Orest Bonetskyy, PhD (Economics), Senior Lecturer of the Department of Pharmacy and Biology, Stepan Gzhytskyi National University of Veterinary Medicine and Biotechnologies of Lviv, Lviv, Ukraine

ORCID ID: 0000-0002-5797-0310
e-mail: orest_bonetskyi@lvet.edu.ua

Roman Zhelizniak, PhD (Economics), Associate Professor of the Department of Finance, Lviv Polytechnic National University, Lviv, Ukraine

ORCID ID: 0000-0001-9033-4490
e-mail: roman.y.zhelizniak@lpnu.ua

Vasyl  Kashchyshyn, PhD (Economics), assistant of the Department of Finance, Lviv Polytechnic National University, Lviv, Ukraine

ORCID ID: 0000-0003-3635-0136
e-mail: vasyl.m.kashchyshyn@lpnu.ua

Alternative Periodization and Institutional Support of Technological Paradigms

Abstract. Introduction. Technological paradigm refers to a set of dominant technologies within an economy. The theory of technological paradigms represents an attempt to explain the logic behind the shifts in these technological sets (to establish certain patterns) and their impact on the economies of nations.

A weak point of the theory of technological paradigms is the periodization of these paradigms, as global technological development occurs unevenly. Determining the exact date of the dissemination of a particular technology is extremely challenging. This remains the most contentious issue.

Purpose. This article is dedicated to substantiating global wars and ideological confrontations as the primary drivers of technological change; developing an alternative periodization of technological paradigms; and justifying the institutional support for technological paradigms.

Results. The authors argue that the existing periodization of technological paradigms fails to account for the profound impact of global wars and ideological confrontations on innovative developments and their integration into economies, as well as the resulting distortions in the economies of nations under these influences. This impact is a crucial factor in the shift of technological paradigms. Therefore, it becomes necessary to incorporate the dates of wars into the periodization of technological paradigms. The authors do not challenge the number of paradigms or the dominant technologies themselves, but they propose adjustments to the timeframes and duration of these paradigms based on the aforementioned arguments.

Additionally, it is noted that the proposed classification allows for the inclusion of global institutions within the theory of technological paradigms, which ensure the functioning of a specific global order. Over time, as the world evolves, these institutions lose their relevance and effectiveness in addressing new circumstances. The article substantiates the existence of international institutional support for technological paradigms.

The presence of certain dominant ideologies can also be integrated into the theory of technological paradigms. This integration enables a better understanding of certain economic processes that occurred in various countries within the timeframe of a specific technological paradigm.

Conclusions. Existing approaches to the periodization of technological paradigms do not take into account the impact of global wars and ideological confrontations as key drivers of changes in technological paradigms. The proposed classification, which considers these factors, allows for the identification of institutional support for technological paradigms and the diminishing effectiveness of international institutions during shifts in technological paradigms.

Keywords: Technological paradigm; periodization of technological paradigms; institutional support of technological paradigms; factors of technological change.

References:

1. Zaretska, L., & Pominova, I. (2013). Sfera posluh u konteksti teorii tekhnolohichnykh ukladiv [Service sector in the context of the theory of technological structures]. Ekonomichna stratehiia i perspektyvy rozvytku sfery torhivli ta posluh, 1(2), 126-133. https://doi.org/10.36818/1562-0905-2020-2-8.
2. Dubiei, Y. (2020). Teoretyko-metodolohichni pidkhody do periodyzatsii tekhniko-tekhnolohichnoho rozvytku [Theoretical and methodological approaches to the periodization of technical and technological development]. Visnyk KhNU imeni V.N. Karazina. Seriia «Mizhnarodni vidnosyny. Ekonomika. Krainoznavstvo. Turyzm», 12, 105-112. https://doi.org/10.26565/2310-9513-2020-12-10.
3. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
4. Svistunov, O. (2020). Rozvytok tekhnolohichnykh protsesiv pidpryiemstv mashynobuduvannia v konteksti evoliutsii tekhnolohichnykh ukladiv [Development of technological processes of machine-building enterprises in the context of the evolution of technological structures]. Derzhava ta rehiony. Seriia: Ekonomika ta pidpryiemnytstvo, 2(113), 156-159. https://doi.org/10.32840/1814-1161/2020-2-26.
5. Schumpeter, J. (2011). Teoriia ekonomichnoho rozvytku. Doslidzhennia prybutkiv, kapitalu, kredytu, vidsotka ta ekonomichnoho tsyklu [Theory of economic development. Research on profits, capital, credit, interest and the economic cycle]. NaUKMA Publishing House.
6. Perez, C. (2009). Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 185-202. https://carlotaperez.org/publications/#Technological-Revolutions-and-Techno-economic-paradigms
7. Perez, C., & Leach, T. (2022). Technological revolutions: Which ones, how many and why it matters: A neo-Schumpeterian view (BEYOND 4.0 deliverable D7.1). BEYOND 4.0. https://www.beyond4-0.eu/storage/publications/D7.1%20Technological%20Revolutions:%20Which%20Ones,%20How%20Many%20%20And%20Why%20It%20Matters:%20A%20Neo-Schumpeterian%20View/BEY4.0-WP7-D7.1_Revised%20historical%20paper%20v3-PC-18429.pdf.
8. Perez, C. (2002). Technological revolutions and financial capital: The dynamics of bubbles and golden ages. Edward Elgar Publishing.
9. Shults, S., & Lutskiv, O. (2020). Determinanty suspilno-ekonomichnykh transformatsii tekhnolohichnykh ukladiv: teoretychni ta metodychni aspekty [Determinants of socio-economic transformations of technological structures: Theoretical and methodological aspects]. Rehionalna ekonomika, 2, 102-111.
10. Schwab, K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution. Currency.