Quality & Quantity

, Volume 49, Issue 4, pp 1325–1343 | Cite as

Measuring the dynamics of an innovation system using patent data: a case study of South Korea, 2001–2010

Article

Abstract

The Korean innovation system is analyzed based on patenting and co-patenting behavior between different knowledge producers (university, government, small- and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), conglomerates, individuals) in 34 different technologies. Patent data is obtained from the Korean Intellectual Property Office for the years 2001–2010. The traditional Triple Helix model of university-industry-government relations is expanded to include additional knowledge producers. The results indicate that the Korean innovation system has become less balanced in terms of technology: patent output has tended to grow rapidly in areas in which Korea is already strong. But the innovation system has become more balanced in terms of knowledge producers: SMEs, universities and individuals are being assigned an increasing number of patents. University patenting has grown most rapidly, especially in fast-growing technologies, in which university-business co-patenting is most prevalent. This suggests that rising public investment in university research is paying off, and that university research is industry-relevant. The data also reveal some unexpected changes: patenting by conglomerates rapidly rose from 2001, peaking in 2005, and then fell. Patenting by individuals has continued to rise throughout the period being studied.

Keywords

Triple Helix Innovation South Korea Patents  University-industry collaboration 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the session chair and audience during the Daegu-Gyeongbuk International Social Network Conference (DISC) 2013 for their valuable comments on a presentation that preceded this paper.

