scholarly journals Beyond catch-up—can a new innovation policy help China overcome the middle income trap?

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 656-669 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xielin Liu ◽  
Sylvia Schwaag Serger ◽  
Ulrike Tagscherer ◽  
Amber Y. Chang
Nova Economia ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (spe) ◽  
pp. 1115-1144
Author(s):  
Glenda Kruss

Abstract Through analysis of the South African case, a country stalled in a middle income trap, the paper aims to add to the literature on catch-up. It uses Albuquerque’s (2019) model of the vicious cycles arising from inequality and income concentration, together with the notion of ‘upgrading coalitions’ (Doner and Schneider 2016) required to challenge these vicious cycles, to analyse the persistence of lock-ins. It then analyses a global astronomy project, a ‘window of opportunity’ building on historically grown capabilities, promoted by ‘upgrading coalitions’ operating in the national interest. In contrast, it proposes a ‘detour’ to build domestic capabilities, driven by an upgrading coalition centred on local economic development and livelihoods in the informal economy. The paper aims to reinforce the evidence on how inequality is both a cause and consequence of a middle income trap, and open debate on how upgrading coalitions may be a critical strategy for breaking lock-ins.


Nova Economia ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (spe) ◽  
pp. 1145-1167
Author(s):  
Paulo Henrique Assis Feitosa

Abstract The development experience observed in Korea has been a symbol of successful catch-up for several decades. This process allowed its upward transition from middle income to high-income status and has drawn the attention of many streams of scholars. More recently, emergent research has improved our understanding of this experience and its policy implications for developing countries (Lee, 2013; 2016; 2019). This paper proposes a review of what this literature has to say about the mechanisms behind the successful path followed by Korea and a discussion of lessons to overcome the middle-income trap. It is argued that latecomers do not limit themselves to follow the path of technological development of the advanced countries and that alternative paths are possible. The main policy implication for latecomers is that a successful catch-up is possible yet difficult to achieve because it requires taking detours and leapfroging into new technologies.


Author(s):  
Keun Lee

After a miraculous economic growth, spurred by the Beijing Consensus, China is now facing a slowdown. This book deals with the interesting issue of the middle-income trap—the phenomenon of the rapidly growing economy of a country stagnating at the middle-income level—in the context of China. It also discusses China’s limitations and future prospects, especially after the onset of a new “cold war” between China and the US, and in particular whether it would fall into the “Thucydides trap,” the conflict between a rising power and the existing hegemon. This book plays around three key terms, the Beijing Consensus, the middle-income trap, and the Thucydides trap, and applies a Schumpeterian approach to these concepts. It also conducts a comparative analysis examining China from an “economic catch-up” perspective. Economic catch-up starts with learning from and imitating a forerunner, but a successful catch-up requires leapfrogging, which implies a latecomer doing something different from, and often ahead of, a forerunner. Technological leapfrogging may lead to technological catch-up, which means reducing the technological gap, and then to economic catch-up in living standards and economic size. This linkage between technological and economic catch-up corresponds exactly with a similar linkage between the Beijing Consensus and escaping (or not) the middle-income and Thucydides traps. The book concludes that China’s successful rise as a global industrial power has been due to its strategy of technological leapfrogging, which has enabled it to move beyond the middle-income trap and possibly the Thucydides trap, although at a slower speed.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anittha Jutarosaga ◽  
Yupadee Hengjan ◽  
Santi Charoenpornpattana ◽  
Kommate Jitvanichphaibool

<p>Since 2016 Thailand has recognised a significant transition in research and innovation policy, with government increasingly acknowledging the importance of national R&amp;D programmes and favourable institutional conditions as determinants to overcome middle income trap. Drawing a lesson-learned from successful experiences of South Korea and Japan, the Thai government decided to experiment the national large-scaled mission-oriented R&amp;D programme, known as ‘Spearhead R&amp;D Programme’. This novel innovation financing scheme was designed to accelerate the commercialisation and economic impact of R&amp;D outputs. From the outset, it was clear that the outcome and impact of Spearhead R&amp;D Programme was yet to be realized. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the reorientation of Thailand’s research and innovation landscape with the focus on the efficiency of operation in relation to the objective of the Spearhead R&amp;D Programme. It is found that the Spearhead R&amp;D Programme is equipped with four novel conceptual and operational features including strategic national STI agenda, R&amp;D commercialization, multi-year budget allocation and proactive research management. Yet, there were also potential limits and challenges that need to be addressed to move the Programme towards greater sectoral contribution with open innovation and flexibility in policy learning.</p><p> </p><p>Keywords: Research &amp; Innovation Reform, Mission-oriented R&amp;D Programme, Policy Experiment, Catch-up, R&amp;D Commercialisation, Thailand</p>


2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 28
Author(s):  
David Henley

This article focuses on the post-colonial catch-up by Southeast Asian nations with developed countries. The article offers an analysis of the nature and causes of the middle income trap in Southeast Asia. It discusses various interpretations of this concept, concluding with the dichotomy between laissez-faire and interventionist development strategies. Empirical evidence is provided from the automotive industry in Malaysia and Thailand. Two rival explanations of the lack of strong interventionist policies in Southeast Asia are given, one stressing the weakness of political pressure on national governments, the other linked up with historical patterns of ethnic specialization and division. The argument draws on secondary sources and reflects on implications for the study of Indonesian economic history in the colonial era.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document