Path Dependency Factors Affecting the Innovation Systems of Latecomer Countries: Comparison of Central and Eastern Europe, Asia, and Latin America

  • Urmas Varblane
  • Kadri Ukrainski
  • Oliver Lillestik
Chapter
Part of the Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management book series (ITKM, volume 15)

Abstract

This chapter views the path dependency and latecomer country concepts within the framework of national innovation systems (NISs). It intends to identify major lessons for Central Eastern European (CEE) countries in building up their NISs based on the experience of Asian and Latin American countries. The general conclusion is that there is a need for active public sector intervention in establishing and renewing the innovation systems process (knowledge production, diffusion, and use). The experience of the Latin American economies indicates that it is a necessary but insufficient precondition to change their NISs and initiate a rapid catching-up process. In addition, several preconditions should be fulfilled – supply of skilled labor, coherence in society, moderate income inequality, growing level of social capital, etc. However, at the core of transition rests institutional change. The major recommendation for CEE governments is to learn how Asian countries create and sustain the capabilities of their changing institutions, both formal and informal, within their NISs. The creation of those capabilities is crucially important for CEE countries.

Keywords

Europe Income Coherence Assimilation Expense 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Authors acknowledge the support of the Estonian Science Foundation’s Grants No. 7405, 8580, and 8311 and target financing of the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research No. 0180037s08.

