Work underway clearly shows. They played the role of mediator and were in many cases an effective driving force. In Normandy as early as March a demonstration of the telephone took place at Elbeuf. In the Rouen region an eminent local, the mayor of a small town, requested the installation of a telephone network in Nibart, work in progress. The first experiments took place in Le Havre as early as ; the town was then a trade centre because of the harbour and its large volume of traffic, and was experiencing tremendous economic growth.
Everything from the United States received particular attention there, and on 3 February , The telephone and its applications were presented to over persons. Lecou- turier, 1. But more often the pioneers were those who first asked for private lines to link their home to their factory or shop in a closed network.
- The Network(ed) Economy.
- A Scanner Darkly?
- Bank Management & Portfolio Behavior.
- AgBioForum 13(2): The Adoption and Diffusion of GM Crops in United States: A Real Option Approach.
- Exercise contagion in a global social network | Nature Communications!
- Evidence-Based Medicine Guidelines?
These requests came from industrialists and representatives of the business milieux. That is how, in the United States, the first subscriber-to-subscriber lines were installed.
Using Diffusion of Innovation Concepts for Improved Program Evaluation
In the young Lammot Du Pont installed a private line connecting him to his home. The adoption of the telephone in this firm was moreover the. Du Pont Yates, This model was to be found in every country, particularly Germany and England. In Brittany in Saint-Brieuc, after a first experiment on 2 1 February between the city hall and the Chamber of Commerce, several traders asked for the installation of telephone lines. In an entrepreneur linked his home to his workshops.
In Brest in a trader asked for a line between his shop and his warehouse on the harbour. In Dijon in a telephone committee was set up Rey- roles, in manuscript of which the members were mainly traders and eminent locals, particularly professional people.
The role of this committee was essential and it took responsibility for canvassing potential subscribers. In Bordeaux as early as the Chamber of Commerce was linked to several locals dependent on its services. A number of industrialists and merchants installed links between their offices and their factories or warehouses. In Rouen in many private lines were installed. In August a transport entrepreneur was granted authorization to connect his businesses in Deauville and Trouville.
The increase in the number of these lines was proof of French entrepreneurs' interest in. This diffusion was contrary to a commonly accepted idea - and based on a prevailing administrative model - according to which 'French society' but often it was not clear what exactly this 'French society' was! This hostility was said to have restrained the diffusion of the telephone.
Yet the recent and pioneering work of Jo Anne Yates on the diffusion of communication instruments in American firms at the turn of the century Yates, clearly indicates that this reticence in respect of oral communication was shared by many company executives. If the telephone already facilitated 'oral management' in a firm such as Scovill Manufacturing Company in , in Du Pont or other large firms it is clear that its diffusion was accompanied by the increase of written messages confirming orders given orally.
The telephone was in fact contemporaneous with the diffusion in offices of other communication tools. In Remington put his typewriter on the market, Thomas Oliver perfected it and during the s it spread through large American firms.
Its use, as well as that fundamental in a history of communication of carbon paper developed in contributed to the exceptional increase in the production of written documents. Thus as Jo Anne Yates notes, The telephone undoubtedly facilitated the oral management methods The New England Telephone Company was among those which produced a large number of written documents for personnel management; ' It would be interesting to investigate the means of communication internal or not used by French firms and more broadly.
European ones during the same period. It is useful to consult the catalogue L'empire du bureau , C. Local pioneers and Chambers of Commerce. A study of local monographs reveals clearly the role of traders and merchants in the diffusion of this new communication tool. During the 1 s, after the State had taken over telephone networks, the Chambers of Commerce nevertheless remained a prime mover.
It was their action, in many cases, which helped solve seemingly impossible problems. In Poitiers, in the same year, it was also the Chamber of Commerce which asked for telephone equipment Leroy-Fournier, In Lorraine the role of providing incentives and innovating was mainly played by private firms and the Chambers of Commerce and Industry.
Amongst the signatories of the conventions passed with the State between and were the Chambers of Epinal and of Nancy who financed, in co-operation with that of Paris, the first link with the capital. Also to be found in this type of configuration were numerous regional entrepreneurs.
The role of certain professions. Trade-related activities recorded in studies pertaining to harbour towns in particular were a driving force, as were textile-related activities, no doubt because production centres were scattered and the complexity of processes necessitated frequent contact between them. There was also a relatively rapid diffusion of the telephone during the s in regions of commercial agriculture and particularly those with vineyards. In wine-producing regions where the market played an essential role, merchants were among the first subscribers.
Thus in Bordeaux in , 99 of the subscribers were wine merchants. In the champagne-producing Marne region in the profession which had the largest representation of subscribers 59 was, of course, that of wine merchants and brokers. Even more interesting from our point of view is the inter-communal network which was set up in these vine-growing regions. Dijon was the main centre and Nuits-St-Georges and Beaune secondary.
DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS AND COMMUNICATION
In Narbonne in July the mayor informed his council that the government was proposing to install an urban network in return for a refundable advance of 12, francs Galfano, In over a third of the first subscribers in Narbonne were wine merchants. As Georges Galfano so rightly emphasized, there is no doubt that economic necessity, from the end of the nineteenth century, incited the communes producing and trading in wine to finance the first telephone networks in their department.
The socio-professional. In the Aude department the first networks were established in production areas while the most favoured inter- urban links were developed between the centres and the capitals of trade and production. Rhythm of diffusion and local economies. The study of the introduction of the telephone - the French case is particularly interesting - poses a number of problems. How can the differences in the rate of diffusion of innovation, from one region to another, from one town to another, be explained? Is a detailed chronology possible?
- Diffusion of Innovations and Communication?
- Using Diffusion of Innovation Concepts for Improved Program Evaluation;
- Uncertain Development - Diffusion of the Telephone in France before 1914.
- The spread of Conservation Agriculture: policy and institutional support for adoption and uptake?
- Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection: 6th International Symposium, RAID 2003, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, September 8-10, 2003. Proceedings;
The types of towns which were the most suited to the rapid establishment of the telephone were large business and trading centres. Major harbour towns also played a predominant role, as was shown in the case of Le Havre, Bordeaux or Rouen, and it would be useful to verify this information with studies of Nantes or Marseille. This tendency has also been shown by Jean-Claude Boyer in the case of industrial centres whose expansion coincided with the Industrial Revolution.
The telephone, or more precisely telephonic equipment, of a town was in fact related far more to the presence of an industrial fabric than to the existence of a local bourgeoisie. Thus the old regional capitals which were hardly influenced by industrialization at the end of the nineteenth century were late starters. Angers or Tours waited until for the telephone Boyer, The case of Toulouse is even more marked and in this town was still isolated. Although with the Act of 20 May the State had decided that no more networks would be created.
It was only on 10 December that a line between Toulouse and Paris was opened. The pace of diffusion of the telephone is closely related to the country's areas of economic development, as a map of the networks around would indicate. The first areas equipped were the industrial basins where it was soon clear that the exchange, and control, of information as a factor of production was essential for firms. If on a local level the role of the business milieux was fundamental, it was equally so when it came to setting up networks with the capital.
As in the case of Toulouse, where the opening of networks towards the capital set off the diffusion of the telephone on a regional inter-urban scale, it was only with the opening of the first network linking Nancy to Paris in that the diffusion of the telephone on an inter-urban level was started in the Lorraine region. A detailed study of traffic towards the capital and of inter-urban traffic would be required to make sound conclusions, but the choice of directions is sufficiently indicative of the main flow of calls.
In the case of Lorraine, J. Martin Martin, showed that the first network to Paris were refunded over a period of six years. The line was saturated at peak hours by it had already been decided to double it. The network as it was designed at the end of the s corresponded to the needs of the business sector; it met a need to communicate on an inter-urban and inter-regional level. It would also be. The importance of seaside tourism has thus been shown: from Trouville 'the queen of beaches' and Honfleur were the two first communes in the Calvados department linked to Paris via Rouen, seven years before Caen Lecouturier, The 'notables' as a slowing down factor?
The question of the telephone was not taken into 'account on a national level during this period a detailed analysis of the reasons for this remains to be made. Having 'nationalized' the telephone, the State deprived itself of the means to develop the networks Stourdze, The public authority thus gives a representation of its omnipotence by the royal road of nationalization.
It is very quick, through the financing of networks, to render itself impotent. The chosen mode of financing was that of refundable advances. During the s these tenders were the subject of contracts. They can be presented as follows:. It was this type of agreement which was made with the Chambers of Commerce. This deliberation must, furthermore, indicate the source of funds. This was a model which the mayor of a commune was authorized to sign.
This project is subjected to the Department Council by the Prefect. In most of the studies made, or still underway, on a departmental and regional level, one clearly sees the will on the part of the civil service managing the network to favour the latter type of arrangement. From the end of the s and at the start of the following decade, numerous projects were presented to the departments so that links could be created between the chief towns of the cantons and with communes of over a thousand inhabitants. A study of the de-. Prices and offers may vary in store.
Such a communication-based interaction is of pivotal economic importance in order to manage efficiently inter-organizational cooperation and business information flows. However, Roman Beck not only connects the two theories epistemologically, but also develops and extends those theories by providing a network diffusion model.
About The Author. Roman Beck ist wissenschaftlicher Assistent von Prof. Select Parent Grandparent Teacher Kid at heart. Age of the child I gave this to:. Hours of Play:. Tell Us Where You Are:. Preview Your Review. Thank you. Stresses the need to enable businesses to grow by removing hurdles, duplication and fragmentation that hinders cross-border development; 4.
Encourages Member States to provide legal clarity and not to view the collaborative economy as a threat to the traditional economy; stresses the importance of regulating the collaborative economy in a way that is facilitating and enabling rather than restrictive; 5. Agrees that the collaborative economy generates new and interesting entrepreneurial opportunities, jobs and growth, and frequently plays an important role in making the economic system not only more efficient, but also socially and environmentally sustainable, allowing for a better allocation of resources and assets that are otherwise under-used, and thus contributing to the transition towards a circular economy; 6.
Points to the lack of clarity among entrepreneurs, consumers and authorities as to how to apply current regulations in some areas and thus the need to address regulatory grey areas, and is concerned about the risk of fragmentation of the single market; is aware that, if not properly governed, these changes could result in legal uncertainty about applicable rules and constraints in exercising individual rights and protecting consumers; believes that regulation needs to be fit for purpose for the digital age and is deeply concerned about the negative impact of legal uncertainty and the complexity of rules on European start-ups and non-profit organisations involved in the collaborative economy; 8.
Considers that the development of a dynamic, clear and, where appropriate, harmonised legal environment and the establishment of a level playing field is an essential precondition for a flourishing collaborative economy in the EU; Collaborative economy in the EU 9. Emphasises the need to consider the collaborative economy not only as a collection of new business models offering goods and services but also as a new form of integration between the economy and society where the services offered are based on a wide variety of relations embedding economic relations within social ones and creating new forms of community and new business models; Notes the fact that the collaborative economy in Europe has some specific traits, also reflecting the European business structure, which consists mainly of SMEs and micro-enterprises; stresses the need to ensure a business environment where collaborative platforms are able to scale-up and be highly competitive on the global market; Notes that European entrepreneurs show a strong propensity for creating collaborative platforms for social purposes, and acknowledges a growing interest in the collaborative economy based on cooperative business models; Underlines the importance of preventing any form of discrimination, so as to grant effective and equal access to collaborative services; Recognises that while certain parts of the collaborative economy are covered by regulation, including at local and national level, other parts may fall into regulatory grey areas as it is not always clear which EU regulations apply, thus causing significant differences among the Member States due to national, regional and local regulations as well as case-law, thereby fragmenting the Single Market; Stresses that market access requirements for collaborative platforms and service providers must be necessary, justified and proportionate as provided for in the Treaties and secondary legislation, as well as simple and clear; underlines that this assessment should take into consideration whether services are provided by professionals or private individuals, making peer providers subject to lighter legal requirements, while ensuring quality standards and a high level of consumer protection as well as taking into account sectoral differences; Recognises the need for incumbents, new operators and services linked to digital platforms and the collaborative economy to develop in a business friendly environment, with healthy competition and transparency with regard to legislative changes; agrees that when assessing market access requirements in the context of the Services Directive, Member States should take into account the specific features of collaborative economy businesses; Urges the Commission to work together with Member States to provide further guidelines on laying down effective criteria for distinguishing between peers and professionals, which is crucial for the fair development of the