Search results

Since the 1980s, US universities have greatly increased attention given to innovation and entrepreneurship out of a genuine commitment to enhancing American competitiveness. Although regional innovation and entrepreneurship can be enhanced by universities in multiple ways, the primary metrics of “success” remain patenting, licensing rates, and university spin-outs. While these metrics can be a useful proxy for the entrepreneurial university they tend to understate the many important contributions universities, including non-research intensive universities, make to their regional economies. In this chapter, we introduce a framework of capabilities that are essential to nurturing ecosystems of innovation and entrepreneurship at the regional level. We then describe the varied ways in which universities can support the development of these capabilities. Finally, we provide a framework of metrics, which can more comprehensively capture the value that universities represent to innovation and entrepreneurship in their regions.

It is widely accepted that enterprises obtaining academic discoveries through R&D collaboration improve their innovation performance. However, it is not necessarily true in emerging economies, such as China and post-socialist countries in Europe. The purpose of this paper is to fill the gap by investigating how R&D collaboration between industry and academia (i.e. universities and research institutes) affects the industrial innovation performance; and whether and how intermediaries moderate their relationships.

This paper constructs the research model according to the knowledge production function, and the pooled ordinary least square regression is used to verify our hypotheses.

Evidence from a sample of Chinese industrial enterprises in thirty provinces spanning from 2009 to 2014 suggests that R&D collaboration with research institutes (CWR) is positively related to innovation output, while R&D collaboration with universities (CWU) exerts negative effect on innovation output measured by sales revenue of new product (NPSR). The significant moderating role of technology transfer institutions is confirmed in the negative relationship between CWU and NPSR.

This paper empirically examines the moderating role of intermediary organisations in academia–industry cooperation and industrial innovation, and has practical implications for the government to formulate policies to improve the quality and effectiveness of cooperation between academic and industrial sectors. These results vary in inland and coastal areas, which suggest the policy makers to formulate policies according to local conditions not only in China but also in other countries, like European countries.

In the past 15 years there have been major changes in the conduct of science and technology policy in advanced industrial countries. Recognizing that this is an area where Clem Tisdell has made notable contributions, reviews the recent developments around three themes: the nature of science and technology as distinctive bodies of knowledge arising in different institutional contexts; the market failure approach and its development into an evolutionary rationale for science and technology policy; and the UK Technology Foresight Programme as a specific example of the shift in the focus of science and technology policy.

This paper intends to examine the change of R&D fiscal policies in China since 1978 and its impact on China's drive to become an innovation‐oriented country.

This paper adopts an archive approach and undertakes an overview of the policy changes and their implications.

It is found that policy changes have gradually made enterprises the focal point of the national innovation system and that correspondingly a new financial and fiscal mechanism has been created to create incentives for innovation in firms.

This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the changing financial and fiscal policies in support of technological innovation in China.

This paper focuses on searching for the conditions of cooperation in collaborative technology innovation including the Government and private enterprises. After assuming the collaborative project of code division multiple access (CDMA) as one of the collective actions, attempts to analyze the case of CDMA technology development process by applying the theoretical propositions derived from two approaches, collective action andprisoner dilemma. Identifies government’s roles and strategies as a third party who guarantees the realistic conditions for cooperation to induce the success of joint ventures which inherently have the potential risk of cooperation collapse caused by the opportunistic or free‐riding behaviors of private collaborators as self‐interest seekers. Finally, suggests therealistic conditions for cooperation, government’s roles, and policy tools for the future collaborative R&D.

The purpose of this paper is to review the evolution of policies and practices of open innovation (OI) in China under globalization.

This is a review paper. It combines historical archives and case study approaches, covering policies and practices at both the macro‐ and micro‐levels.

It is found that Chinese firms have in practice employed a variety of OI models since the reforms of science and technology systems in the mid‐1980s. Policies introduced by the Chinese Government with respect to inbound and outbound OI, as well as policies encouraging OI networks, have encouraged Chinese firms to adopt various OI modes and practices. Some critical institutional challenges still need urgent attention and effective efforts to reinforce them.

This paper aims to fill the gap in the literature by providing the first systematic review of the evolution of the policies and practices of OI in China, and exploring the implications for latecomer firms in building indigenous innovation capability. As far as the authors are aware, this is one of the first systematic review studies on OI policies and practices with a focus on emerging economies.

The objective of this chapter is to identify the key characteristics of Global Services businesses that will thrive and achieve success in the future. These factors are integrated into three main pillars, which we refer to as the Triple-Win. The first and most obvious pillar is technology as a tool. The second pillar is the design and sustainability of the business model, without which the previous factor would be merely a cost and not an investment. And last but not the least, there is the purpose which gives meaning to the proposal, focusing on the human being and their environment. The DIDPAGA business model sits at the intersection of these three elements.

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.

A city is a spatial carrier of innovation activities. Improving the level of urban innovation can play a significant supporting role in building an innovative country. China began to implement the innovative city pilot policy in 2008 and continued to expand the policy into more areas for exploring the path of innovative urban development with Chinese characteristics and improving urban innovation.

Based on mechanism analysis, this paper used the panel data of 269 cities from 2003 to 2016 to empirically test the effect of the pilot policy on the level of urban innovation by using different methods, such as the difference-in-differences model.

The results show that the innovative city pilot policy significantly improves the level of urban innovation. However, according to the findings of the heterogeneity analysis, the effect of the pilot policy on improving the innovation level in direct-controlled municipalities, provincial capitals and sub-provincial cities is weaker than that in ordinary cities, and the effect of the pilot policy on improving the innovation level in cities with a higher quality of science and education resources is weaker than that in cities with lower quality of science and education resources.

Moreover, as the level of urban innovation increases, the effect of the pilot policy on improving the level of urban innovation is an asymmetric inverted V shape, which means the effect is first strengthened and then weakened. The research also finds that the locational heterogeneity of the pilot policy for improving the level of urban innovation is not notable. In addition, the innovative city pilot policy can strengthen the government's strategic guidance, promote the concentration of talent, incentivize corporate investment and optimize the innovation environment, having a positive impact on urban innovation. Moreover, the effect of concentration of talent and the effect of corporate investment incentive are the important reasons for the pilot policy to promote the improvement of the level of urban innovation.