References

  1. Abramovitz, M. (1994). Catch-up and convergence in the post-war growth boom and after. In W. J. Baumol, R. R. Nelson, E. N. Wolff (Eds.), Convergence of productivity: Cross-national studies and historical evidence, (pp. 86–125). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Acha, V., & Balasz, K. (1999). Transitions in thinking: Changing the mindsets of policy makers about innovation. Technovation, 19, 345–353.Google Scholar
  3. Arocena, R. & Sutz, J. (2003). Knowledge, Innovation and Learning: Systems and Policies in the North and in the South. In J. Cassiolato, H. Lastres, & M. Maciel (Eds.) Systems of Innovation and Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, M., & Pavitt, K. (1997). Technological accumulation and industrial growth: Contrasts between developed and developing countries. In D. Archibugi, & J. Michie (Eds.), Technology, globalisation and economic performance, (pp. 83–137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bessant, J. & Francis, D. (1999). Using learning networks to help improve manufacturing ­competitiveness, Technovation, 19, 373–381.Google Scholar
  6. Blomström, M., & Meller, P. (1991). Issues for development: Lessons from Scandinavian– Latin American comparisons. In M. Blomström, & P. Meller (Eds.), Diverging paths: comparing a century of Scandinavian and Latin American economic development (pp.1-14) Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
  7. Blomström, M., & Meller, P. (Eds.) (1991). Diverging paths: Comparing a century of Scandinavian and Latin American economic development. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
  8. Boschma, R.A. (2004). Competitiveness of regions from an evolutionary perspective. Regional Studies, 38(9), 1001–1014.Google Scholar
  9. Cárdenas, M. (2010). Rethinking Latin America’s development strategy. Brooking Report. http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/0419_latin_america_cardenas.aspx Accessed 18 February 2011.
  10. Chang, H-J. (2006a). Industrial policy in East Asia: Lessons for Europe. EIB Papers, 11(2), 106–132.Google Scholar
  11. Chang, H-J. (2006b). The East Asian development experience: The miracle, the crisis and the future. London and New York, NY: Zed Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.Google Scholar
  13. Cortright, J. (2006). Making sense of clusters: Regional competitiveness and economic development. A Discussion Paper Prepared for the The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, 58p.Google Scholar
  14. David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the Economics QWERTY. The American Economic Review, 75(2), 332–337.Google Scholar
  15. David, P. A. (2006). Path dependence: A foundational concept for historical social science. 25 p. http://www.springerlink.com/content/330260526w702841/fulltext.html. Accessed 18 February 2011.
  16. Dyker, D.A. & Kubielas, S. (2000). Technology and structure in the polish economy under transition, Economic Systems, 24(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  17. Dyker, D.A., Nagy, A., Stanovnik, P., Turk, J., Usenik, H. & Vince, P. (2003). East – West Networks and their Alignment: Industrial Networks in Hungary and Slovenia. Technovation, 23, 603–616.Google Scholar
  18. Dyker, D.A. (2006a). Corporate and institutional governance, management and technical change in transition countries, sixth framework programme “understanding the relationship between knowledge and competitiveness in the enlarging European Union”, Contract no CIT-02 85 19, http://www.iwh-halle.de/projects/uknow/wip.html#pp.
  19. Dyker, D.A. (Ed.) (2006b). Closing the East–West Productivity Gap: Foreign Direct Investment, Competitiveness and Public Policy. London, Imperial College Press.Google Scholar
  20. Edquist, C. (2001). Innovation policy: A systemic approach. In D. Archibugi, & B-Å Lundvall, (Eds.), The globalizing learning economy (pp.219–238). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fagerberg, J. & Godinho, M.M. (2005). Innovation and catching-up. In J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery & R. Nelson (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.YGoogle Scholar
  22. Feser, E. (2002). The relevance of clusters for innovation policy in Latin America and the Caribbean. Background paper prepared for the World Bank, LAC Group. http://www.urban.illinois.edu/faculty/feser/PUBS/Relevance%20of%20clusters.pdf. Accessed 18 February 2011.
  23. Fransman, M. (2000). Commentary. In L. Kim & R.R. Nelson (Eds.) Technology, Learning and Innovation Experiences of Newly Industrializing Economies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Freeman, C. (1982). Technological infrastructure and international competitiveness. Draft paper submitted to the OECD (as cited in Carlsson 2003).Google Scholar
  25. Freeman, C. (1999). Innovation systems: City-state, national, continental and subnational. In J.E. Cassiolato, & H. Lastres (Eds.), Globalizacao & inovacao localizada (pp. 109–167). Brazil: IBICT.Google Scholar
  26. Freeman, C. (2006). ‘Catching-up’ and innovation systems: Implications for Eastern Europe. In K. Piech, & S. Radosevic (Eds.), The knowledge-based economy in Central and East European countries: Countries and industries in a process of change (pp. 13–30). Basingstoke, UK, New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Freeman, C. (2002). Continental, national and sub-national innovation systems - complementarity and economic growth. Research Policy, 31, 191−211.Google Scholar
  28. Garud, R., & Karnoe, P. (2001). Path dependence and creation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  29. Gerschenkron, A. (1962). Economic backwardness in historical perspective. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  30. Governance of innovation systems (2005). Vol. 1: Synthesis Report. OECD., 117 p.Google Scholar
