In my experience, developers typically dictate (at the very least) the general parameters of the golf course they want to have built. Unless the site is very tight (or the developer very enlightened) the architect is told 7,000+ yards, par 72 every time. Granted, it is the architect's job to fight against that if the site dictates otherwise but, you can bet it's going to be a fight.
I think, from the equipment manufacturer's perspective, innovation is something they can do to sell more product while potentially making the game more fun and interesting for their customers. I have trouble accepting that "adapting to the courses being built" is even a consideration, much less a raison d'être.
The architect has to then plan for the greater distances (both forward and laterally).
Therefore, in my admittedly biased opinion, the architect is the least to blame of the three, reacting most often to the developer (first) and the equipment (second).