“Each particular kind of craft needs persons to be in charge of it and skilled in it. The more numerous the various subdivisions of a craft are, the larger the number of the people who (have to) practice that craft. The particular group (practicing that craft) is colored by it. As the days follow one upon the other, and one professional coloring comes after the other, the crafts coloring men become experienced in their various crafts and skilled in the knowledge of them. Long periods of time and the repetition of similar (experiences) add to establishing the crafts and to causing them to be firmly rooted.” Ibn Khladoun
The idea that innovation matters for economic development can be traced three centuries before Adam Smith’s classical work on the Wealth of Nations. The concept of division of labor, on the job training and the concept of learning by doing, using and interacting (DUI-mode of learning) were exposed clearly by Ibn Khaldun in the above statement.
In the decades following World War II called the “golden age” of development, different strategies were proposed for industrialization and progress. Development economics as a sub discipline of classical economics emerged. Proposals differed on the identification of the growth engine. Disappointment with development, which covered almost all the developing countries during the 1980s, came along with a sterilizing debate between state and market. The failure of state-centered models was followed by a new failure of market-centered models, while some successful growth processes took place without following any of those models mainly in East Asia.
The Innovation System (SI) approach emerged as an alternative to the dominant neoclassical paradigm. The SI approach emphasizes the fact that firms do not innovate in isolation but through continuous interactions with other organizations in the system at regional, sectoral, national and global level. The innovation process is interactive within the firms and among the different organizations in the innovation system. With respect to firm level and innovation, in any part of the firm innovation can take place, as well as interact with external sources of knowledge. There are important implications for the design and implementation of any kind of policy to support innovation, especially if innovation as a complex interactive process is understood. The focus of the policy, the instruments and the rationale for public policy, are all affected, as well as other issues.
“National System of Innovation” is an “ex-post” concept, that is, it has been built, in the developed countries, on the basis of empirical findings. On the contrary, in the developing countries it is rather an “ex-ante” concept, innovation systems in developing countries are very heterogeneous. Each system is embedded in a unique socio-economic institutional context and, in this sense; this dissertation joins recent efforts in understanding innovation in developing countries at the firm, region and national level as well as the use of the IS as a development tool for policy design.
This dissertation comprises two essays: (1) Determinants of innovation and their impact on productivity in developing countries: Evidence from firm-level analysis in Tunisia and (2) Towards a Sectoral Innovation System driven innovation policy design in Developing Countries; lessons from Korea and Taiwan semiconductor industry.
In the first essay, we use micro data from innovation surveys to analyze the determinants of technological innovation and the impact of innovation on firm labor productivity in Tunisia. We found that firms investing in knowledge are more capable of introducing new technological advances and attaining a higher level of labor productivity. This information corroborates other bodies of work on this subject. However, the determinants of innovation investment at the firm level are notably more heterogeneous than those in OECD and EU countries. The decision to invest in innovation activities and promote innovation investment increased when certain factors were present, such as cooperation, public funding, and exporting. When discussing productivity, the outcome, however, sheds light on the worth of innovation in enabling firms to achieve higher levels of economic performance and catch up.
In the second essay, we combined two distinct but interrelated levels of analysis, national innovation system and sectoral innovation system. Building on the difference of policy rationale between developed and developed countries, we proposed an SIS driven Innovation Policy design in the developing countries. We confirmed our findings by analyzing the government role and the public policies that contributed in the development of semiconductor in Korea and Taiwan in the catch-up phase derived the policy implications for developing countries. .
Finally, we presented the overall conclusions from the dissertation, summed up the theoretical, managerial and policy implications, draw lessons for developing countries from the cases of Tunisia, and successful catch-up of Korea and Taiwan, and propose directions for future research.
혁신 시스템은 혁신 정책과 경제 발전 관계를 설명하는 주류 학문인 신 경제 페러다임의 대안으로 제시되었다. 이 학위 논문은 개발 도상국의 혁신을 기업, 지역, 국가 수준으로 나누어 쓰여졌으며, 이를 위한 정책 설계 방법론으로 혁신 시스템을 사용하였다.
본 논문은 두 개의 에세이로 구성되어 있다: (1) 개발도상국의 혁신 결정 요인 과 생산성에 미치는 영향 분석: 튀니지 기업사례를 중심으로 (2) 산업혁신시스템 중심의 개발도상국 혁신정책 설계에 관한 연구: 한국과 대만의 반도체 산업으로부터.
첫 번째 에세이에서는 혁신 설문조사를 바탕으로 한 미시적 자료를 이용하였으며, 이를 이용하여 튀니지의 기업 노동생산성에 영향을 미치는 기술적 혁신의 결정요인을 분석하였다. 이 연구에서 지적 재산에 대한 기업의 투자가 새로운 기술을 도입하는 것 보다 더 높은 노동생산성을 얻을 수 있음을 밝혀 냈다. 이 결과는 이 주제와 연관된 다른 연구와 동일한 결론이다. 그러나 기업 수준에의 혁신 결정 요인은 OECD 와 EU 국가 보다 다양성을 띄고 있음을 이 연구에서 밝혀냈다. 특히 혁신 활동 및 혁신에 대한 투자는 상호 협력 활동, 공적 자금, 수출과 같은 요인이 있을 때 더욱 증가한다. 그러나 기업의 매출과 같은 생산성을 논할 때는, 기업의 보다 높은 수준의 경제적 성과 혹은 추격을 달성을 가능케 하는 요인으로 혁신의 가치에 보다 중점을 둘 수 있다.
두 번째 연구에서는, 국가적 혁신 시스템과 산업적 혁신시스템의 두 가지 특성을 고려하였다. 선진국과 개도국 사이의 정책 결정 차이를 바탕으로, 우리는 개도국의 혁신정책설계에 의해 추진 되는 SIS를 제안하였다. 이 연구에서 한국과 대만의 반도체 산업의 발전에 대한 정부의 역할과 공공정책을 분석함으로써, 개도국의 탈 추격 정책을 제안하였다.
마지막으로, 성공적인 탈 추격 사례인 한국과 대만의 사례와 개발도상국인 튀니지의 사례로부터 정책적 함의를 이끌어 냈고, 추가적으로 미래 연구의 방향에 대해 제안하였다.
