| |
4. Techno-organizational
paradigms
as guidelines for change in the socio-institutional sphere
|
|
|
The question
remains as to what guides adequate institutional change. Obviously,
we have been suggesting that not just any change will do, however
positive. What we are holding is that the techno-economic paradigm
is the best source of guidelines for social and institutional
design, which implies that the viable changes have a recognizable
direction. Yet, we are not making a case for mere technological
determinism.
|
|
|
The
wide space of the possible
What
a paradigm determines is the vast range of the possible and that
space is very wide indeed. For the previous paradigm, we can recognize
at least four major modes of growth: Keynesian democracy, Fascism,
Socialism and, in the Third World, what we could call "State
Developmentalism." There can be no doubt at all that these
are profoundly different socio-institutional systems. Moreover,
the variety of versions of each "model" was indeed enormous.
And yet, at a certain level of abstraction, they all share certain
common features, which stem from the fact that the same mass production
paradigm is the logic guiding wealth creating activities in the
production sphere. Among these shared characteristics one could
mention:
a)
An important role for a central government, actively engaged in
the economy, whether very directly or more indirectly;
b) The erection of the State as the main agent of redistribution
of wealth, which is seen as the prevalent form of social justice;
c) A drive towards the "Homogeneity" of consumption
styles within the Nation-State, with an effort to reduce internal
differences of nationality, language, etc.;
d) Central representation of the provinces, generally by some
form of direct elections;
e) "Mass" character of political parties and other associations;
f) Government by one or very few main political parties (rarely
more than two, even in countries with very democratic systems)
and
g) A separation of political leadership from "technical"
management (with measures for a degree of continuity of the second).
The
interesting phenomenon is that these similarities, among systems
otherwise so divergent, has only become clearly visible with the
diffusion of the new principles of decentralization and the increasing
strength of the ideas which question the previously accepted role
of the State. Furthermore, one can now also see a parallel between
the typical forms of organization of the traditional big corporations
and that of hospitals, universities, ministries and governments
in general. As firms have begun to change to more open globalized
networks, so have other structures begun to question the effectiveness
of their own form of organization.
What we are
suggesting, then, is that as the new wealth creating potential
unfolds in the economy, its logic propagates towards all of society
modifying the common sense criteria that guide all sorts of organizations
and eventually resulting in maximum social synergy. Thus, understanding
the nature of the paradigm can provide the most appropriate tools
for becoming a fully conscious and effective actor in the process
of institutional modernization.
|
|
|
The
notion of a paradigm can be understood on three levels
In practice,
each techno-economic paradigm is constructed and diffuses on three
inter-related levels:
1. As a set of real new technology systems which grow and diffuse
in the productive sphere (In the present case, these would be
the microelectronics, software and computer related industries,
plus modern telecommunications and all the services connected
with them).
2. As a new "best practice" model adapted to the new
technologies and capable of taking best advantage of them. This
model diffuses across all industries and productive activities,
modernizing them and establishing the emerging managerial common
sense for investment and innovation. (At present this would be
the flexible organizational model -in its "Japanese"
and other versions- fused with the consistent application of information
technology)
3. As a more general set of "common sense" principles
for organizational and institutional design (This would involve
general principles such as decentralization, networking, interaction
between the organization and its users or beneficiaries continuous
improvement, participation, consensus building, etc.). These principles
can be said to conform a techno-organizational paradigm.
These levels
can be seen as a series of overlapping waves in time. The first
to diffuse widely is the set of new technologies. Then, as it
becomes clear that these cannot yield their promised fruits without
organizational change, the new managerial model develops further
and further and increasingly propagates. Finally, the third level
develops as the paradigm overflows outside the economic sphere.
When productive organizations discover the advantages of the new
paradigm, so do many of their leaders, participants and observers.
That is how, the paradigm, in the form of general guidelines or
principles, is gradually constructed in the minds of more and
more people and starts becoming the new common sense for effectiveness
more or less everywhere.
Obviously,
the variety of forms of adoption and application is immense. Technology
enters a world where other very powerful influences, such as history,
culture and politics shape the manner in which they are taken
up (or partly rejected) in each particular country or region,
productive sector or territory, nation or social group. The power
of these shaping forces is naturally greater the further one goes
from the hard technology core towards the realm of ideas. In other
words, the variety of forms of adoption increases as one goes
from the first to the third level in the propagation of a paradigm.
Since it is
in the third sense that the new paradigm provides the criteria
for viability and the guidelines for designing effective institutions
and social action, it should be clear why the diversity of applications
and forms of adoption was as great as we pointed out in relation
to the previous, mass production, paradigm.
It is also
at this third level that the old paradigm remains alive beyond
its usefulness and becomes an obstacle to the new. For this reason,
at each transition, the traditional "left-right" divide
is made more complex by the appearance -in each group- of another
divide which is between the old and the modern ideas, those looking
backwards and those looking forward (See Figure 5).
|
| |
 |
|
|
General
principles: Many forms of application
So,
what the paradigm provides is not the goals but the forms and
the technical and organizational tools with which to pursue them.
Therefore, the space for institutional creativity is very wide.
Within it, the various social forces play out their confrontations,
their experiments, agreements and compromises. The result is the
framework -or frameworks- that will ultimately mold, orient, select
and regulate the actual paths the new potential will follow.
This means
that each crisis, each period of technological transition, is
a point of indetermination in history. A quantum jump in potential
productivity opens the way for a great increase in the generation
of wealth. But the specific socio-political framework that will
handle -or squander- this new potential has to be designed and
established. This, in turn, is what determines the mix of commodities
that will compose that greater wealth and the way they will be
produced and their benefits distributed. Historically, each transition
has modified both the conditions of the various social groups
within each country and the relative position of countries in
the generation and distribution of world production.
However, the
task is so ambitious that it is difficult to envisage. If someone
had held in the 1920's or 30's that, in less than three decades,
practically all colonial empires could be dismantled and that
in North America and Europe there could be full employment and
most industrial workers could own a car and a house full of electrical
appliances, he or she would have been met with general disbelief.
|
| |
The politics
of transition
Obviously the
question of social and institutional change is a political question.
Ideologies and vested interests have great power in determining
the particular outcomes out of the wide space of the viable at
each transition. The level of political consensus, conflict or
confusion strongly influences the speed and the ease or difficulty
with which the new mode of growth is established.
Yet, whatever the political position, it certainly makes a difference
how one understands the present period. Insisting on the dichotomy
between State and Market, as the alternative automatic solutions,
can only prolong the agony and retard the establishment of an
appropriate socio-institutional framework. It is likely to be
much more fruitful to see the present as a transition between
two distinct modes of growth.
This means
accepting the past with its ideas and its institutions, its successes
and its failures, its promises and its achievements, as the way
the societies of the time found to take advantage of the potential
of a specific techno-economic paradigm, now exhausted. It also
means facing the future with a commitment to the construction
of a framework capable of making best social use of the new wealth
creating potential. This implies a readiness to pursue a deep
understanding of the characteristics and requirements of the new
paradigm and a willingness to assimilate change and promote creativity
at all levels and in all spheres.
Historically
these transition processes have been long and difficult, with
a very high cost in human suffering. It is to be hoped that a
better understanding of the nature of the transformation could
help to alleviate the social cost and to quicken the success of
the task of institutional experimentation.
|
|
|
|
|
