opencopy.org

- Bridgstock, Ch. 8 -

Introduction

We all know how important economic theory is because governments and business use economic theories as ways to allocate resources, plan strategies, and develop policies. What are not so well understood, however, are the relationships between scientific investigations, technological adaptations, and economic growth. In fact, the development of science and technology in the modern age has thrown economists for a mental loop. We simply don’t know how to take into account scientific and technological progress in our economic plans. At best, we have some ideas that can help us to take them into account.

This is a serious problem because, in many respects, scientific discovery and technological progress have become the major engines of advanced economies. Not understanding how they work makes advanced technological societies particularly vulnerable to recessions and, perhaps, even Depressions. It also leaves us vulnerable with respect to competition from other nations, who may ‘luck out’ through accident and circumstance rather than systematic economic investment and planning.

In order to understand why economics is so bad at predicting the rate, nature and opportunities for scientific and technological growth, we need to look more closely at the discipline of economics. The first thing we discover when we do this is that the science of economics was invented in a period when science was more abstract than applied. The relationship between science and technology was not as yet established. The birth of economics also occurred at a time when change was gradual rather than revolutionary. This meant that classical economics could more easily conceive of the economy as a self-regulating marketplace, rather than one where scientific and technological innovation could have a dramatic impact. Finally, classical or market economics, was obsessed with individual freedom and did not allow a significant role for government planning in the economy. Even Marxist economics (in its pure sense), which was about classes rather than individuals, did not envision a role for governments in stimulating or supporting economic growth.

Thus, while later theories, such as those developed by John Maynard Keynes lend support to a planned economy, in which science and technology are viewed as a form of knowledge capital that needs to be deployed strategically, the weight of economic theory continues to favour the free individual and the self-regulating market. This is a problem because the lack of a strategic investment in science and technology is a recipe for economic backwardness. In the modern age, it is a mistake to think of science and technology as simply market variables like any others. They are dynamic contributors to economic growth.

Once we appreciate the dynamic role played by new technologies and scientific discoveries as engines of growth, we run into a different problem. Classical economics was what is called supply side economics. It was not only about individuals and markets but a recipe for growth that focused on the production of new goods for which there was a presumed demand. In simple language, the fundamental assumption is that growth is a good thing because it increases the wealth of the nation and that wealth trickles down eventually to individuals resulting in an increase in the average standard of living.

The problem is that science and technology allows us to exploit and consume natural resources in ways that would have been inconceivable prior to the nineteenth century. We are using up our planets resources, and generating toxic by-products, at an astonishing rate. Classical economic theories of progress do not allow us to see this self-defeating process very easily because they assume continual progress. Classical economists also have a tendency to view any problems associated with rapid growth and a consumer society as having a technological fix. While it is true that technology can eliminate as well as create problems, there is no guarantee that an advanced consumer based marketplace will not do irreparable damage to our planet.

Let’s take a look at some of the major economic theories in order to better understand their limitations in the light of a society advancing scientifically and technologically. It is a good idea to get a handle on these theories because they come up again and again in newspapers, conversation, and courses. It’s amazing how poorly these theories are understood by the general population, despite their enormous significance in our lives.

Adam Smith and Classical Economics

Adam Smith developed his theory of capitalism in 1776, at a time when there were few factories in Great Britain and the technology required for early industrialization was relatively simple. In other words, the capitalist society that Smith talked about was neither scientifically nor technologically driven. The progressive changes that occurred were mainly due to the investment of capital in a free market without monopolies.

Smith argued that the wealth of nations did not lie in currency, gold reserves or the balance of trade. It lay in capital. Capital was surplus labour or the labour that one could mobilize above and beyond the need to provide for subsistence. Nations that had surplus labour could become richer by investing that labour in agricultural improvements, trade or industry. Those nations that invested their surplus properly would be richer and would have an advantage over other nations.

The self-regulating marketplace was the only mechanism that could ensure that national wealth flowed into the most nationally advantageous areas. Competition between individuals in the marketplace ensured that investments were going into areas that were productive rather than wasteful. Smith’s main criticism of the commerce and urban industry of his day was that it was uncompetitive and a drain on the economy. His primary target was the merchant of his time, who obtained monopolies from governments for conducting trade in certain products and regions, rather than competing with one another.