References

  1. Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B.: Innovation and Small Firms. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (1991)Google Scholar
  2. Amsden, A.: Asia’s Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anselin, L., Varga, A., Acs, Z.: Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. J. Urban Econ. 42, 422–448 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bjerregaard, T.: Industry and academia in convergence: micro-institutional dimensions of R&D collaboration. Technovation 30, 100–108 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruneel, J., D’Este, P., Salter, A.: Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration. Res. Policy 39, 858–868 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bukvova, H.: Studying research collaboration: a literature review, Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems 10, 3, http://sprouts.aisnet.org/10-3 (2010). Accessed 27 Jan 2014
  7. CWTS, Centre for Science and Technology Studies: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2013, http://www.leidenranking.com/ranking (2013). Accessed 27 Jan 2014
  8. Eom, B.-Y., Lee, K.: Determinants of industry-academy linkages and, their impact on firm performance: the case of Korea as a latecomer in knowledge industrialization. Res. Policy 39, 625–639 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L.: The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Res. Policy 29, 109–123 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Etzkowitz, H., Brisolla, S.N.: Failure and success: the fate of industrial policy in Latin America and South East Asia. Res. Policy 28, 337–350 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fagerberg, J., Godinho, M.M.: Innovation and catching-up. In: Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  12. Gautam, P., Kodama, K., Enomoto, K.: Joint bibliometric analysis of patents and scholarly publications from cross-disciplinary projects: implications for development of evaluative metrics. J. Contemp. East. Asia 13(1), (2014)Google Scholar
  13. Griliches, Z.: Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. In: Griliches, Z. (ed.) R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grossman, J.W.: The evolution of the mathematical research collaboration graph. Congr. Numer. 158, 202–212 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. Hemmert, M.: The Korean innovation system: from industrial catch-up to technological leadership? In: Mahlich, J., Pascha, W. (eds.) Innovation and Technology in Korea. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  16. Hou, H., Kretschmer, H., Liu, Z.: The structure of scientific collaboration networks in scientometrics. Scientometrics 75, 189–202 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hsieh, M.F.: Similar opportunities, different responses: explaining the divergent patterns of development between Taiwan and South Korea. Int. Sociol. 26, 364–391 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hu, M.-C., Mathews, J.A.: National innovative capacity in East Asia. Res. Policy 34, 1322–1349 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jaffe, A.B., Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R.: Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Q. J. Econ. 108, 577–598 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim, L.: Imitation to Innovation: The Dynamics of Korea’s Technological Learning. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1997)Google Scholar
  21. Kim, S.K.: Framing the globalization debate in Korean higher education. In: Frank, R., Hoare, J.E., Köllner, P., Pares, S., Epstein, S., Moon, C. (eds.) Korea 2013: Politics, Economy and Society. Brill, Leiden (2013)Google Scholar
  22. Kleinknecht, A., van Montfort, K., Brouwer, E.: The non-trivial choice between innovation indicators. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 11, 109–121 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kwon, K.-S.: Are scientific capacities and industrial funding critical for universities’ knowledge transfer activities?—a case study of South Korea. J. Contemp. East. Asia 10(1), 15–23 (2011)Google Scholar
  24. Kwon, K.-S., Park, H.W., So, M., Leydesdorff, L.: Has globalization strengthened South Korea’s national research system? National and international dynamics of the Triple Helix of scientific co-authorship relationships in South Korea. Scientometrics 90, 163–176 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lai, R., D’Amour, A., Yu, A., Fleming, L.: Disambiguation and Co-authorship Networks of the U.S. Patent Inventor Database. Harvard Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Cambridge (2010)Google Scholar
  26. Lee, J.-D., Park, C.: Research and development linkages in a national innovation system: factors affecting success and failure in Korea. Technovation 26, 1045–1054 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee, Y.-G.: Multidisciplinary team research as an innovation engine in knowledge-based transition economies and implication for Asian countries. J. Contemp. East. Asia 12(1), 49–63 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lei, X.-P., Zhao, Z.-Y., Chen, D.-Z., Huang, M.-H., Zhao, Y.-H.: The inventive activities and collaboration pattern of university-industry-government in China based on patent analysis. Scientometrics 90, 231–251 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leydesdorff, L.: The mutual information of university-industry-government relations: an indicator of the Triple Helix dynamics. Scientometrics 58, 445–467 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leydesdorff, L., Dolfsma, W.: Measuring the knowledge base of an economy in terms of Triple-Helix relations among ’technology, organization, and territory’. Res. Policy 35, 181–199 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leydesdorff, L., Fritsch, M.: Measuring the knowledge base of regional innovation systems in Germany in terms of a Triple Helix dynamics. Res. Policy 35, 1538–1553 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leydesdorff, L., Sun, Y.: National and international dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan: university-industry-government versus international coauthorship relations. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60, 778–788 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liao, C.H., Yen, H.R.: Quantifying the degree of research collaboration: a comparative study of collaborative measures. J. Informetr. 6, 27–33 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mahlich, J., Pascha, W.: Introduction: korea as a newly advanced economy and the role of technology and innovation. Innovation and Technology in Korea, pp. 1–9. Springer, Verlag (2007)Google Scholar
  35. Malecki, E.J.: Everywhere? The Geography of Knowledge. J. Reg. Sci. 50, 493–513 (2010)Google Scholar
  36. Motohashi, K., Muramatsu, S.: Examining the university industry collaboration policy in Japan: patent analysis. Technol. Soc. 34, 149–162 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moon, M., Kim, K.-S.: A case of higher education reform: The Brain Korea 21 project. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 2, 96–105 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Newman Mark, E.J.: Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101(Sup 1), 5200–5205 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. O’Donnell, R.: International or foreign patent filing strategies, International Patent Expert Group (IPEG). http://www.ipeg.eu/international-or-foreign-patent-filing-strategies/ (2012). Accessed 12 Feb 2014
  40. Park, H.W., Hong, H.D., Leydesdorff, L.: A comparison of the knowledge-based innovation systems in the economies of South Korea and the Netherlands using Triple Helix indicators. Scientometrics 65(1), 3–27 (2005)Google Scholar
  41. Park, H.W., Leydesdorff, L.: Longitudinal trends in networks of university-industry-government relations in South Korea: the role of programmatic incentives. Res. Policy 39, 640–649 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Park, B., Seon, S.: Korean technology foresight for science and technology policy making. Paper presented at the Second International Seville Seminar on future-oriented technology analysis: impact of FTA approaches on policy and decision-making, Seville, Spain, 28–29 Sept 2006Google Scholar
  43. Park, S.Y., Son, J.K., Seo, J.H., Seo, J.: Performance evaluation index of TRM: a Korean case for SMEs. Asian J. Innov. Policy 2, 63–96 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Phillips, F.: Triple Helix and the circle of innovation. J. Contemp. East. Asia 13(1) (2014)Google Scholar
  45. Seong, S., Popper, S.W., Goldman, C.A., Grammich, C.A.: Brain Korea 21 Phase II: A New Evaluation Model. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica (2008)Google Scholar
  46. Sohn, D.-W., Kennedy, M.: Universities, clusters, and innovation systems: the case of Seoul, Korea. World Dev. 35, 991–1004 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shapiro, M.: The Triple Helix paradigm in Korea: a test for new capital. Int. J. Technol. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 6, 1474–2748 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shin, J.C.: Building world-class research university: the Brain Korea 21 project. High. Educ. 58, 669–688 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van Geenhuizen, M.: From ivory tower to living lab: accelerating the use of university knowledge. Environ. Plan. C 31, 1115–1132 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wagner, C.S., Leydesdorff, L.: Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Res. Policy 34, 1608–1618 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wagner, C.S.: The New Invisible College. Brookings Institution Press, Washington (2008)Google Scholar
  52. Wong, P.-K.: National innovation systems for rapid technological catch-up: an analytical framework and a comparative analysis of Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. Paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference on National Innovation Systems, Industrial Dynamics and Innovation Policy, Redbild, Denmark, 9–12 June 1999Google Scholar
  53. Woo, J.-E.: Race to the Swift: State and Finance in Korean Industrialization. Columbia University Press, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  54. WIPO: IPC8 - Technology Concordance, WIPO Statistics Database, http://www.wipo.int/ipstats (2013). Accessed 27 Jan 2014
  55. Yurtoglu, B.B.: Corporate governance and investment in R&D in South Korea. In: Mahlich, J., Pascha, W. (eds.) Innovation and Technology in Korea. Physica, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Technology, Policy and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations