Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T19:58:45.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - National Systems of Innovation in Developing Countries

from Part II - Innovation in Developing and Emerging Countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2018

Jorge Niosi
Affiliation:
Université du Québec, Montréal
Get access

Summary

Innovation is the main determinant of long-term economic development. In order to have a long-lasting effect, innovation must be produced and diffused regularly by innovation systems.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramovitz, M. 1986. Catching up, forging ahead, and falling behind. The Journal of Economic History 46(2): 385406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acemoglu, D., Ticchi, D., and Vindigni, A.. 2006. Emergence and Persistence of Inefficient States. Cambridge, MA: NBER Working Paper 1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aiginger, K. 2007. Industrial policy: A dying breed or a re-emerging phoenix. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 7 (3–4): 297323.Google Scholar
Aiginger, K. 2012. A Systemic Industrial Policy to Pave a New Growth Path for Europe, WIFO WP. 421.Google Scholar
Albuquerque, E. 2003. Immature Systems of Innovation. Belo Horizonte: UNMG, CEDEPLAR, Working Paper.Google Scholar
Amsden, A. 2001. The Rise of the Rest. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amsden, A. and Chu, W.. 2003. Beyond Late Development: Taiwan’s Upgrading Policies. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Arocena, R. and Sutz, J.. 2000. Looking at national systems of innovation from the South. Industry and Innovation 7(1): 5575.Google Scholar
Arocena, R. and Sutz, J.. 2002. Innovation Systems and Developing Countries. Aalborg: Aalborg University, Druid WP.Google Scholar
Ata, B. 2000. The influence of an American educator on the Turkish educational system, in Turkish Yearbook of International Relations, Volume XXXI, Ankara: University of Ankara.Google Scholar
Azam, M. and Bhatt, V.. 2015. Like father, like son, Intergenerational educational mobility in India. Demography 52(1): 19291959.Google Scholar
Barro, R. 1991. A cross-country study of growth, saving, and government, in Bernheim, B. D. and Sholen, J. B. (eds.), National Savings and Economic Performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 271304.Google Scholar
Bielschowsky, R. 2009. Sixty years of ECLAC: structuralism and neo-structuralism. CEPAL Review 97: 171192.Google Scholar
Breschi, S. and Malerba, F. 1997. Sectoral innovation systems: Technological regimes, Schumpeterian dynamics, and spatial boundaries, in Edquist, C (ed.), Systems Of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions, and Organizations. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
Bruton, H. J. 1998. A reconsideration of import substitution. Journal of Economic Literature 32(6): 902936.Google Scholar
Carlsson, B., Jacobsso, S., Holmen, M. and Rickne, A. 2002. Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues. Research Policy 31(2): 233245.Google Scholar
Chang, H. 1998. The role of institutions in Asian development. Asian Development Review 16(2): 6495.Google Scholar
Charron, N. L., Apuente, V. and Rothstein, B. 2011. Measuring Quality of Government and Sub-National Variation. Report for the European Commission of Regional Development. European Commission Directorate-General Regional Policy Directorate Policy Development, Brussels.Google Scholar
Chen, S.-H. and Lin, W. T.. 2015. The dynamic role of universities in developing an emerging sector: a case study of the biotechnology sector, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, (article in press).Google Scholar
Cho, W., Im, T., Porumbescu, G. A., Lee, H. and Park, J.. 2013. A cross-country study of the relationship between Weberian bureaucracy and government performance. International Review of Public Administration 18(3): 115137.Google Scholar
Cigler, B. A. 1990. Public administration and the paradox of professionalization. Public Administration Review 50(6): 637653.Google Scholar
Cimoli, M., Dosi, G. and Stiglitz, J. E. (eds.). 2009. Industrial Policy and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cline, W. 1982. Can the East Asian model of development be generalized? World Development 10(2): 8190.Google Scholar
Cooke, P. and Morgan, K. 1998. The Associational Economy: Firms, Regions, and Innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
, C., Lapuente, V., and Teorell, J.. 2012. The merit of meritocratization. Political Research Quarterly 65(3): 656–68.Google Scholar
Edquist, C. 1997. Systems of innovation approaches – their emergence and characteristics, in Edquist, C. (ed.), Systems of Innovation. London: Pinter135.Google Scholar
Edquist, C. 2005. Systems of innovation, in Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C., and Nelson, R. R. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press181208.Google Scholar
Edquist, C., and Hommen, L. 1999. Systems of innovation: Theory and policy for the demand side. Technology in Society 21: 6379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J. R. 2011. Professionalizing the British central bureaucracy: The accounting dimension. J. Account. Public Policy 30: 217235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einsenstein, E. 2015. The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (3rd edition).Google Scholar
Emran, M. S. and Shilpi, F.. 2015. Gender, geography and generations: Intergenerational educational mobility in India. World Development 72(1): 362380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, 2002. Global production networks and the changing geography of innovation systems. Implications for developing countries. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 11(6): 497523, DOI: 10.1080/10438590214341.Google Scholar
Evans, P. 1989. Predatory, developmental and other apparatuses: A comparative political economy perspective on the Third World state. Sociological Forum 4(4): 561587.Google Scholar
Evans, P. and Rauch, J. E.. 1999. Bureaucracy and growth; a cross-national analysis of the effects of “Weberian” state structures on economic growth. American Sociological Review 64: 748765.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. and Audretsch, D.. 1999. Innovation in cities: Science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition. European Economic Review 43: 409429.Google Scholar
Foray, D. 2015. Smart Specialization. Opportunities and Challenges for Regional Innovation Policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Freeman, C. 1987. Technology Policy and Economic Performance. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Fu, X. 2015. China’s Path to Innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giuliani, E., Petrobelli, C. and Rabellotti, R.. 2005. Upgrading in global value chains: Lessons from Latin American clusters. World Development 33(4): 549573.Google Scholar
Hamburger, P. 2014. Is Administrative Lw Unlawful? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschman, A. 1958. The Strategy of Economic Development. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hobday, M. 1995. Innovation in East Asia: diversity and development. Technovation 15(2): 5563.Google Scholar
Intarakumnerd, P. and Chaminade, C.. 2011. Innovation policies in Thailand: Towards a system of innovation approach? Asia Pacific Business Review 17(2): 241256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C. 1982. MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925–1975. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, L. 1997. Imitation to Innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Kravtsova, V. and Radosevic, S.. 2012. Are systems of innovation in Eastern Europe efficient? Economic Systems 36: 109126.Google Scholar
Kuran, T. 2004a. Islam and Mammon: The Economic Predicaments of Islamism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kuran, T. 2004b. Why the Middle East is economically underdeveloped: Historical mechanisms of institutional stagnation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 18(3): 7190.Google Scholar
Landes, D. S. 1998. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
Lee, J. 1997. The maturation and growth of infant industries: The case of Korea. World Development 25(8): 12711281.Google Scholar
Lee, K. and Lim, C.. 2001. Technological regimes, catch-up and leapfrogging: Findings from the Korean industries, Research Policy, 30: 459476.Google Scholar
Lee, K. (2014): Schumpeterian Analysis of Technological Catch-up, Cambridge U. Press.Google Scholar
Lemola, T. 2012. Convergence of national science and technology policies: The case of Finland. Research Policy 31: 14811490.Google Scholar
List, F. 1841. Das nationale System der politischen Ökonomie. Stuttgart/Tübingen: Cotta Verlag.Google Scholar
Liu, X. and White, S.. 2001. Comparing innovation systems: A framework and application to China’s transitional context. Research Policy 30: 10911114.Google Scholar
Lundvall, B. A. 2007. National innovation systems—analytical concept and development tool. Industry and Innovation 14: 95119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundvall, B. A., Joseph, K. J., Chaminade, C., and Vang, J.. 2011. Handbook of Innovation Systems in Developing Countries. Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, B. D. 2011. Women empowerment and development in Arab Gulf states: A critical appraisal of governance, culture and national human resource development (HRD) frameworks. Human Resource Development International 14(2): 131148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metcalfe, S. and Ramlogan, R. 2002. Innovation systems and the competitive process in developing economies. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 48(2): 433446.Google Scholar
