincidence. Developing this observation would, however, lead away from the points I want to make on this occasion.

15 Case studies are, of course, also very common within the industrial networks approach. 16 To what has been said here one could add that these network types are in turn embedded

in personal and kinship networks, and, more generally, the prevailing organisational, insti- tutional and political context enveloping each case. I will refrain from tracing these connections here. See, however, Sverrisson 1993.

References Akrich, M. 1992. Beyond Social Construction

of Technology: The Shaping of People and Things in the Innovation Process. In M. Dier- kes & U. Hoffmann (eds.). New Technology at the Outset: Social Forces in the Shaping of Innovations, Frankfurt am Main.

Asheim, B. 1994. Industrial Districts, Inter-firm Co-operation and Endogenous Technological Development: The Experience of the Devel- oped Countries. In Technological Dynamism in Industrial Districts: An Alternative Approach to Industrialization in Developing Countries? United Nations, Geneva.

Axelsson, B. & Easton, G. (eds.) 1992. Industrial Networks: A New View of Reality. London: Routledge.

Bagachwa, M. S. D. 1992. Choice of Technology in Small and Large Firms: Grain Milling in Tanzania. World Development 20, No. 1, pp. 97-107.

Berkowitz, S. D. 1988. Markets and Market Areas: Some Preliminary Formulations. In B. Wellman & S. D. Berkowitz (eds.). Social Structures: A Network Approach. London: Cambridge University Press.

Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P. & Pinch, T. 1987. The Social Construction of Technology: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. London: MIT Press.

Blim, M. L. 1992. Small-Scale Industrialization in a Rapidly Changing World Market. In Rothstein, F. ?. & M. L. Blim, Anthropology and the Global Factory: Studies of New Indus- trialization in the Late Twentieth Century. Lon- don: Bergin and Garvey.

Bourdieu, P. <fc Wacquant, L. J. D. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Burt, R. S. & Minor, M. J. & Associates. 1983. Applied Network Analysis: A Methodological Introduction. London: Sage.

Burt, R. S. 1987. Social Contagion and Inno- vation: Cohesion vs. Structural Equivalence. American Journal of Sociology 92, 1287-1335.

Burt, R. S. 1988. The Stability of American Markets. American Journal of Sociology 94, No. 2, 356-395.

Burt, R. S. 1992. Another Look at the Network Boundaries of American Markets. American Journal of Sociology 95, No. 3, 723-753.

Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social

415



Structure of Competition. London: Harvard University Press.

Busby, J. S. & Fan, I-S. 1993. The Extended Manufacturing Enterprise: its Nature and its Needs. International Journal of Technology Management 8, No. 3/4/5, 294-308.

B?ngens, L. 1993. Capability Accumulation through Technological Exchange. G?teborg: Chalmers.

Call?n, M. 1987. Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes & T. Pinch, The Social Construction of Technology: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. London: MIT Press.

Call?n, M. 1991. Techno-economic networks and Irreversibility. In J. Law (ed.), Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London: Routledge.

Carruthers, B. G. & Espeland, W. N. 1991. Accounting for Rationality: Double-Entry Bookkeeping and the Rhetoric of Economic Rationality. American Journal of Sociology 97, No. 1, 31-69.

Cook, K. S. & Whitmeyer, J. M. 1992. Two Approaches to Social Structure: Exchange Theory and Network Analysis. Annual Review of Sociology. 109-127.

Dore, R. 1986. Flexible Rigidities: Industrial Policy and Structural Adjustment in the Jap- anese Economy 1970-80. London: Athlone Press.

Easton, G. 1992. Industrial Networks: A Review. In Axelsson, B. & Easton, G. (eds.). Industrial Networks: A New View of Reality. London: Routledge.

Grabher, G. (ed.) 1993. The Embedded Firm: On the Socioeconomics of Industrial Networks. London: Routledge.

Granovetter, M. 1973. The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78, 1360- 1380.

Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embed- dedness. American Journal of Sociology 91, 481-510.

Hannan, M. T. & Freeman, J. 1984. Structural Inertia and Organizational Change. American Sociological Review 49, 49-164.

Hughes, T. P. 1987. The Evolution of Large Technological Systems. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes & T. Pinch, The Social Construction of Technology: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge Mas- sachusetts and London: The MIT Press.

Hughes, T. P. 1988. The Seamless Web: Tech- nology, Science, et cetera, et cetera. In B. Elliot (ed.), Technology and Social Process. Edinburgh University Press.

H?kansson, H. (ed.) 1987. Industrial Techno-

logical Development. London: Croom Helm. H?kansson, H. 1989. Corporate Technological

Behaviour. London: Routledge. Imai, Ken-ichi. 1987. Network Industrial Organ-

ization in Japan, paper prepared for a workshop on New Issues in Industrial Economics, at Case Western Reserve University, mimeo, Hitotshubashi University, Japan.

