National Innovation Systems

Author(s):  
Peter F. Cowhey ◽  
Jonathan D. Aronson

Innovation is the key driver of economic prosperity. It is the product of an ecosystem of at least five interlinked building blocks: social networks and dynamic labor markets, shared assets that lower costs for innovative companies, flexible business models, financial models to support innovation, and appropriate government policies. National innovation systems transform periodically and public policy significantly influences their evolution. Since 1945, the United States has had two dominant systems of innovation. The first relied on vertically integrated firms such as AT&T or DuPont. More recently a second system, the Silicon Valley model of venture capital dominated. A comparison of the U.S. system with that of Korea shows how other countries have adapted the U.S. innovation system to their circumstances.

Author(s):  
Anatoliy B. Yaroshchuk ◽  

The article considers the current and future systems for assessing the effectiveness of the use of state resources to create a national innovation system as a factor in improving the economic security of the state, the author develops a methodological approach to assessing the effectiveness of the use of state resources to create a national innovation system. The cyclical development of the world economy in the conditions of globalization is connected, first of all, with the change of technological structures, as well as with the provision of competitiveness for all levels of economic management. In the domestic and foreign economic literature, there is an idea of the national innovation system, which covers all types of economic objects in the country with innovations, increasing their competitiveness, and, thus, the national economy as a whole, and also directly affects the increase in the level of economic security of the country. Most developed countries and many developing countries have already established or are in the process of establishing their national innovation systems, built either on the basis of models already known and tested in other countries, or new, unique models for building innovation systems. The differences between these models of creation of national innovation systems of different countries are, both in the levels of economic objects, which are the basis of innovative breakthrough, and in the degree of use of public resources: "centralized model", based on public resources, or "market model", or a mixed model of "public-private partnership". These issues are the basis for consideration of the presented article. The methodological basis for writing the article was modern scientific research methods, including: dialectical method, method of system analysis, methods of analogy, comparative analysis, expert methods, structural-functional and normative approaches.


Author(s):  
N. Rylach

Under the megatrend, we mean large-scale technological, economic, social, political changes that occur slowly, but in the long run, when they are rooted, they substantially and permanently affect most of the processes in society. Such relative stability in the trajectory of the main forces of change can predict some elements of medium and long-term future changes. The article investigates such megatrends of the development of global innovation networks as the structural nature of the global innovation system, the development of systemic interconnections in the field of innovation, the interaction of national innovation systems and global, the internationalization of innovation activity, and the paradigm of "open innovation". The methodological principles and structural elements of the concept of the national innovation system are determined in the paper, the connection of national innovation systems with the phenomenon of internationalization of the innovation sphere is explored. The theoretical principles of the phenomenon of internationalization of innovation activity are investigated, as well as the preconditions for the emergence of the concept of "open innovation" and its current trends have been established. The concept of open innovation is an important precondition for the emergence and functioning of global innovation networks. The paper analyzes the genesis and specificity of the phenomenon of global innovation networks, outlines their structure and dynamics. It has been determined that global innovation networks play an important role in the development of the modern world economy, as they stimulate international cooperation in the innovation sphere, transfer of knowledge to the world economy and general scientific and technological development and growth of world production.


2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 279-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Uwe Seidel ◽  
Lysann Müller ◽  
Gerd Meier zu Köcker ◽  
Guajarino de Araújo Filho

This paper presents a tool for the indicator-based analysis of national innovation systems (ANIS). ANIS identifies the economic strengths and weaknesses of a country-wide, regional or local system and includes a comprehensive examination and evaluation of the status of existing innovation systems. The use of a particular form of expert interviews at macro, meso and micro levels provides a detailed image of a national, regional or local economy. This analytical approach is intended mainly for emerging and developing countries, for which standard innovation benchmarking and monitoring approaches may not be appropriate. The ANIS approach provides a quick and comprehensive picture of the main scope of interventions for improving individual determinants of an innovation system. As a result, targeted policy measures can be formulated to address these determinants. Policy makers can thus benefit from clear advice when striving to overcome weaknesses in their innovation systems and in identifying those determinants that should receive special attention. An analysis of the local innovation system of Manaus in Brazil is presented here as an example.


2020 ◽  
pp. 348-381
Author(s):  
B. Zorina Khan

Selective case studies of the post–World War II economy have given rise to claims that national innovation systems, or dirigiste linkages between the state, universities, and industry, are required for technological change and economic growth. The long-run patterns of innovation in the leading nations of Britain, France, and the United States suggest otherwise. Administered systems, where key economic decisions were made by elites, the state, and other privileged groups, typically were associated with monopsonies and the misallocation of resources and talent. By contrast, the American experience highlights the central role of markets in ideas and decentralized incentives for innovation, in concert with flexible open-access adjacent institutions, in promoting useful knowledge and sustained technological progress.


2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 1414
Author(s):  
Dametken TUREKULOVA ◽  
Lyazzat MUKHAMBETOVA ◽  
Nurzhamal KURMANKULOVA ◽  
Ainur KEMALOVA ◽  
Rimma SATKANOVA ◽  
...  

The article considers various approaches to the understanding of the term "national innovation system", presents the author's vision of this category. The history of the emergence and evolution of the development of the concept of a national innovation system has been studied, the main directions for the development of national innovation systems in foreign countries, and tools to support the national innovation system are presented. The characteristic of models of national innovation systems is given.


Author(s):  
Xin-Li Zhao ◽  
Wen-Fei Gao

This paper firstly introduces the different views of innovation, including the basic functions, characteristics and models of the national/sub-national innovation systems. Then, a new output model, interactive model and the main evaluating indicators of an innovation system are brought forward. The main evaluating indicators are: Innovation System Performance reflecting the previous output of the innovation system, and Innovation System Capacity expecting the future performance by effectively attracting, configuring and using all elements or resources of the innovation system. Finally, the application of innovation system in China is introduced, which includes the national innovation system and the sub-national innovation systems in The Pan-Pearl River Delta Area, Yangtze River Delta Area and Bohai Sea Rim Area.


2022 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Defny Holidin

Promising industrial profiles of Southeast Asian emerging economies have met their developmental limits in the face of the Asian Financial Crisis in the late 1990s. However, following the crisis, they have not been successful in upscaling the technological competitiveness of their industries. By applying the national innovation system approach originally developed in advanced western economies as an institutional mechanism of policy innovation in light of developmentalism, I seek to explain these persistent developmental limits in Malaysia and Indonesia. My qualitative research examines literature discussing policy coordination mechanisms in innovation policies and policy documents containing coordination mechanisms involving firms, universities, and government agencies; then, how these issues implicate innovation policies in the two countries. I employ a comparative institutional analysis between them focusing on institutional characteristics of the national innovation systems, specifically their institutional obstacles occurring within development paths amidst prevailing political environments. I suggest that persistent developmental limits in Malaysia and Indonesia result from systemic failures of achieving developmental aims regardless of their politico-administrative regimes. Existing institutional frameworks of the national innovation systems, entrenched in the socio-economic prevalence of the two countries, have not fit the nations’ developmental aims pursued upon innovation upgrading.


Author(s):  
I. V. DANILIN

Article analyzes the changes in the space economy, as well as the U.S. federal policy for preserving American domination in this area. The evolution of the space economy in the United States is briefly considered, including formation of venture businesses since late  1990s (due to the computer and Internet revolution and development of space technologies). Of particular importance is  a so-called Astropreneurship – growth of startups, developing space  launch systems and spacecrafts. Amid technological factors, the  main driver for the rise of Astropreneurship was a suboptimal  technological and market strategy of Boeing and Lockheed Martin  duopoly. It created conditions for disruptive innovation development  in the industry and transition to a new, more open model of  innovation processes there. Although in the 1980–1990’s federal  government enacted a business-friendly regulations for the commercial space sector and set measures to support it through  public procurement, a new situation in the markets and in sectoral innovation system has become a challenge for national  policy, enforced by budget constraints and other factors. Catastrophe of the Columbia space shuttle in 2003, which raised the  issue of maintaining independent U.S. access to the International Space Station and, in the future, to other orbital  operations after shuttles’ phase-out, triggered changes in federal  policies for the industry. As a result, since 2006 NASA (with some  DoD support) initiated several programs to develop new space  launch and delivery systems. These programs were based on the  public-private partnerships with active involvement of small and  medium innovative enterprises, primarily startups. The results  turned out to be more significant than originally intended: formation of a new model of federal industrial and technological  policy in the space sector, almost similar to the DARPA principles. The new policy assumes the role of NASA and, more  broadly, the federal government as an equal (rather than a  dominant) participant in space industry innovative processes and as  a more active organizer of the industry`s innovation system (considering changes in its nature). Despite all activities are  mission-oriented, more attention is paid to the development of  complex partnerships, ecosystems, etc. – with an emphasis both on  satisfaction of government needs and on ensuring market leadership  of the U.S. companies. However, this new model faces  sever al problems: ambiguity of federal expenditures on space- related research and development; need to restructure NASA science and technology organization; efficiency of federal efforts in support  of new partners and processes – taking into account specifics of  available policy instruments. The future of federal efforts will be  determined by the solution of these problems and by the need to  extend new model and practices to the key (in terms of market size  and technology advances) segments of space economy – satellite  manufacturing and the use of space data.


Author(s):  
William B. Bonvillian ◽  
Peter L. Singer

This chapter reviews the U.S. manufacturing decline in the first decade of the twenty-first century, examining this from a series of dimensions, including the critical relationship between the production stage and the other parts of its innovation system. The profound challenge to U.S. production in the 1970s and 1980s from Japan's quality manufacturing model and its accompanying technology and process advances, which dramatically disrupted U.S. production practices, is the first issue that must be understood. The chapter then explores the rise of China's manufacturing economy; its innovative new production scale-up approaches knocked the United States into second place in world manufacturing output in a remarkably short period. Accompanying that rise was a parallel and related rise in distributed production by U.S. firms, with outsourcing of production stages and corresponding issues of “innovate here/produce there,” which could lead to “produce there/innovate there.”


Author(s):  
Işıl Çekçi ◽  
Serhat Burmaoglu ◽  
Dilek Ozdemir Gungor ◽  
Levent B. Kidak

Technological innovation has been a key driving force for economic growth, industrial development, and increasing welfare. Two dominant streams of theories as market-failure and system-failure oriented the domain to reach development economy objectives for countries. In this case, national innovation systems have been recognized by the rising understanding of systems of innovation. National Innovation Systems have been considered as complex and multi-faceted. Therefore, for overcoming this complexity and make it simplified analytically, in this chapter only the healthcare field has been examined by considering University Hospital cases. It is aimed to understand cognitive contribution of university hospitals to health innovation system by examining scientific publications. It is found that regional perspective should be applied to create more applicable policies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document