collaborative economy; points out that these guidelines should provide clarity and legal certainty and take into account, inter alia, the differing legislation in Member States and their economic realities, such as income level, the characteristics of the sectors, the situation of micro and small businesses and the profit making purpose of the activity; is of the opinion that a set of general principles and criteria at EU level and a set of thresholds at national level could be a way forward, and calls on the Commission to conduct a study in this respect; Draws attention to the fact that while establishing thresholds can provide appropriate dividing lines between peers and businesses, it may, at the same time, create a disparity between micro and small businesses on the one side, and peers on the other; believes that a level playing field among comparable categories of service providers is highly recommended; calls for the removal of unnecessary regulatory burdens and unjustified market access requirements for all business operators, in particular for micro and small businesses, as this also stifles innovation; Calls for action to be taken to guarantee full use of, and constant compliance with, consumer protection rules by occasional service providers, on the same or on a comparable basis as professional service providers; Notes that consumers should have access to information on whether reviews by other users of a service might not be subject to influence from the provider, for example in the form of paid advertising; Points to the need for greater clarity regarding safeguards for consumers in the event of disputes, and calls on the collaborative platforms to ensure that effective systems are in place for complaint procedures and settling disputes, thus facilitating the way consumers can exercise their rights; Stresses that collaborative economy business models are largely based on reputation, and highlights that transparency is essential in this respect; believes that in many cases collaborative economy business models empower consumers and allow them to take an active role, supported by technology; emphasises that, rules for protecting consumers are still needed in the collaborative economy, especially where there are market dominated players, asymmetric information, a lack of choice or competition; underlines the importance of guaranteeing adequate information for consumers about the applicable legal regime of each transaction and consequent rights and legal obligations; Calls on the Commission to further clarify the liability regimes of collaborative platforms as quickly as possible, in order to promote responsible behaviour, transparency, legal certainty and thereby increase user confidence; acknowledges, in particular, the lack of certainty especially on whether a platform provides an underlying service or is merely offering an information society service, according to the e-Commerce Directive; calls, therefore, on the Commission to provide further guidance on these aspects and to consider whether further actions are needed to make the regulatory framework more effective; encourages collaborative platforms, at the same time, to take voluntary measures in this respect; Calls on the Commission to further scrutinise EU legislation in order to reduce uncertainties and guarantee greater legal certainty concerning the rules applicable to collaborative business models and to assess whether new or amended rules are appropriate, in particular concerning active intermediaries and their information and transparency requirements, non-performance and liability; Points out the crucial importance of clarifying methods by which automated decision-making systems based on algorithms operate, in order to guarantee algorithm fairness and transparency; asks the Commission to also examine this issue from the EU competition law perspective; calls on the Commission to engage with Member States, the private sector and the relevant regulators with a view to laying down effective criteria for developing algorithm accountability principles for information-based collaborative platforms; Emphasises the need to assess the use of data where it may have different impacts on different segments of society, to prevent discrimination and to verify the potential harm to privacy caused by big data; recalls that the EU has already developed a comprehensive framework for data protection in the General Data Protection Regulation, and therefore calls on collaborative economy platforms not to neglect the issue of data protection, by supplying transparent information to service providers and users about the personal data collected and the way in which those data are processed; Emphasises that the digital revolution is having a significant impact on the labour market and that emerging trends in the collaborative economy are part of a current trend within the digitalisation of society; Notes, at the same time, that the collaborative economy is opening new opportunities and new, flexible routes into work for all users, especially for the self-employed, for those who are unemployed, currently far from the labour market or would otherwise be unable to participate in it and could thus serve as a point of entry to the labour market, especially for young people and marginalised groups; points out, however, that, in some circumstances, this development can also lead to precarious situations; stresses the need for labour market flexibility, on the one hand, and for economic and social security for workers on the other, in line with customs and traditions in Member States; Calls on the Commission to publish guidelines on how Union law applies to the various types of platform business models in order, where necessary, to fill regulatory gaps in the area of employment and social security; believes that the high transparency potential of the platform economy permits good traceability, in line with the aim of enforcing existing legislation; calls on the Member States to carry out sufficient