
Technological and Institutional (Co)Evolutions, Revisited by (Political) Economists Recommended reading: Amfiteatru Economic (Volume 27, Issue 68)
Industrial Revolutions (IR) are more than just marches of technological and scientific advancement; they are strides of profound societal transformation that defy and reshape the very structures of political, economic, and social life. The forces of technological progress, economic development, and political maturation have historically collided, for instance, with those of tradition, heritage and conservation, placing the accommodating institutional settings under significant strain. In times of transformation, societies undergo veritable “stress tests” that demand realignments, rebounds and resilience. As technological innovation pushes the boundaries of possibility, social/political/economic institutions are forced to respond, either by embracing change or opposing it, resulting a dynamic interplay between progress and stability. These periods of transformation are not just of interest to historians or theorists in economics and other social sciences; they are crucial for everyone’s understanding of the future existential trajectories – micro, meso, macro, mondo. The study of Industrial Revolutions can be set as a needed inquiry into the future of humanity itself. The current episode, Industrial Revolution 4.0 – driven by artificial intelligence (AI) as its flagship –, has already raised common sense questions regarding what systems of production and governance, of social security and civic engagement will become commonplace. Notably, the relationship between Industrial Revolutions and socio-political-economic institutions is one of co-evolution. Technological breakthroughs often drive the restructuring of social, political, and economic systems (with their norms and habits), while these systems, in turn, influence how technology is adopted, regulated, and integrated into society. The interaction between institutions (immanently, stabilizing forces) and technologies (congenitally, disruptive) is simply… complex.
Historically, Industrial Revolutions had a tremendous impact on the organization of economies and political structures. The First Industrial Revolution (IR 1.0) marked a shift from agrarian economies to industrialized ones, driven by steam power and mechanization. This transformation led to the rise of capitalist economies, the creation of urban working classes, and the emergence of new political ideologies such as liberalism and socialism. As technological progress unfolded, political institutions had to adapt to new economic realities, giving rise to debates about state intervention, labour rights, and the distribution of wealth. The Second Industrial Revolution (IR 2.0), powered by electricity, mass production, and the development of interchangeable parts, further entrenched industrial capitalism and witnessed the rise of large corporations and monopolies. The growth of these economic powerhouses necessitated the development of regulatory frameworks and policies aimed at controlling monopolistic practices, ensuring fair competition, and protecting workers’ rights. At the same time, the welfare state began to take shape as a response to the social challenges posed by rapid industrialization, with the state taking on a larger role in redistributing wealth and providing social services. The Third Industrial Revolution (IR 3.0), which was driven by electronics, microprocessors, and the rise of information technology, brought about a wave of globalization and increased interconnectedness. This era saw the rise of knowledge economies, with the importance of intellectual capital surpassing traditional forms of labour. In parallel, the state and political institutions were called upon to manage the complexities of a globalized economy, face the challenges of economic inequality, and overcome the tensions between market forces and welfare statism – all in an era marked by a decelerating Cold War, on an accelerating… heating planet.
Now, in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (IR 4.0), which is defined by the convergence of AI, automation, the Internet of Things (IoT), and other digital technologies, we are witnessing yet another reconfiguration of socio-political-economic systems. Technological advancements have the potential to radically alter the labour markets, with automation threatening to replace human workers in a wide array of industries. As these changes unfold, questions about governance and institutional adaptation become even more pressing: how should the state intervene to ensure that technological advancements do not exacerbate social inequalities?; what role do market mechanisms play in shaping the development and distribution of new technologies?; how can political systems balance the demands of innovation with the needs of social welfare? Socio-political-economic systems, at their core, are institutional arrangements – sets of rules and structures that individuals and groups opt into, consciously or not. These systems are dynamic and must constantly evolve to address the challenges posed by new technologies. To understand the world we inhabit, and to contemplate the future we wish to create, we must ask critical questions about the feasibility and desirability of different economic and political systems: what kind of system is best suited to a world dominated by advanced technologies?; how do the values embedded in these systems shape the distribution of technological benefits and burdens?; and, ultimately, how can institutions evolve in a way that aligns technological progress with the public good? This complex relationship between Industrial Revolutions and socio-political-economic institutional system highlights the role of interdisciplinary research – that is about charting the evolution of societies, both retrospectively (to observe eventual patterns) and prospectively (to assess ultimate uncertainties).
The articles hosted by this issue of Amfiteatru Economic Journal offer some inquiries into the intricacies of IR4.0’s “societal metabolism”.
View more: Amfiteatru Economic Volume: 27, No. 68/2025.