Abstract
This paper assesses whether the institutional architecture underlying the technological, systems in Asian economies are different from that of advanced economies, the possible existence of varieties of institutional architectures within Asian economies, and the characteristics of individual architectures. Our empirical analysis finds that Asian economies are similar, in that, the institutional domain, that is, the “state”, plays the most important role as a hub, combining other domains to bolster technological systems. We also find six clusters regarding technological architectures underlying the individual technological systems. These are as follows: India and the Philippines, characterized by a stagnant technological architecture; Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand, possibly dependent on agriculture and primary export products; China, with a vast internal market and whose architecture is distinctive in “science”; Korea and Japan, characterized by a well-established institutional architecture sustaining the technological system; Singapore and Hong Kong, which are open market-oriented and supported by a developed financial market; and Malaysia and Taiwan, where these individual countries are similar to Singapore and Hong Kong, and Korea and Japan, respectively. It follows from these findings that there are multiple institutional architectures promoting the technological system that could contribute to sustainable long-term economic growth in Asian economies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Our empirical analysis can be deemed similar to Fagerberg and Srholec (2008). Using a large data set, they empirically derive factors representing an innovation system. They assume that firms rely on support from critical institutions through effective connection and coordination, which allows them to participate in innovative activities.
Like technological paradigms, STISS channel the opportunities firms have to advance their products, processes, and organization forms; however, STISS do not give firms unlimited scope. It place constraints on the future directions of technological development (e.g., Dosi 1982).
This result seems to be consistent with Hu and Mathews (2008) who find that sources of innovative activities in China heavily rely on universities.
Mahmood and Singh (2003) compare Korea and Taiwan, arguing that there is difference between them, in that, while Korea focuses on upgrading its own technologies, Taiwan introduces technologies from abroad.
As is well known, China has the global center for many different stages of production. Unexpectedly, the variables instrumenting for international regime have nothing to do with the Chinese SSI.
Malaysia has suffered from a stagnant economy since the 2000. As Yusuf and Nabeshima (2009) argue, this could be due to the fact that the export sector has excessively relied on electrical and electronic products.
References
Allen MCA (2013) Comparative capitalisms and the institutional embeddedness of innovative capabilities. Socioecon Rev 11:771–794
Amable B (2003) The diversity of modern capitalism. Oxford University Press, New York
Amable B, Petit P (1999) Identifying the structure of institutions to promote innovation and growth. CEPREMAP working paper no. 0019
Amable B, Barré R, Boyer R (1997) Les Systèmes D’innovation à l’ère de la Globalisation. Economica, Paris
Bian Y, Zhang L (2014) Corporate social capital in Chinese guanxi culture. In: Brass DJ, Labianca G, Mehra A, Halgin DS, Borgatti SP (eds) Contemporary perspectives on organizational social networks (research in the sociology of organizations, vol 40). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp 421–443
Breznitz D, Murphree M (2011) Run of the Red Queen: government, innovation, globalization, and economic growth in China. Yale University Press, New Haven
Coriat B, Weinstein O (2002) Organizations, firms and institutions in the generation of innovation. Res Policy 31:273–290
Djankov S, Qian Y, Roland G, Zhuravskaya E (2006) Entrepreneurs and enterprises in China’s transition to market: who are China’s entrepreneurs? AEA Pap Proc 96(2):348–352
Dosi G (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Res Policy 11(3):147–162
Fagerberg J, Srholec M (2008) National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development. Res Policy 37:1417–1435
Farole T, Winkler D (2012) Foreign firm characteristics, absorptive capacity and the institutional framework: the role of mediating factors for FDI spillovers in low- and middle-income countries, World Bank policy research working paper 6265
Furman JL, Porter ME, Stern S (2002) The determinants of national innovative capacity. Res Policy 31:899–933
Gorodonichenko Y, Svejna J, Terrell K (2008) Globalization and innovation in emerging markets. IZA discussion paper no. 3299
Harada Y, Tohyama H (2011) Asian capitalisms: institutional configurations and firm heterogeneity. In: Boyer R, Isogai A, Uemura H (eds) diversity and transformations of asian capitalisms. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 243–263
Hu MC, Mathews JA (2005) National innovative capacity in East Asia. Res Policy 34:1322–1349
Hu MC, Mathews JA (2008) China’s national innovative capacity. Res Policy 37:1465–1479
Liu X, Buck T (2007) Innovation performance and channels for international technology spillovers: evidence from Chinese high-tech industries. Res Policy 36:355–366
Lundvall BA (1992) National systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Frances Pinter, London
Mahmood IP, Singh J (2003) Technological dynamism in Asia. Res Policy 32:1031–1054
Pagès J, Husson F (2008) Testing the significance of the RV coefficient. Comput Stat Data Anal 53:82–91
Reslinger C (2013) Is there an Asian model of technological emergence? Socioecon Rev 11(1):371–408
Sturgeon TJ, Kawakami M (2011) Global value chains in the electronics industry: characteristics, crisis, and upgrading opportunities for firms from developing countries. Int J Technol Learn Innov Dev
Tohyama H (2015) Varieties of Asian welfare capitalisms and the influence of globalization. J Int Comp Soc Policy 31(1):51–73
Witt MA, Redding R (2013) Asian business systems: institutional comparison, clusters and implications for varieties of capitalism and business systems theory. Socioecon Rev 11(2):265–300
Yusuf S, Nabeshima K (2009) Tiger economies under threat: a comparative analysis of Malaysia’s industrial prospects and policy options. World Bank, Washington DC
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
About this article
Cite this article
Tohyama, H., Harada, Y. Diversity of institutional architectures underlying the technological system in Asian economies. Evolut Inst Econ Rev 13, 239–268 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40844-016-0031-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40844-016-0031-8