By focusing on one issue-area regime, the telecommunications regime, in three countries---the United States, Sweden and Japan---this study demonstrates a relationship between the state of technology, how technology that is relevant to the industry is understood by decisionmakers, and the normative content and institutional manifestations of a national telecommunications regime at any given time.;It is argued in this study that the intersubjective core of most national telecommunications regimes prior to the 1960s contained not one element---the natural monopoly principle identified in most regime theory literature addressing the topic---but two---a monopoly element as well as a public service enterprise element. It is then shown that these two "necessary beliefs" are both intimately linked to understandings of the industry's underlying technologies. The monopoly element is tied to the "first dimension" of technology---its physical properties and the knowledge embodied by the telecommunications technological system, while the public service element is linked to the "second dimension" of technology---how the telecommunications technological system is understood. It is reasoned that because the regime's core beliefs are tied to the two dimensions of technology, then "significant" technological changes that are relevant to the industry may affect the regime's normative core, or its protective belt of rules that are manifested in industry and regulatory structures. The regime's necessary belief sets are buttressed by an ensemble of "contingent beliefs" that define the regime's institutions---both industry and regulatory structures.;Given the existence of a "public service monopoly" regime in the nations examined, it is hypothesized that when technology is relatively static, or when innovations are introduced by the national monopoly, a national telecommunications regime will appear strong and will persist unchanged. If, however, a significant technological change occurs, particularly one introduced by a firm outside the monopoly or privileged group of suppliers, then some form of regime change is likely to occur. If the innovation creates an anomaly, contradiction or tension with the regime's contingent beliefs, then a "problem of order" is said to have occurred. Decisionmakers will attempt to rectify such problems by modifying extant rules while preserving the regime's normative core. If problems of order caused by technology change persist after attempts to resolve them have occurred, then a "problem of meaning" is said to exist. Problems of meaning undermine the legitimacy of an issue-area regime by contradicting one or more of the regime's necessary beliefs. Gradually, alternative explanations that account for these anomalies emerge and replace the extant regime's challenged necessary belief(s). When this occurs, a regime is said to have changed.
展开▼