Thus, Smith was a strong advocate for the removal of the government from the marketplace. This was not because Smith was anti-government and pro-merchant. Far from it. He simply believed that governments would usually get it wrong if they intervened in the marketplace. He also believed that self-interested businessmen would be able to exert undue influence on governments because of their superior knowledge of trade, commerce and industry. The best thing that the government could do would be to let the capitalists do their thing and compete with one another. That would ensure that capital was going into the most productive areas of the economy, that prices were low, and that national wealth per capita was growing.

Thus, Smith advocated a negative role for government in a self-sustaining economy, in which new technologies and their capital demands were relatively unimportant. His concept of the market was heavily tied to the fact that individuals did not need considerable resources to enter into a truly competitive, non-monopolistic, trade and commerce. Thus, he was able to leave the marketplace to the devices of individuals. His arguments are not really designed for a society where enterprises are capital intensive and far beyond the scope of individuals.

Smith may have appeared indirectly address the issue of scientific and technological progress by discussing the principle of the division of labour that allowed factories to increase production and scientists to advance knowledge by specializing in key areas. In fact, Bridgstock and Birch argue that Smith’s pin factory represents a technological advance. That is highly misleading. If you read Smith’s description of a pin factory, you will see that no new technology is present at all. The improvement in production is solely due to the application of the division of labour. When we read technology back into Smith’s pin factory, we are introducing a notion that was foreign to Smith. His theory of market capitalism had little place for technology. He just didn’t notice much of it around him. The Scotland in which he lived and wrote only experienced capitalism in the form of agricultural investment and commercial trade.

Getting Smith right is critical, because it shows us how market theory developed pretty much in a scientific and technological vacuum. It also shows us that, in Smith’s time, it may have been a good idea for the government to get out of the economy in order to counteract the monopolization of resources by capitalists. Arguably, this theory of the market - the foundation of all capitalist societies — is largely irrelevant in terms of some of the challenges presented by a technological and scientific society.

Marxist Economics

Marxist economics is much more modern than that of Adam Smith in that it has an explicit place for technological development. Marx believed that all societies were based on a materialistic foundation and that a social progress was triggered by changes in the mode of production. Capitalist industrial societies were highly advanced precisely because they made use of revolutionary forms of technology that could be summed up under the category of the factory system. The establishment of factories was a highly efficient form of capital investment that allowed for productivity levels that were unprecedented in the history of mankind. For the first time, advanced capitalist society were able to produce enough to transform the quality of life for all citizens.

Several things prevented these highly progressive societies from advancing further. First and foremost, they were based on individual competition. Market competition was a good way of kick-starting a major revolution in the mode of production and ensuring that the necessary investment in industry was available. But in the long run, it would prove to be highly inefficient because it: 1) wasted resources through duplication; 2) prevented the widespread adoption of new technologies because of duplication; 3) invariably led to monopolization and the success of the few at the expense of the many.

But Marx’s fundamental insight was that the inequalities generated by capitalist competition were highly inefficient because they limited both investment and consumption to a relative few who were better off in society. This form of supply side economics with the capitalists as the suppliers could never produce an equilibrium between economic supply and demand. With regularity, capitalist economies would over produce and then enter into a recession. Marx referred to this boom slump cycle of capitalist economics as its inevitable downfall.

A capitalist market must continually heat up and cool down, making recessions inevitable. Moreover, the regularity of recessions means that some capitalists will always go under. Those who survive will be those with the most resources, who can outlast the slumps, and who will eventually monopolize the industry. As capitalism advances, its capital requirements will increase, further ensuring this process of monopolization. Thus, capitalism eventually undermines its original foundation - a free market of competing individuals. What is even worse is that a developed capitalist economy is so profit driven that it can end up negating social progress altogether. Marx argued that a recession could easily turn into a major Depression because capitalists would not invest unless they were assured a minimum profit for their investment. In other words, monopolistic capitalists would tend to be risk averse and the entire national economy could come to a grinding halt.

Marx was nothing if not prescient and these developments did happen following the stock market crash of 1929. Government re-armament for war, not the free marketplace, took Western economies out of a decade of Depression. Clearly, the self-regulating market was not, by itself, sufficient to avoid a serious economic calamity.

Marx believed in a collective economy that transferred the co-operative principles of the factory to economic and social life generally. You should understand what that means since it is often misunderstood. It does not mean a state controlled or command economy. The fact that Russian and China, ostensibly communist societies did adopt government control is not something that can be laid at Marx’s door. Marx, perhaps naively, believed that governments were merely the tools of capitalist oppression and that the state would wither away in a true communist society. Russia and China adopted state socialism primarily because they had not as yet reached the stage of industrial capitalism and wanted to get there in a hurry.

