• Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.225-241
• /
• 2012

This paper examines the evolution of the systems of innovation approach and its main issues. At first, national systems of innovation have appeared on the purpose to substitute the neoclassical macroeconomic policies. But various criticisms have been raised because of the restriction within national boundary of analysis, the lack of dynamic analysis, the danger of institutional determination, the deficiency of theoretical accuracy in national systems of innovation. Technological systems, regional systems of innovation, sectoral systems of innovation have been developed to overcome criticisms about national systems of innovation. Nevertheless the unsettled questions in the systems of innovation approach remain. The academic and policy-making usefulness of the systems of innovation approach will be expanded by development of the complementary researches within approach.

• Journal of Technology Innovation
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.77-97
• /
• 2001

The 21st century is not only the knowledge-based society but also the unifie era for Korea. It implies that Korea should prepare for the unification, especially in the area of knowledge, science, and technology. Under this background, this paper deals with how we can prepare for the unification of South and North Korea in science and technology (S&T) area. There have been no sufficient theoretical studies in this area. This paper, therefore, argues that regional innovation system, which has been developed since the beginning of the 1990s, could be effectively applied to the S&T cooperation and unification between both Koreas. It argues that regional innovation systems can formulate sectoral innovation systems effectively, which lead to a competent national innovation system. According to this study, South and North Korean regions have complementary sectoral innovation systems that could effectively cooperate with each other. Such S&T cooperation could make a great contribution to the S&T integration between two Koreas in the future. This paper argues, therefore, that S&T cooperation between two Koreas should target the unification of South and North Korean regional innovation systems. This paper names it as the unified national innovation system.

• Journal of Technology Innovation
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.31-48
• /
• 2000

Nowadays the role of region has been increased, as knowledge, science and technology become important in economic development. This paper argues that a system approach is needed to enhance regional S&T capabilities. Under the this approach, we can identify a concept of regional innovation systems as sub-systems of a national innovation system. This paper investigates Korean regional innovation systems based on R&D budget of regional governments. According to this paper, Korean regional governments' R&D investment is very insufficient. There were no co-relationship between regional governments' fiscal autonomy from the central government and their R&D investment. This paper argues that such a poor investment will restrict the future development of Korean regional innovation systems. Therefore, this paper suggests some strategic options for the development of regional innovation systems as follows. First, regional governments should increase their R&D budget. Second, their R&D efforts should be related with their specific industrial sectors. Third, they should target not only to create new promising industrial sectors but also to enhance technological capabilities of existing sectors. Fourth, their target group should be small and medium-sized enterprises. Finally, regional governments should adopt small and incremental approach to improve their innovation systems.

• Journal of Technology Innovation
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.38-64
• /
• 2002

This paper presents research linking national culture and innovation. The research identifies how key features of Korean culture, collectivism and hierarchical authoritarianism, affect technological innovation. This perspective casts new light on cultural research that, while generally confirming national culture-innovation ties at the organization level, has had less success accounting for culture barriers to innovation in collectivist nations, especially at the interorganizational level. The data for this study was obtained from interviews and written sources. The paper introduces the concept of the social shaping of technology, with which the influence of culture on technological innovation is analyzed, and highlights the development of EDI systems in the collectivist Korean society. It draws attention to the interorganizational basis of collectivism and authoritarianism in the technology innovation process. Finally, Korean innovation systems are questioned, and some negative effects of the collectivist Korean culture at the interorganizational level are discussed.

• International Journal of Quality Innovation
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.153-167
• /
• 2008

This paper presents the findings of a visiting scholarship research that was carried out at the Faculty of Engineering, University of Technology Sydney, Australia. Based on the extensive literature review, government databases and international statistics, it introduces an analytical framework for comparison of the national innovation systems (NIS) of China and Australia in regards to their strengths and weaknesses. This is done through individual examination and comparison of functions of typical institutions involved in innovation to reveal the structural characteristics and performances of the two systems. The interactions among these institutions are then analysed to illustrate their dynamics and efficiency. The comparison has shown clearly that China's NIS has several weaknesses and gaps due to its developing and transition stage. There are positive signs that Chinese Government has recognised the nature and scope of the problem and seems to work in the right direction. This paper aims to support this process by providing some recommendations that could help bridge the gaps between the NISs of China and Australia. Due to the fact that both, China's and Australia's NISs, have their unique characteristics but share numerous complementary features, there is a large potential for further cooperation between the two national innovation systems.

• Proceedings of the Technology Innovation Conference
• /
• 2003.06a
• /
• pp.136-157
• /
• 2003

• Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy
• /
• v.6 no.3
• /
• pp.313-331
• /
• 2017

This paper exhibits the concept of Triple Helix model to explain and link university-industry-government (Triple Helix) connections to national innovation systems theory. The driver of this paper is to test the dynamics of Triple Helix concept under national innovation system in the Association of South East Asian Countries (ASEAN)-5 economies. Panel econometric analysis with cross-sectional dependence (CD) test is applied to investigate the relationship amongst Triple Helix variables. The empirical analysis employs innovation indicators of five founding ASEAN countries namely Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, the Philippines and Thailand for the period of 2000-2015 from an existing WDI and WCY database. Econometric results support the two research questions of this study; firstly, there is a significant relationship between innovation outcome and its key drivers under Triple Helix context of National Innovation System in ASEAN-5 economies; secondly, the extent of the relationship among government R&D expenditure with high-tech productions are positive and significant while new ideas coming from universities as scientific publications and high-tech production have positive relationship but not significant yet in ASEAN-5 countries. Overall labor productivity is positive and significant with innovation outcomes in ASEAN-5.

• International Journal of Computer Science & Network Security
• /
• v.22 no.7
• /
• pp.29-34
• /
• 2022

The innovative process of digitalization and creation of innovation from an idea to its commercialization requires certain financial costs, labor and mental efforts. The amount of investment (corporate and public) is the most important imperative to enhance innovation and is traditionally considered as the main "input" indicators of the development of innovation infrastructure, in this case, the financial infrastructure of innovation. At the same time, the modern theory of innovation development assumes a systematic approach to the organization of innovation activity, which provides for the close interaction of several subsystems: human (including intellectual) potential, financial and technological capital, as well as relevant institutions and methods of regulation.. Thus, the main task of the study is to analyze the features of investment support for the process of digitalization of socio-economic systems in the context of strengthening international economic relations. As a result of the study, current trends and prerequisites of investment support for the process of digitalization of socio-economic systems in the context of strengthening international economic relations were revealed.

• STI Policy Review
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.20-42
• /
• 2014

The Brazil, Russia, India China and South Africa (BRICS) group has emerged as a collection of large economies which are outside the traditional groups of industrialised "first world" economies and which have altered the global distribution of economic power. The basis of their emergence is a combination of their size and growth rates, and the fact that they lie outside the established centres of global economic power. As such, they have "diversified" the power base of the global economic order. The question which is asked in this paper is whether the phenomenon of the BRICS goes beyond this to mark the start of a possible challenge to the neoliberal orthodoxy which emerged as the globally dominant policy paradigm since the collapse of the Soviet Union. This paper develops and uses a "modes of innovation" approach to explore the potential of the BRICS to constitute a structural rupture in the current globally dominant neoliberal mode of innovation. This question is important since, in the absence of this rupture, the remarkable development trajectory of the BRICS will serve to reinforce the legitimacy of the global orthodoxy. The paper first articulates the modes of innovation concept and then proceeds to locate the BRICS systems of innovation within the current globally dominant mode. On this basis it then provides an appraisal of the possible impact of the BRICS on the evolutionary path of the global system of innovation.

• Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.106-132
• /
• 2020

This study intends to add a factor to the discussion on the sectoral systems of innovation through Korea's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Korean approach is summarized as follows: the first response centers on technology and innovation. These include the development of diagnostic test methods and accurate test kits, first in the world, the use of ICT technology in epidemiological investigations, the technical response in the field, and the competitive edge in the development of medicine and vaccines that were behind the developed countries. The second response is an aggressive effort implemented just after the Chinese announcement, before the domestic outbreak; the third response is the open policy that induces voluntary participation of all subjects and people by opening all information. More important is the leadership at the national level shown in the past Korean experience and most advanced countries. National leadership must be the missing factor.