  31. Hanson, P. & Pavitt, K. (1987). The Comparative Economics of Research, Development and innovation in East and West: A survey. Chur: Harwood Academic.Google Scholar
  32. Hirsch-Kreinsen, H., Jacobson, D. & Robertson, P. (Eds.) (2005). “Low-tech” Industries: Innovativeness and Development Perspectives, A Summary of a European Research Project, PILOT project Final Report, Dortmund.Google Scholar
  33. Högselius, P. (2005). The Dynamics of innovation in Eastern Europe: Lessons from Estonia. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  34. Ivernizzi, N. (2005). Science and technology policy in transition: New challenges for Cardoso’s legacy. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(2), 162–184.Google Scholar
  35. Kim, S.-R. & von Tunzelmann, N. (1998). Aligning internal and external networks: Taiwan’s ­specialization in IT. SPRU Electronic Working Papers Series, 17.Google Scholar
  36. Lundvall, B.-Å. (1985). Product innovation and user-producer interaction. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lundvall, B.-Å (Ed.) (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
  38. Lundvall, B.-Å., Intarakumnerd, P., Vang, J. (2006). Asia’s innovation system in transition: An introduction. In B.-Å. Lundvall, P. Intarakumnerd, J. Vang (Eds.), Asia’s innovation system in transition (pp. 1–20). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. Margolis, S., & E., Liebowitz, S. J. Path dependence. Research paper. http://www.utdallas.edu/∼liebowit/palgrave/palpd.html. Accessed 18 February 2011.
  40. Matthews, J.A. (1999). From national innovation systems to national systems of economic Learning: the case of technology diffusion management in East Asia. Paper submitted to DRUID summer conference, ‘national innovation systems, industrial dynamics and innovation policy’, Rebild, Denmark, June.Google Scholar
  41. Meller, P. (1991). Chilean economic development, 1889–1990. In M. Blomström, & P. Meller (Eds.), Diverging paths: Comparing a century of Scandinavian and Latin American economic development (pp.37–65). Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
  42. Metcalfe, J. S. (1998). Evolutionary economics and creative destruction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Nelson, R (Ed.) (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Niosi, J. (2002). National systems of innovations are “x-efficient” (and x-effective). Why some are slow learners. Research Policy, 31, 291−302.Google Scholar
  45. Nonaka, I. (1991). The Knowledge Creating Company. Harvard Business Review, November/December, 96–104.Google Scholar
  46. Perez, C., & Soete, L. (1988). Catching up in technology: Entry barriers and windows of opportunity. In G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, L. Soete (Eds.), Technical change and economic theory (pp. pp. 458–479). London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
  47. Putnam, R.D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Radošević, S. (2003) Patterns of preservation, restructuring, and survival: Science and technology policy in Russia in the Post-Soviet Era. Research Policy, 32, 1105–1124.Google Scholar
  49. Radošević, S. (2006). Domestic innovation capacity — Can CEE governments correct FDI-driven trends through R&D policy? In D.A. Dyker (Ed.) Closing the East-West Productivity Gap: Foreign Direct Investment, Competitiveness and Public Policy. London: Imperial College Press.Google Scholar
  50. Radošević, S., & Reid, A. (2006). Innovation Policy for a Knowledge-based Economy in Central and Eastern Europe: Driver of Growth or New Layer of Bureaucracy? In K. Piech & S. Radošević (Eds.) The Knowledge-Based Economy in Central and Eastern Europe: Countries and Industries in a Process of Change. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  51. Skokan, K. (2008). Innovative concepts in the regional policy of the Czech Republic, MPRA Paper, 12375.Google Scholar
  52. Smits, R., & Kuhlmann, S. (2004). The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1(1/2), 4–32.Google Scholar
  53. UNIDO (2005). Industrial development report 2005. Capability building for catching-up: Historical, empirical and policy dimensions. ViennaGoogle Scholar
  54. Vahter, P. (2006). Which Firms Benefit More from Inward Foreign Direct Investment? Bank of Estonia Working Papers, 11.Google Scholar
  55. Varblane, U., Dyker, D., Tamm, D. & Tunzelmann, N. (2007). Can the national innovation systems of the new EU member-states be improved? Post-Communist Economies, 19(4), 399−416.Google Scholar
  56. Viotti, E.B. (2002). National learning systems: a new approach on technological change in late industrializing economies and evidence from the cases of Brazil and South Korea. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69, 653–680.Google Scholar
  57. von Tunzelmann, N. (2004). Network alignment in the catching-up economies of Europe. In F. McGowan, S. Radošević & N. von Tunzelmann (Eds.) The emerging industrial structure of the wider Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. von Tunzelmann, N. & Acha, V. (2005). Innovation in “Low-tech” Industries. In J Fagerberg, D.C Mowery & R. Nelson (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. von Tunzelmann, N. (2003). Network alignment and innovation in transition economies, Paper presented to conference Innovation in Europe: Dynamics, Institutions and Values, Roskilde University, May.Google Scholar
  60. Watkins, A. & Agapitova, N. (2004). Creating a 21st century national innovation system for a 21st century latvian economy. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 3457.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Urmas Varblane
    • 1
  • Kadri Ukrainski
    • 1
  • Oliver Lillestik
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations