• STI Policy Review
• /
• v.1 no.3
• /
• pp.25-37
• /
• 2010

Advances in Information Communication Technologies (ICT) have demonstrated tremendous potential for solving development challenges and improving development processes, culminating in the new Development 2.0. Many development practitioners have embraced ICT (particularly on Web 2.0 and mobile phone technologies and applications), which have become hot topics in both the development community and the policy community as they engage in development practice and dialogue. Despite this excitement, there lacks among the policy community a robust understanding of the powers and pitfalls of ICT in development, executed actions to back the excited chatter, and dissemination of this understanding to practitioners and policymakers alike. We conducted a literature review, interviewed experts, and engaged in discussion with leaders in international development and science and technology policy to provide an operational framework base in which to view ICT in development. This framework regards ICT as tools that support more effective and efficient community development actions and appropriate consideration of general guidelines, which enable better engagement across and within sectors and individuals. Flexibility and accountability are critical requirements pervading throughout the various actions and guidelines, which promote transparent, partnership-based, and sustainable development. We highlight the strengths and weaknesses of ICT to focus on the cautions to keep ICT access and distribution in context, understand the various levels of technologies and services, and dig below the surface as excitement about ICT increases and threatens to become a short-term solution. We offer ideas for specific programs that policymakers can implement to contribute to a more efficient and effective development process to ultimately support global human development, but stress the endless possibilities that can be explored with creativity and flexibility beyond what is proposed here.

• STI Policy Review
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.36-53
• /
• 2015

The rise of latecomer countries across the world directs academic attention to their catching-up and innovation processof seizing technological opportunities and combining internal and external knowledge. Different from the developed economies as well as the newly industrialized economies, China presents a special innovation environment, wherein its technology regime, market opportunities, and institutions are complex and the globalization trend affects competition in a broader way. In thiscontext, we clarify and extend the framework of "secondary innovation". This framework describes the dynamics of those with relatively poor resources and capabilities in their efforts to capture the values of mature/emerging technology or business models by acquiringthem from across borders and then adapting to catching-up contexts. Such processes, differentiated from original innovation that involves the whole process from R&D to commercialization, has become a prevailing regime during paradigm shifts. In particular, unlike the traditional catch-up literature that focuses more on technology, the secondary innovation framework inclusively contains both technology and business model innovation, and puts forward the co-evolution between the two elements, which is more applicable to China's context. In accordance, we also provide implications towards fulfilling the goal of building an innovation-driven nation.

• STI Policy Review
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• pp.16-34
• /
• 2016

This study aims to identify the chronological trajectory of university science parks (USPs) in China and to discuss the roles of government-driven science and technology (S&T) policies in the development of USPs and the future directions of these entities. Our study shows that USPs in China have undergone two development waves: The first from the late 1980s to the late 1990s, when research universities expected to directly participate in economic activities, and the second from 2000 when the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) and the Ministry of Education (MOE) jointly enacted the Proposed Regulation of State-level USPs Management to guide and regulate the development of USPs. The development trajectory highlights that USPs are effective platforms that link scientific research, knowledge spillovers and industrial system. However, Chinese USPs still need to confront some conundrums which may influence the processes and outcomes of UILs. Finally, we also summarize the major issues inherent in the development of USPs to guide policymakers to enact more effective policies.

• STI Policy Review
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• pp.54-86
• /
• 2015

The study examines the U.S. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, with a focus on the recent Reauthorization, and compares, in the political context, the U.S. and East Asian countries-Japan, Korea and Taiwan-that adopted the U.S. SBIR program. For the systematic analysis and cross-country comparison, the study employs Kingdon (2003)'s framework-his political theory and Garbage Can Model-to identify political participants and processes underlying the SBIR Reauthorization and to analyze the differences in problem, policy, and politics streams between the U.S. and East Asian countries. For the cross-country comparison, specifically, the study uses various data sources such as OECD, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions, and World Value Survey. Based on the analysis outcomes, implications of U.S. practices on East Asian countries are extracted as follows. East Asian countries tend to: Have higher entrepreneurial aspiration while lower entrepreneurial activity and attitude than the U.S.; bear higher long term orientation and uncertainty avoidance while lower individualism than the U.S.; and have greater expectations of technology development and higher confidence in political parties while participating less in political action than the U.S. Drawing on the differences, the following policy recommendations are suggested. East Asian countries should: Improve entrepreneurs' access to resources (in particular, financial resource) in order to link their high entrepreneurial aspiration to actual entrepreneurial activities; cultivate failure-tolerating culture and risk-taking entrepreneurs, for instance, by providing a second chance to SBIR-participating businesses that failed to materialize their innovative ideas; and leverage their high expectations of new technology in order to take bold actions regarding their SBIR programs, and update the programs by drawing out constructive dialogues between SBIR stakeholders.

• STI Policy Review
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.1-33
• /
• 2014

Despite a commonly held belief that standards obstruct innovation, recent research shows that they can actually play critical roles in supporting various activities of technological innovation. Thus, providing an innovation-friendly environment through standardization has been gaining much attention in recent years; however, there is as yet limited understanding, due to complex dynamics and high uncertainties associated with innovation, as well as a variety of different types and functions of standards with various stakeholders involved. The problem becomes even more challenging for standardization in highly complex systems, such as Information and Communication Technology (ICT) systems, where a large number of domains and components are involved, along with various types of stakeholders. In order to deal with such complexity and variations, a systematic approach of standardization roadmapping has been used in many technology-leading countries as a strategic policy tool for supporting effective management of standardization. Despite its wide adoption, the current understanding of standardization roadmapping is somewhat limited, leaving significant challenges for policymakers and standards organizations in terms of how to structure and manage roadmapping exercises, and how the government should get involved. In this regard, the current research explores existing standardization roadmaps in various contexts related to ICT systems (ICT in Korea, Smart Grid in the US, and electromobility in Germany), as there is a particular need for systematic development of strategies for such complex systems of ICT. Focusing on various aspects of standardization roadmapping exercises such as their structures, processes, and participants, their common features and key characteristics are identified. Comparing these roadmaps also reveal distinct differences between standardization roadmapping approaches adopted by different countries in different contexts. Based on lessons learnt from existing practices, the study finally provides insight for the Korean ICT standards community on the ways in which their standardization roadmapping approach can be improved to support anticipatory management of standardization activities more effectively. It is expected that the current research can not only provide increased understanding of standardization roadmaps, but also help policymakers and standards organizations to develop more effective strategies for supporting innovation through the systematic management of standardization.

• STI Policy Review
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.98-111
• /
• 2014

Since Deng Xiaoping's implementation of the "One China, Two Systems" policy, mainland China and the other Chinese regions of Hong Kong and Macau have cooperated in various ways to work towards successfully developing China's overall economy and industries. Particularly, cooperation between Guangdong Province and adjoining Hong Kong have been contributing to China's development, and this study explores their industry conditions including their current two governments policies designed to promote collaboration. The two partners were in a cooperative relationship even before the handover of Hong Kong, beginning with a "front shop, back factory" model built on their respective comparative advantages in labor-intensive industries in the 1980s. This cooperation effectively propelled the Pearl River Delta Region's industrialization process and enabled Hong Kong to transform from a manufacturing industry-based economy to a service industry-based economy. From the early 2000s, Guangdong and Hong Kong diversified their collaboration project from culture to high-tech. Also, both authorities produced several types of policies not only to promote both industries but also to harmonize their two different economic levels and models. As a result, the Guangdong and Hong Kong economies have developed remarkably well during the past two decades and continue to form future plans that carry plenty of optimism. Nonetheless, this study showed discrepancies between engineers and scientists from the two areas in their perception of their technology and science cooperation. Hong Kong experts were more negative in their responses but noted some successes of the collaboration, while Guangdong's group showed overall positive responses. This difference results from an unbalanced role in cooperation. Hong Kong's side responds to cooperation plans and takes on leading roles with more frequency than Guangdong's side in actual cooperation project processes.