Ciencia y tecnología más allá del crecimiento

  1. Pansera, Mario 1
  2. Lloveras, Javier 1
  1. 1 Universidade de Vigo
    info

    Universidade de Vigo

    Vigo, España

    ROR https://ror.org/05rdf8595

Revista:
CREA International Multidisciplinary Journal

ISSN: 2660-8901

Ano de publicación: 2023

Volume: 3

Número: 1

Páxinas: 24-32

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.35869/IJMC.V3I1.4868 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: CREA International Multidisciplinary Journal

Resumo

Los partidarios del crecimiento suelen argumentar que la ciencia, la tecnología y, sobre todo, la innovación son fundamentales para lograr un crecimiento económico constante e ilimitado. Muchas veces, se presenta a la ciencia como la fuente de un progreso que, gracias al poder transformador de la tecnología, tiene el potencial de ampliar los límites del planeta y evitar el desastre ambiental. Sin embargo, los estudios de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad (CTS) demuestran que tanto la ciencia como la tecnología se construyen socialmente de acuerdo con los valores dominantes y las visiones del mundo en el que surgen. En este sentido, en este articulo argumentamos que los métodos actuales de desarrollo científico y tecnológico se basan en la cuestionable suposición de que el crecimiento económico es algo bueno y deseable. Para imaginar un mundo postcrecimiento, es necesario repensar el papel de la ciencia y la tecnología en la sociedad.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Arrow, K. J. (1962). The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing. The Review of Economic Studies, 29, 155–173.
  • Bessant, J., Lamming, R., Noke, H., & Phillips, W. (2005). Managing innovation beyond the steady state. Technovation, 25(12), 1366–1376.
  • Bonaiuti, M. (2014). The great transition. Routledge.
  • Bookchin, M. (2004). Post-scarcity anarchism. AK press.
  • Bussu, S., Davis, H. and Pollard, A. (Ed.). (2014). The best of Sciencewise reflections on public dialogue. Sciencewise Byrd.
  • Callon, M. (1991). Techno-Economic Networks and Irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination (pp. 132–161). Routledge.
  • Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Penguin Classics.
  • Cozzens, S., & Kaplinsky, R. (2009). Innovation, poverty and inequality: cause, coincidence, or co-evolution? In B.-A. Lundvall (Ed.), Handbook of Innovation System and Developing Countries(pp. 57–82). Edward Elgar.
  • Cozzens, S., & Thakur, D. (Eds) (2014). Innovation and Inequality: Emerging Technologies in an Unequal World(ed). Edward Elgar.
  • De Saille, S. & Medvecky, F. (2016). Innovation for a steady statea case for responsible stagnation Innovation for a steady state: a case for responsible stagnation. Economy and Society, 45, 1–23.
  • Eekels, J. (1984). Innovate or perish: A cautionary tale. Technovation, 2(3), 149–167.
  • Ellul, J. (1964). The Technological Society. Penguin Vintage.
  • Escobar, A. (2004). Beyond the Third World: imperial globality, global coloniality and anti-globalisation social movements. Third World Quarterly, 25(1), 207–230.
  • Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C., & Verspagen, B. (2009). The evolution of Norway’s national innovation system. Science and Public Policy, 36(6), 431–444.
  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Phronetic planning research: theoretical and methodological reflections. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(3), 283–306.
  • Freeman, C., & Soete, L. (1997). The economics of industrial innovation. Pinter.
  • Gorz, A. (1980). Ecology as Politics. South End Press.
  • Graeber, D. (2012). Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit. The Baffler No 19. Retrieved from https://thebaffler.com/salvos/of-flying-cars-and-the-declining-rate-of-profit
  • Illich, I. (1973). Tools for conviviality.Harper & Row.
  • Jünger, F. G. (1949). The Failure of Technology: Perfection Without Purpose. Washington, D.C: Henry Regnery Company.
  • Leach, M., Rockström, J., Raskin, P., Scoones, I., Stirling, A., Smith, A., Thompson, J., Millstone, E., Ely, A., Arond, E., & Carl Folke, P. O. (2012). Transforming innovation for sustainability. Ecology and Society,17(2).
  • Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The Triple Helix as a model for innovation studies. Science and Public Policy, 25, 195–203.
  • Lucas, R. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22, 3–42.
  • Lundvall, B. (2010). National systems of innovations. Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Anthem Press.
  • Maynard-Atem, L. (2018). Innovate OR Die. Impact, 2018(1), 13–15.
  • Meadows, D., Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. (1972). The Limits to Growth: A Report to The Club of Rome. Universe Books.
  • OECD. (2015). The Innovation Imperative Contributing to Productivity, Growth and Well-Being. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/innovation/the-innovation-imperative-9789264239814-en.htm
  • Pansera, M., & Fressoli, M. (2021). Innovation without growth: Frameworks for understanding technological change in a post-growth era. Organization, 28(3), 380–404.
  • Pansera, M., & Owen, R. (2018). Framing inclusive innovation within the discourse of development: Insights from case studies in India. Research Policy, 47, 23–34.
  • Pansera, Mario, and Richard Owen. 2018. Innovation for De-Growth: A Case Study of Counter-Hegemonic Practices from Kerala, India. Journal of Cleaner Production197(2): 1872–83.
  • Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-first Century. Harvard University Press.
  • Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other. In Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E (Eds.).Social Studies of Science(pp. 399–441).
  • Polanyi, K. (2001). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Beacon Press.
  • Rist, G. (2011). The history of development: from western origins to global faith. Zed Books.
  • Romer, P. M. (1994). The Origins of Endogenous Growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 3–22.
  • Russell, A. L., & Vinsel, L. (2018). After innovation, turn to maintenance. Technology and Culture, 59(1), 1-25.
  • Russell, B. (2004). In praise of idleness and other essays. Psychology Press.
  • Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is Beautiful. Harper & Row.
  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Transaction Publishers.
  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1994). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Routledge.
  • Solow, R. M. (1957). Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 39, 312–320.
  • Solow, R. M. (2002). Interview with Robert Solow. The Region. Retrieved from http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3399&TC=1
  • Stirling, A. (2008). “Opening up” and “closing down” power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33, 262–294.
  • Stirling, A. (2015). Towards innovation democracy? Participation, responsibility and precaution in the politics of science and technology. In STEPS Working Paper 78. STEPS Centre Brighton.
  • Strand, R., Saltelli, A., Giampietro, M., Rommetveit, K., & Funtowicz, S. (2018). New narratives for innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1849–1853.
  • Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. R. (2009). Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and organizational change(4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
  • Verspagen, B. (1992). Endogenous innovation in neoclassical growth models: A survey. Journal of Macroeconomics,14, 631–662.
  • Victor, P. A. (2008). Managing Without Growth: Slower by Design, Not Disaster. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Winner, L. (1980). Do Artefacts Have Politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.
  • Zoellick, J. C., & Bisht, A. (2018). It’s not (all) about efficiency: Powering and organizing technology from a degrowth perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1787–1799
Fonte de datos: Dialnet