Karlqvist, A. (red.) 1990. N?tverk: Teorier och begrepp i samh?llsvetenskapen. Vaniamo: Gidlunds.

Laage-Hellman, J. 1989. Technological Devel- opment in Industrial Networks. Acta Univ- ersitatis Uppsaliensis 16. Uppsala.

Latour, ?. 1991. Materials and Power: Tech- nology is Society made Durable. In J. Law (ed.), Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London: Rout- ledge.

Law, J. 1987. Technology and Heterogenous Engineering: The Case of Portuguese Expan- sion. In Bijker et al. op. cit. London: MIT Press.

Law, J. (ed.) 1991. Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London: Routledge.

Law,.J. & Bijker, W. E. 1992. Postscript: Tech- nology, Stability and Social Theory. Shaping Technology / Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. London: Routledge.

Lundgren, A. 1991. Technological innovation and Industrial Evolution: The Emergence of Industrial Networks. Stockholm: Department of Economics, University of Stockholm.

Markovsky, B., Skvoretz, J., Willer, D., Lova- glia, M. L. & Erger, J. 1993. The Seeds of Weak Power: An Extension of Network Exchange Theory. American Sociological Review 58, 197-209.

Marx, K. (undated). Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Myung-Rae, C. 1994. Weaving Flexibility: Large-Small Firm Relations, Flexibility and Regional Clusters in South Korea. In P. O. Pedersen, A. Sverrisson & M. P. Van Dijk (eds.). Flexible Specialization: The Dynamics of Small-Scale Industries in the South. London: IT-publications.

Nadvi, K. 1994. Industrial District Experiences in Developing Countries. Technological Dyna- mism in Industrial Districts: An Alternative Approach to Industrialization in Developing Countries? Geneva. United Nations.

Patchell, J. & Hayter, R. 1992. Dynamics of Adjustment and the Social Division of Labour in the Tsubame Cutlery Industry. Growth and

Change, pp. 200-216. Pedersen, P. O., Sverrisson, A. & Van Dijk, M.

P. (eds.) 1994. Flexible Specialization: The

416



Dynamics of Small-Scale Indusnies in the South. London: IT Publications.

Piore, M. J. & Sabel, C. F. 1984. The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. New York: Basic Books.

Pyke, F., Beccatini, G. & Sengenberger, W. 1990. Industrial Districts and Inter-firm Coop- eration in Italy. Geneva, IILS.

Pyke, F. & Sengenberger, W. 1990. Industrial Districts and Local Economic Regeneration. Geneva: IILS.

Sabel, C. & Zeitlin, J. 1985. Historical Alterna- tives to Mass Production: Politics, Markets and Technology in Nineteenth Century Indus- trialization. Past and Present 108, 133-176.

Schmitz, H. 1989. Flexible Specialisation-A New Paradigm of Small-Scale Industrialisation? Institute of Development Studies (Sussex) Discussion Paper 261, Brighton.

Scott, J. 1991. Social Network Analysis: A Hand- book. London: SAGE.

Sverrisson, A. 1990. Entrepreneurship and Industrialisation: A Case Study of Carpenters in Mutare, Zimbabwe. Lund: Research Policy Institute.

Sverrisson, A. 1992. Innovation as a Collective Enterprise: Case Studies of Carpenters in Nakuru, Kenya. Lund: Research Policy Insti- tute.

Sverrisson, ?. 1993. Evolutionary Technical Change and Flexible Mechanization: Entre- preneurship and Industrialisation in Kenya and Zimbabwe. Lund: Lund University Press.

Swedberg, R. 1994. The Rise of New Economic Sociology and Related Developments 1987- 1993, Working Paper No. 17, Department of Sociology, University of Stockholm.

Takatera, S. & M. Yamamoto. 1989. The Cul- tural Significance of Accounting in Japan. Scandinavian Journal of Management 5, No. 4, 235-250.

Wellman, B. & Berkowitz, S. D. (eds.) 1988. Social Structures: A Network Approach. London: Cambridge University Press.

White, H. C. 1988. Varieties of Markets. In B. Wellman & S. D. Berkowitz (eds.), Social Structures: A Network Approach. London: Cambridge University Press.

White, H. C. 1992. Identity and Control: Towards a Structural Theory of Action. Prince- ton University Press.

Winner, L. 1993. Social Constructivism: Open- ing the Black Box and Finding it Empty. Science and Culture. 427-452.

Yamazaki, M. 1981. Innovations in Japan s Com- munity-Based Industries: A Case Study. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organisation.

417



social networks || making sense of chaos: socio-technical networks, careers and entrepreneurs

Documents