Search results

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.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the general trend of globalization, the role of transnational corporations in the process of globalization and China's integration in the global economy through the linkage of trade and foreign direct investment. China's governmental national technology innovation system and also the progress of R&D system of enterprises of various ownership systems to date are described and analyzed. China's technology innovation system is analyzed both from the macro side and from the micro side within the context of globalization, and the prospect of China's technology innovation system is projected.

Philosophical concept applied to analysis of the theme and structure of this paper is based on the philosophy of Lao‐tzu, yin and yan concepts in Chinese, and dialectic in Western terminology. Concepts of general system theory or system approach are used throughout this paper.

The major finding in this paper is that both necessary and sufficient condition should be created for China to establish an innovative country.

This paper is original and analyzes simulation ship between ownership system and technology innovation.

This paper aims to identify the factors that are constraining technological innovation to support the development of coalbed methane in China.

The analysis applies ideas relating to national and sector systems of innovation to explain why China’s strategies to support research and technological innovation have failed to stimulate the desired progress in coalbed methane production. It also provides a counter-example of the USA that implemented a number of measures in the 1970s that proved very effective.

The deficiencies of China’s research and development strategies in support of coalbed methane development reflect the national and sectoral systems of innovation. They are exacerbated by the structure of the national oil and gas industry. Key constraints include the excessively top-down management of the national R&D agenda, insufficient support for basic research, limited collaboration networks between companies, research institutes and universities and weak mechanisms for diffusion of knowledge. The success of the USA was based on entirely different systems for innovation and in quite a different industrial setting.

The originality of this analysis lies in placing the challenges facing research and innovation for China’s coalbed methane development in the context of the national and sectoral systems for innovation and comparing with the approach and success of the USA.

This paper aims to examine recent trends and China's role in the emerging global green system of innovation (GGSI) and present the major achievement in China's R&D sectors and major challenges faced by the country. The authors use China's role in the clean development mechanism (CDM) as a case to demonstrate the country's willingness to adopt new technology and green innovation.

In order to understand China's transformation towards the GGSI, the approach used in this study is a review of innovation systems literature combined with analysis of statistical data from various sources. The authors also build an innovation model for the emerging global green system of innovation to demonstrate the building blocks which allow for transformational system failures to be avoided. The clean development mechanism (CDM) is used as a case example as to how GGSI works.

This paper puts into perspective some recent developments in innovation and argues that there is enough evidence to claim that the world is re‐orienting towards a global green system of innovation in which China is already one of the most significant players.

Through building a new innovation model, this study demonstrates the complexity and the development of innovation in the context of China's transformation towards the GGSI.

The purpose of this paper is to define and analyze the innovation system of China's software industry in order to build its innovation capability.

From a complex adaptive systems (CAS) perspective, the authors researched the constitution and operating mechanism of China's software industry innovation system. By using methods and theories of CAS theory, the innovation problems of the software industry in China were analyzed and valuable suggestions put forth for its future development.

Innovation system is one kind of complex systems and it has the characteristics of CAS.

Quantitative analysis of the software industry innovation system should be emphasized in the next stage of research.

The paper provides a new perspective and useful advice for technology policymakers.

The paper applies CAS theory to the area of social management and provides a new approach to study industrial innovation systems.

The purpose of this paper is to examine evolutionary processes of sectoral systems of innovation in China's catch‐up situation.

History event analysis method is used. The data that inform this paper come primarily from interviews carried out as a part of case studies of the innovations of China's car industry as well as public sources.

Market catch‐up of China's self‐owned brand cars expanded from low to high end market segment. Changes of the five building blocks of innovation system of China's car industry have driven the market catch‐up since the 1980s. The five building blocks are: market demand, industrial technology and knowledge base, institutional setting, industrial structure, firms' competences and strategy. China's car industry evolved through exploitation and exploration, which were affected by the five building blocks. The exploitation and exploration shaped the catch‐up way of China's car industry: from production localization to design localization and self‐owned brands. Exploration of the self‐owned brand group built on exploitation of the joint‐venture group.

The findings are based on a single industry. Studies on more industries are needed to generalize the research results.

Increased understanding of how sectoral systems of innovation evolve will give managers and policy makers in the developing countries like China improved opportunities to formulate policies and management practices that can cultivate innovation capabilities in catch‐up.

The paper contributes to the research stream on sectoral systems of innovation by understanding building blocks and evolutionary processes at the base of change and growth in the catch‐up situation.

This paper aims to assess the comparative position of the national innovation system of Chinese state entrepreneurship versus liberal market entrepreneurship. Based on the comparative institutional framework, it asks whether Chinese state entrepreneurship has a comparative disadvantage because of its incoherent institutions in liberal or coordinated economies. Hence, does the Chinese institutional system of innovation lag behind that of US or liberal countries of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) economies in the transformation of national science into economic products measured as high-technology exports?

This study uses panel data analysis based on 29 OECD economies and the Chinese economy over 23 years. Regarding national science productivity (explorative capabilities), it includes published and patented science streams; regarding technological transformation (exploitative capabilities), it measures the percentage of high-technology exports in gross domestic product (GDP). The interactions between the types of entrepreneurship and national science institutions serve as predictors in the design.

The results show that Chinese state entrepreneurship has a comparative advantage over liberal economies in published science. However, Chinese state entrepreneurship has a comparative disadvantage compared to liberal entrepreneurship in patent science. Regarding the dyadic level of comparability between the national economies, there are mixed results in the transformation of national science.

This study supports the three following theoretical points: national institutions differ regardless of the pressure of convergence through globalization; national science contingencies influence different paths of the transformation of national science to technology; and mixed economies, such as state entrepreneurship, can achieve high performance without fully conforming to liberal markets.

This study emphasizes institutional mechanisms for future research to support the innovation of incoherent institutions and suggests the benefit of cross-pollination of senior managers between state and private organizations for a defined duration.

Theoretically, this research combines an interdisciplinary and interinstitutional level of analysis, and in so doing, it deals with the transformation of national science in scientific publications and patents in the vertical value chain. Empirically, this study links the national published and patented science with the national economic artifacts in high-technology sectors. This novel approach to assess the national and discipline-level interaction sets a context for the future research in other settings. It also informs policy decisions regarding the growth of science, innovation and development.

The purpose of this paper is to compare the two (arguably) most successful innovation‐based Asian economies with Mainland China (later referred to simply as China) in order to examine where China stands in terms of country‐level indicators of proactive innovation.

The paper utilizes a historical case‐based analysis of the education systems of each of the economies of interest to explore the different paths towards higher education for each economy. Data were gathered from existing databases to obtain measures on a number of country‐level indicators of proactive innovation. These indicators measure the innovation, education and economic situations of the three economies.

It was found that the Taiwanese experience towards proactive innovation lies in between China and Japan in terms of progress on the innovation indicators. While the numbers for China's growth in education and areas of science and technology are staggering there is some evidence that the quality of the output needs improvement. Further research on Taiwanese‐based innovation efforts would help in this regard.

Given the push towards indigenous innovation in China today, benchmarking against competitive innovation‐based economies is important. The two economies chosen are not only Asian‐based but also well‐known for high‐quality innovation outcomes. As such, they represent excellent benchmark examples from which China may learn much about developing a proactive national innovation system. China would benefit from using Taiwan as an example of successful innovation at a regional level, given the cultural proximity and trajectory of the innovation‐based indicators.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the issues of integrating R&D globalization, national innovation system, university‐industry (U‐I) knowledge transfer, and international U‐I collaboration.

A framework for research on internationalization of U‐I collaboration is proposed and the process of international U‐I collaboration could be categorized Processes A (including A1‐A2‐A3), B, C and D. The framework is applied to explore the process and contribution of international U‐I collaboration in China based on the cases studies of Philips' Brainbridge program and institute for the study of the ancient world (ISAW) international cooperation.

Processes A and B are confirmed in this research. Through the international U‐I collaboration, foreign universities contribute to the development of innovative capabilities of industries in China, while the foreign companies could play roles in the China's national innovation system. The research suggests that the international U‐I collaboration could be used as a bridge to connect strategies of R&D globalization to the improvement of national innovation system. With the internationalization of U‐I collaboration, the national innovation system would be developing to global innovation system. Moreover, this paper provides a method of technological internationalization and practical suggestions to the management of U‐I collaboration.

More empirical research is necessary to further examine this framework.

This paper provides a framework to analyse the process of international U‐I collaboration. Additionally, it enriches the research on R&D globalization from the industrial fields to the academics and the research on national innovation system. The findings will contribute to the practice and diffusion of international U‐I collaboration from the industrial and governmental levels.

In this paper, the authors aim to examine some characteristics of the innovation system and policy in France and China. For comparison, they also highlight some high technology features of Silicon Valley and California.

The authors study the characteristics of innovation in France and in China. The authors examine the technology systems and policies in both countries and compare their features with those in Silicon Valley.

As far as France is concerned, it can be stated that the innovation system and policy are under transformation, going from a strong state involvement to a more decentralized framework. This evolution leads to a multi-level governance of the innovation system and to the emergence of new actors. For China, the most interesting development in China is the evolution of its internet-related sector. The authors argue here that the internet-driven economy is a radical, systemic technological change and it is rapidly growing in China.

One of the earliest papers comparing the innovation policies and activities in France, China and Silicon Valley.