Lock-in from learning effects requires costly subsidies to reverse

Evidence

In cases where learning effects are the major drivers of path dependence, the reversibility is at least questionable. Learning effects are acquired in a specific field of practice and cannot easily be transferred to a new context (of a new alternative). Setting up a new course of action takes quite some time to match the learning effects of the existing course (even when it has been proved inferior). In those cases creating an effective alternative for the restoration of choice requires an extra effort—a (possibly costly) subsidy to help the new alternative catch up with the existing one (Arthur, 1994). — Jörg Sydow, Georg Schreyögg, and Jochen Koch, Organizational Path Dependence, 109

Categorization

• SEED: An essay on why inferior technologies, institutions, or habits persist purely because everyone has already learned them — and what it actually costs to fund a challenger’s catch-up.
• XREF: Connects to QWERTY/tech lock-in literature (Arthur, David) and to the platform-migration debates in software and policy.