labour inspections with regard to online platforms and to impose sanctions where rules have been breached, especially in terms of working and employment conditions and specific requirements regarding qualifications; calls on the Commission and the Member States to pay special attention to undeclared work and bogus self-employment in this sector, and to put the platform economy on the agenda of the European Platform Tackling Undeclared Work; calls on the Member States to provide sufficient resources for inspections; Underlines the importance of ensuring the fundamental rights and adequate social security protection of the rising number of self-employed workers, who are key players in the collaborative economy, including the right of collective bargaining and action, also with regard to their compensation; Encourages the Member States to recognise that the collaborative economy will also bring disruption, and therefore to prepare absorption measures for certain sectors and to support training and outplacement; Underlines the importance of collaborative platform workers being able to benefit from the portability of ratings and reviews, which constitute their digital market value, and the importance of facilitating the transferability and accumulation of ratings and reviews across different platforms while respecting rules on data protection and the privacy of all parties involved; notes the possibility for unfair and arbitrary practices regarding online ratings, which may affect the working conditions and entitlements of collaborative platform workers and their ability to obtain jobs; believes that rating and review mechanisms should be developed in a transparent way and that workers should be informed and consulted at the appropriate levels, and in accordance with Member State law and practices, on the general criteria used to develop such mechanisms; Stresses the importance of up-to-date skills in the changing employment world and of ensuring that all workers have adequate skills as required in the digital society and economy; encourages the Commission, the Member States and collaborative economy businesses to make lifelong training and digital skills development accessible; believes that public and private investments and funding opportunities for lifelong learning and training are needed, especially for micro and small enterprises; Stresses the importance of teleworking and smartworking in connection with the collaborative economy, and advocates, in this regard, the need to place these ways of working on an equal footing with traditional ones; Calls on the national public employment services and the EURES network to communicate better on the opportunities offered by the collaborative economy; Draws attention to the lack of data relating to changes in the employment world brought about by the collaborative economy; calls on the Member States and the Commission, also in cooperation with social partners, to gather more reliable and comprehensive data in this respect and encourages the Member States to appoint an already existing national competent entity to monitor and evaluate emerging trends in the collaborative labour market; stresses the importance of information and best practice exchanges between Member States in this context; underlines the importance of monitoring the labour market and the working conditions in the collaborative economy in order to combat illegal practices; Local dimension of the collaborative economy Observes that an increasing number of local authorities and governments are already active in regulating and developing the collaborative economy, focusing on collaborative practices both as the subject of their policies and as an organising principle of new forms of collaborative governance and participatory democracy; Notes that there is ample room for manoeuvre for national, regional and local authorities to adopt context-specific measures in order to address clearly identified public interest objectives with proportionate measures fully in line with EU legislation; calls on the Commission therefore to support the Member States in their policy-making and in adopting rules consistent with EU law; Notes that the first movers have been cities, where urban conditions such as population density and physical proximity favour the adoption of collaborative practices, extending the focus from smart cities to sharing cities and easing the transition to more citizen-friendly infrastructures; is also convinced that the collaborative economy can offer significant opportunities to inner peripheries, rural areas and disadvantaged territories, can bring new and inclusive forms of development, can have a positive socio-economic impact, and help marginalised communities with indirect benefits for the tourism sector; Promotion of the collaborative economy Points out the importance of adequate competencies skills and training with a view to enabling as many individuals as possible to play an active role in the collaborative economy and to unleash its potential; Emphasises that ICTs allow innovative ideas within the collaborative economy to evolve quickly and efficiently, while connecting and empowering participants, whether users or service-providers, facilitating their access to the market and their engagement within it, making remote and rural areas more accessible; Points to how the introduction of 5G will fundamentally transform the logic of our economies, making services more diverse and accessible; stresses, in this regard, the importance of creating a competitive market for innovative businesses, the success of which will ultimately define the strength of our economies; Points out that the collaborative economy is increasingly important in the energy sector, allowing consumers, producers, individuals and communities to engage efficiently in several decentralised phases of the renewable energy cycle, including self-production and self-consumption, storage and distribution, in line with the climate and energy objectives of the Union;