Marx was truer to the vision of classical economics in that he saw a reduced role for government once a revolution had occurred and the economy had been transferred to the fully conscious working class (who he now termed a revolutionary proletariat). In fact, Marx was probably the most anti-government of all eighteenth-century and nineteenth-century economists. For Marx, economic forces were everything; politics was nothing more than a deck of cards — a superstructure reflecting the interests of the dominant class.

John Maynard Keynes

In an important sense, Marx, like Smith before him, is largely irrelevant to the way the economy is run today. After World War II, most states have adopted something called a mixed economy in which government and capitalists work together to shape the economy. In some countries, like Japan, government involvement in the economy is fairly extensive. In others, like the U.S.A., government involvement is not so extensive. Canada falls somewhere in between.

The economist who made the most substantial case for government involvement in the economy was John Maynard Keynes. Keynes began by agreeing with Marx that capitalism left to its own devices was a highly inefficient system. But he believed that the capitalist system could be sustained and its worst features improved by timely government involvement. Taking the impact of war as an example, Keynes argued that the government could and should stimulate the economy by using a progressive system of taxation.

This progressive taxation system is often misunderstood. Many writers argue that Keynes wanted to remedy the defects of supply side economics by increasing taxes on the rich and distributing them to the poorer sectors of society. These sectors would invariably spend most of what they earned, thereby increasing demand and bringing it into more of equilibrium with supply. This taxation system is progressive to the extent that it generates a society of relative equals rather than a community consisting of rich and poor. That’s not what Keynes was all about.

Keynes did not believe that increasing the demand among the less wealthy sectors of society would increase demand in ways that would stimulate the capitalist economy to the degree that was necessary. That wasn’t a smart way to keep production running. Rather, the job of the state was to tax heavily during boom times and to keep, rather than distribute that income in the form of government revenues. The time to spend the acquired capital was during economic slumps, when capitalists were not investing in the economy. Government spending would do two things. First, it would keep the economy at or near full employment, thus ensuring that demand for products would not cease. The point, however, was not simply to provide people with jobs. During slumps the government needed to invest in projects that would help the capitalist economy to move forward out of the slump. This meant big government projects in the form of hydroelectric damns for electricity, improved transportation systems, rebuilding infrastructure etc.

Note that this is close to the opposite of what present day governments do. They tend to spend during the good times and save during the bad times. In other words, most western governments built up sizable debts during the boom times and when we hit recession, they have tightened their belts and focused on paying off the debt. Thus, during recessions, governments have slowed down the economy.

Keynes’ theory revolved around fiscal policy or the use of progressive taxation policies to maintain the economy. Modern governments, when they get into trouble, tend to rely on monetary policies to deal with problems. Monetary policies are increasing or decreasing the supply of money available in the economy through the control of interest rates in central banks. The idea is that when money is cheap to rent, capitalists will borrow and invest in businesses. When the economy overheats, typically resulting in a greater supply than there is a demand, the government can decrease the supply of cheap money and thereby discourage capitalists from investing. Capitalists always want capital to be as cheap as possible.

But just because capital is cheap, that doesn’t mean that capitalists will invest. At the present time, Greenspan in America and his Canadian equivalent, are making money very cheap in order to head of a recession. But, as Marx and Keynes would have argued, that is no guarantee that capitalists will come back into the market. Capitalists will only re-enter the market if they feel that they have a good chance to make a profit. Monetary policies can be effective, but not when people are concerned about the future of the economy. That’s precisely why Keynes favoured fiscal policies that would stimulate the economy centrally and compensate for the fact that the capitalist marketplace is not a perfect system. The fact that Keynesian policies are not followed very closely in modern Western countries relates to the fact that governments have grown more and more afraid of entering the economic marketplace. The reason is very revealing and relevant to our course.

The Growing Economic Significance of Science and Technology

One of the main reasons why governments have become reluctant to enter into, and stimulate, the modern marketplace is because modern economies are subject to rapid change and it is difficult to know what areas need to be stimulated. This is because, since World War II, the driving force of the most advanced Western societies is science and technology. Science and technology, however, now change so rapidly that economic predictions are, at best, educated guesses. A new technology, like computerization and the Internet, can transform an economy overnight, much more quickly than government planners can adjust. The inability to recognize and implement new technologies can transform a progressive economy into a negative growth economy overnight.

Scientific discoveries are now applied as new forms of technology with a speed that would have dazzled people living in the early twentieth-centuries. Businesses need to recoup their investment as quickly as possible before a new discovery leaves their technology obsolete. Not surprisingly, traditional economics finds it hard to adapt to these new circumstances. Traditional classical economics revolved around the labour theory of value. Basically, things had a value depending on the amount of labour that went into them. Specialization and mechanization could dramatically improve the productive capacity of labour and make one economy more advanced than another. But it was still possible to discuss progress and value in terms of labour.

All that has changed with the increased role played by science linked to technology. If we want to talk about labour in the modern world, we need to talk about intellectual labour. If we want to talk about a modern technological society, we need to use terms like knowledge workers and an information society. If we want to talk about capitalism in the modern world, we need to be thinking in terms of human capital, not merely as happy and productive workers, but as a system that depends on the receptivity to new ideas and constant innovation.

Consider how this transforms traditional market economics. In traditional market theory, nations do well when they export more of their production than they import. The balance sheet is usually measured in terms of manufactured products. In our modern society, manufactured goods like automobiles are increasingly being produced by countries that are developing or in the state of development. The advanced nations are shifting their investment into technologies that are processes as much as products. Some of the most value-added investments are in technological skills and know how. The actual production of computer components could take place anywhere; but the global brain trust might be in Silicon Valley, U.S.A.

It is not that science and technology failed to play a role in earlier economic development but that the entire relationship between capital, labour and technology has been transformed. Capital and labour - the concepts that inform classical economics - dominated the equation between 1750 and 1870. Between 1870 and 1950, however, fully two thirds of all economic growth can be attributed to new technology. Science and technology have become the major engines of growth in the worlds most advanced economies.

Economic Theories Incorporating Science and Technology

Everyone recognizes this, but modern economics has been slow to incorporate science and technology into its models. Only a few economists have made the attempt, which explains why governments and others have such a poor idea of the ways that science and technology should be incorporated into economic development. One such economist was the Marxist Nikolai Kondratiev. Why a Marxist rather than a western economist? Marxists believe in capital and labour like classical economists, but they also place a heavy emphasis on revolutionary changes in the mode of production, which implies an emphasis on technology.

Kondratiev developed the long-wave theory that suggests that technological innovations occur in clusters. Not just one, but a number of new, fast growing industries will usually result when a new scientific discovery - such as photonics or lasers - is applied in the form of leading-edge technologies (i.e. the compact disc, CD-Rom, fiber optics). Whenever this happens, the new technologies feed off one another; knowledge is transferred; growth is extremely rapid. During the industrial revolution, the period of growth could last 50 or more years. As science and technology became more prominent, the period of growth became 20-25 years. Today, corporate think tanks believe that the period of potential growth prior to becoming obsolete is shortening all the time.

If you look at clusters of technological innovation historically, you can see that they come in waves. Relatively simple innovations in the textile industry in 1750 represented the first modern wave. It was followed by a second wave in the form of steam engines and the railway that sponsored a transportation and mechanization revolution. The third wave, between 1895 and 1914 saw the development of the automobile, electrical and radio industry. From 1950 to 1970, the major areas of growth were in chemistry, pharmaceuticals and electronics. Today’s wave depends on computing, semiconductors and telecommunications. This wave may already have peaked, so get your investments out of computing and telecommunications unless you really believe that Nortel is going to shoot back up to $150 per share.

What typically happens in a wave is that there is rapid investment accompanied by considerable innovation during the initial period of growth. Capital finds its way into these areas of opportunity. But as soon as growth begins to plateau, capital and government spending need to find a new home. Investors and governments can make big mistakes by trying to prop up these industries artificially when they have begun to decline. What are the main causes of decline? One cause is very interesting. New technologies generate considerable profits during the innovative stage. But over time they are imitated and replicated by others.

Entrepreneurs vs. Governments

During a period of technological innovation, capital usually comes from one of two sources. For the economist Schumpeter, the major role is played by a special kind of capitalist - the risk taking entrepreneur. Corporations, for a variety of reasons, usually tend to be risk-averse and wait to see whether the technological innovation will translate into a steady stream of profits. At least that’s what they tended to do in the past. But entrepreneurs will look upon these moments as opportunities to deploy their capital. What makes the modern entrepreneur different from the entrepreneur of old is that he/she not only recognizes a market for a new product, but also has an understanding of the scientific and technological implications of the discovery of a new product or process. Thus, whereas the entrepreneur of old needed very little in the way of technological understanding, the new entrepreneur requires a more in-depth understanding of what exactly is going on. That is precisely why some of the most promising new entrepreneurs also worked within cutting-edge industries. That is also why scientists and engineers who once worked at universities have developed many successful small businesses. That is also why many knowledge workers at our universities are now trying to protect the intellectual property that they generate when they enter into collaborations with business.

The importance of science and technology for economic success and growth means that it can no longer be left simply to entrepreneurs, be they capitalists or knowledge producers. In a complex modern economy, entrepreneurs survive best in specialized niches rather than in the development of more mainstream technologies. The problem lies in the amount of capital available and the ability to implement economies of scale. As Schumpeter began to recognize in his later writings, most entrepreneurs simply don’t have enough capital to fully exploit the opportunities. That is precisely why corporations have their own R & D capacities, because they need to keep abreast of new products and processes and because the time line between investment and success is shrinking rapidly. Once the technological peak is reached, the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

Similarly, governments cannot afford to sit idly by and hope that individual capitalists or progressive corporations make the right decisions. If the nation falls behind in terms of technological innovation, it might not be so easy to catch up again. For the nation, the most essential key appears to be having a well-educated, technologically literate population. Since a knowledge economy is highly dynamic, people need to be creative and flexible enough to move with the technological times. For some nations, this investment is more critical than others because it will not come from the corporate sector.

Some fairly advanced modern nations, like Canada and Australia, are likely to fare more poorly in a global economy with a strong scientific and technological push factor. This is because our economies are based overwhelmingly on resource extraction and staples production. The most favourable environments for technological progress are ones in which governments and corporations share the cost of the investment in R & D and pool resources. But the major corporations in Canada and Australia are so linked to resource extraction that they are unlikely to invest in those areas where technology is growing most rapidly and where processes and products are the most value added. This puts extra pressure on governments to fill the gap.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to know exactly where to place one’s R & D investments in a dynamically changing economy. One obvious place, of course, is in higher education. But the need is such that scarce resources need to be invested as strategically as possible. That is why government funding agencies are targeting there funds more strategically than in the past, and looking for universities to partner with technologically focused colleges to ensure that there is a more direct link between research, application, and new forms of employment. Another idea that the Canadian government has taken from Schumpeter and others is that there needs to be an investment in technological clusters of innovation. This tends to translate into forcing industries, colleges, and universities to enter into partnerships that exchange information and piggyback on one another. The main drawback to these strategies is not that they are wrong or even misguided, but that governments typically underestimate the size of the investment that is necessary to ensure technological competitiveness. Canada’s total percentage of GNP in R & D falls short when compared to countries like Sweden and Japan.

The Push and Pull of Modern Science and Technology

Japan is a good example of what can happen when governments and corporations work together to ensure sufficient targeted investment into technology related R & D. Despite the recent Asian flu, the Japanese taught it several lessons about what a country with scarce resources and a very expensive oil bill can do by recognizing that the pull and push of a scientifically and technologically based economy.

Those who believe that the capitalist marketplace should be the sole arbiter of the success or failure of new technologies fall into the trap of believing that no one can predict market directions. While it is very difficult to make such predictions, those governments and corporations who develop a strategic direction and mission will usually fare much better than their competitors. In the past, it is true that major technological innovations in the automobile, pulp and paper and chemical industries were the result of meeting a demand in the population. In the future, however, scientific discoveries and technological applications are likely to play a far greater role in creating their own demand. The computer industry is an obvious case of a product that did not appear to have a market outside of those rare first adopters that always gravitate towards a new technology. But the innovations in that industry, combined with some very clever marketing to business and to game loving consumers, generated a market that was not there before. Similarly, no one could have guessed the popularity of compact discs or DVDs. Records are now obsolete; DVDs will soon replace video tapes in all video stores, despite the fact that they have not as yet a common capability to record.

The technology push is such that demand will usually follow in a robust economy. The Japanese invested significant funds in high technology, in the form of direct/indirect subsidies and by using the savings of the Japanese people to provide low-interest loans to corporations. MITI - the Japanese central planning for industry body - works closely with Japanese businessmen to have a unified strategic plan for development. Japanese corporations make on the job technological education a mandatory requirement. Japanese chukka firms - smaller entrepreneurial firms with a mandate for technological innovation - are integrated with the larger corporations to ensure that new technological products and processes are developed in a timely fashion.

Overall, the government and corporate investment in R & D in Japan is nearly double that of Canada and Australia. Also, despite being an ostensibly capitalist government, the Japanese are more than willing to intervene in the economy in order to ensure technological competence and competition. The distinction between the public and the private sector is not nearly as pronounced as in Canada and Australia.

What about the United States? Arguably, that is a country that is succeeding very well by relying on private enterprise rather than public policy. Such a conclusion would be very misleading. In the first place, the U.S. government invests almost as much as Japan as a proportion of its GNP. American business invests significantly less than Japan in industrial R & D, which could come back to haunt America at some time in the future. For the present, however, American businesses leverage their investment by working very closely with University laboratories. Also, an ongoing legacy of private philanthropy to American universities and colleges means that the investment in R & D, especially at prestigious U.S. schools, is still significant. Finally, Americans are still reaping the benefits of a significant head start in scientific R & D, whereas countries like Japan had to play catch-up and, until recently, accept a much lower standard of living in order to compete with their scientific and technological predecessors.

Conclusions

The significant contributions of science and technology to economic growth, particularly in recent decades, demonstrate the shortcomings of most major economic theories. They show that the emphases on: 1) capital and labour, and 2) supply and demand equilibrium, simply cannot make adequate sense of the technological role. We need to go beyond these simplistic nostrums if we are to have a progressive economy in the modern world.

First, we need to make a special place for science and technology in our economic life. We need to recognize that the gap between scientific discovery and technological application is shortening all the time and that we live in a society characterized by constant change through technology.

Second, we need to appreciate that scientific and technological progress requires an emphasis on human capital - not only in terms of scientific and technological expertise, but also in terms of the creativity and flexibility that technological change require. The old concepts of labour and the division of labour are outmoded in a modern economy.

Third, we need to understand that economic theories that unduly privilege either the private or the public sector are simplistic in a complex technological society where: 1) governments and corporations need to develop a unified strategy; 2) entrepreneurship cannot be left to individuals because of the huge capital investment required; 3) different kinds of businesses and businessmen need to co-ordinate their activities to ensure the maximization of innovation and productivity.

Fourth, we need to recognize that R & D has become an essential component of any economy and that the combination of private and public investments needs to be sufficient to ensure competitiveness. In a scientific and technological world, those countries that do not maintain this investment will fall behind.

Fifth, while the role of the public and private sector will vary from country to country, the public sector must necessarily champion science and technology aggressively in staples producing countries like Canada and Australia. These countries cannot count on sufficient private investment to remain competitive. Their economies will be particularly fragile as: 1) the technological society becomes the norm in advanced nations; 2) as these countries unload their manufacturing capacities to developing countries; 3) as a more competitive global economy emerges; and 4) as developing nations utilize all their raw materials to generate the capital for industrialization.

The irony here is that, in our scientific and technological world, even developing nations cannot afford to overlook technology. Many more nations will be looking to fill technological niches in the global economy. Given the pace and uncertain nature of technological change, they may have the capacity to enter into competition if their leaders plan strategically. Countries like Canada, therefore, may find themselves competing with less developed nations, not only as staples producers but also in particular technological niches. If a nation gambles successfully in a technological niche, it can make considerable progress in a short period of time.

The future will not be easy for countries like Canada or Australia, but one thing is certain. Overall, those countries that invest in science and technology will fare better than those that don’t. Any nation that seeks to maintain its position in the world, and hopefully to advance, needs to place science and technology at the center of its economic strategy. Economic theories per se need to be revamped and revised in order to take into account the increasing significance of science and technology. Most of them were devised during an historical period when technology was characterized by the pull of demand rather than pushing economic growth.

---

The notes presented here are for the AK NATS 1760.06 “Science, Technology and Society” course offered in the Fall/Winter Semester of 2001/2002 by the Atkinson College of York University, Toronto, Canada and taught by John Dwyer. The lectures are based on the following texts:

1. Martin Bridgstock et al, Science, Technology and Society: An Introduction (Cambridge University Press, 1998), ISBN 0-521-58735-2
2. Kevin Robbins and Frank Webster, Times of the Technoculture: From the Information Society to the Virtual Life (New York, Routledge, 1999), ISBN 0-415-16115-0
3. Albert H. Teich, Technology and the Future (New York, St. Martin’s Press, 2000), ISBN 0-312-01885-1

For more about John Dwyer, visit: http://www.sayitagain.com/ivorytower/