Millitz, M. J. 2005. When and how should infant industries be protected? Journal of International Economics 66: 177196.Google Scholar
National Science Foundation. 2010. NSF releases new statistics on business innovation (www.nsf.gov/statistics/).Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. and Rosenberg, N. 1993. American universities and technical advances in industry. Research Policy 23: 323348.Google Scholar
Niosi, J. 2000. Canada’s National System of Innovation. Montreal and Kingston: McGill- Queen’s University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niosi, J. 2002. National systems of innovation are x-efficient (and x-effective): why some are slow learners. Research Policy 31: 291302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niosi, J. 2005. Canada’s Regional Innovation System: The Science-Based Industries. Montreal, Canada: McGill Press.Google Scholar
Niosi, J. 2010. Rethinking science, technology and innovation (STI) institutions in developing countries. Innovation: Organization and Management 12: 250268.Google Scholar
Niosi, J. 2010a. Building National and Regional Systems of Innovation. Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
Niosi, J. 2010b. Rethinking science, technology and innovation (STI) institutions in developing countries. Innovation Management, Policy and Practice 12(3): 250268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niosi, J., Bellon, B., Saviotti, P. P. and Crow, M. 1993. National systems of innovation: in search of a workable concept. Technology in Society 15: 207227.Google Scholar
Oughton, C., Landabasso, M. and Morgan, K.. 2002. The regional innovation paradox: Innovation policy and industrial policy. The Journal of Technology Transfer 27: 97110.Google Scholar
Ozawa, T. 2003. Pax Americana-led macro-clustering and flying-geese-style catch-up in East Asia: mechanisms of regionalized endogenous growth. Journal of Asian Economics 13: 699713.Google Scholar
Palma, J. G. 2010. Flying geese and waddling ducks: The different capabilities of East Asia and Latin America to “demand-adapt” and “supply-upgrade” their export productive capacity, in Cimoli, M. et al. (eds.), Industrial Policy and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Patel, P. and Pavitt, K. 1994. National innovation systems: Why they are important, and how they might be measured and compared. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 3(1): 7795.Google Scholar
Perlman, B. J. 1989. Modernizing the public service in Latin America: Paradoxes of Latin American public administration. International Journal of Public Administration 12(4): 671704.Google Scholar
Prebisch, R. 1963. Hacia una dinámica del desarrollo latinoamericano. México: FCE.Google Scholar
Rauch, J. E. and Evans, P. B.. 2000. Bureaucratic structure and bureaucratic performance in less developed countries. Journal of Public Economics 75: 4971.Google Scholar
Reinhart, C. and Rogoff, K.. 2009. This Time Is Different. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Roll, M. 2014. The state that works: A pocket of effectivness perspective in Nigeria and beyond, in: Bierschank, t., de Sardan, J.P.(eds.), States at Work, Dynamics of African Bureaucracies, Leiden, 365397.Google Scholar
Shepherd, G. and Valencia, S.. 1996. Modernizing the public administration in Latin America: Common problems, no easy solutions, Conference Reforma del Estado en América Latina y el Caribe. Madrid, October 14–17, 1996.Google Scholar
Soete, L. 2007. From industrial to innovation policy. Journal of Industrial Competition and Trade 7: 273284.Google Scholar
Stewart, F. 1977. Technology and Underdevelopment. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stiglitz, J. 1996. Some lessons from the East Asian Miracle. The World Bank Research Observer 11(2): 151177.Google Scholar
Suransky, C. and van der Merwe, J.. 2016. Transcending apartheid in higher education: Transforming an institutional culture. Race, Ethnicity and Education 19(3): 577597.Google Scholar
Turner, B. 1974. Islam, capitalism and the Weber theses. British Journal of Sociology 25(2): 230243.Google Scholar
Wade, R. 1990. Governing the Market. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Warwick, K. 2013. Beyond industrial policy: Emerging issues and new trends, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 2. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
You, J. S. 2015. Democracy, Inequality and Corruption: Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines Compared. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×