Regarding the length of time between invention and the wave of
innovations that lead to a new long-wave cycle in Schumpeter's or a
neoSchumpeterian version of a long-wave theory, part of the point is that
in the midst of a long-wave upswing, new inventions that are compatible
with the wave of innovations of the current technological regime are
adopted as new innovations, while those that are not compatible
innovations that are not compatible are not adopted until the upswing has
begun to run its course.  From that perspective, mainframe computers are a
'business as usual' addition to the petrochemical technological regime. 
It is the microprocessor, developed for 'peripheral' market niches (pocket
calculators) in the early 1970's, that is adopted as the basis for
personal computers.  From that perspective, an analogy might be the early 
development of the petrochemical industry in replacing whale-oil, and its 
later development into the feedstock for chemical industry and fuel for 
transport powered by internal combustion engines.

        As far as the 'national' versus 'international' dimension of
long-waves, in most world-systems long-wave arguments[1] there is a
definite international dimensions, involving shifts in the balance of
power in the interstate system.  It is on that basis that they extend
long-waves back farther than most neo-Schumpeterians seem to do.  I reckon
that implies national figures would include both the effects of the
long-wave cycle, and of the shifts in the relative position of the nation. 
There might be linkages between these two different long-wave perspective
(there seems to be a potential linkage in Schumpeter's inclusion of
'opening of new markets' as a type of fundamental innovation), but I'm not
aware of work in which it is elaborated. 

Virtually,

Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[1] Antagonists in world-system arguments seem to be persistent in
labelling world-systems argument as "World-System Theory", but seem to
differ on the hyphen and whether it should more properly be 'theories' or
'perspective'.



Reply via email to