Comments on: Learning Innovation Systems from Small Developed Nations 178.0 http://synthesistblog.com/learning-innovation-systems-from-small-developed-nations-178-0/ Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:14:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Catch-up Innovation Systems for Emerging Markets | Synthesist http://synthesistblog.com/learning-innovation-systems-from-small-developed-nations-178-0/#comment-2952 Catch-up Innovation Systems for Emerging Markets | Synthesist Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:18:19 +0000 http://synthesistblog.com/?p=6137#comment-2952 [...] Another set of posts in SYNTHESiST involved small, developed countries in Denmark, Israel and New Zealand. [...] [...] Another set of posts in SYNTHESiST involved small, developed countries in Denmark, Israel and New Zealand. [...]

]]> By: Looking Forward with Pres Aquino on Philippine Development | Synthesist http://synthesistblog.com/learning-innovation-systems-from-small-developed-nations-178-0/#comment-2692 Looking Forward with Pres Aquino on Philippine Development | Synthesist Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:43:57 +0000 http://synthesistblog.com/?p=6137#comment-2692 [...] Development economics before Neoclassical and Dependency Theories. I have read broadly and deeply for inspirations and models of development including national innovation systems of emerging Japan, China, India, Korea, Taiwan, and New Zealand, Denmark and Israel. [...] [...] Development economics before Neoclassical and Dependency Theories. I have read broadly and deeply for inspirations and models of development including national innovation systems of emerging Japan, China, India, Korea, Taiwan, and New Zealand, Denmark and Israel. [...]

]]> By: Lessons from the Current Strife in Thailand | Synthesist http://synthesistblog.com/learning-innovation-systems-from-small-developed-nations-178-0/#comment-2041 Lessons from the Current Strife in Thailand | Synthesist Wed, 19 May 2010 23:10:00 +0000 http://synthesistblog.com/?p=6137#comment-2041 [...] The one thing he said that surprised me is that, “Today, Thaksin Chinnawat is just one character in the Red Shirts’ struggle. This long time demonstration is really more about getting a better deal for the rural poor than the one the yellow-shirted, urban-based elite is sharing with them.” Note: Other Learning from …[other countries] posts: Taiwan, Singapore and Hongkong, Denmark, Israel and New Zealand. [...] [...] The one thing he said that surprised me is that, “Today, Thaksin Chinnawat is just one character in the Red Shirts’ struggle. This long time demonstration is really more about getting a better deal for the rural poor than the one the yellow-shirted, urban-based elite is sharing with them.” Note: Other Learning from …[other countries] posts: Taiwan, Singapore and Hongkong, Denmark, Israel and New Zealand. [...]

]]> By: Implementing Changes from Innovation Needs Strong Institutions | Synthesist http://synthesistblog.com/learning-innovation-systems-from-small-developed-nations-178-0/#comment-2035 Implementing Changes from Innovation Needs Strong Institutions | Synthesist Sat, 15 May 2010 20:34:19 +0000 http://synthesistblog.com/?p=6137#comment-2035 [...] changeEdition on sale at National BookstoreLearning from small but progressive nations like Denmark, Israel, New Zealand and Taiwan, strong institutions are needed to make change permanent in an emerging [...] [...] changeEdition on sale at National BookstoreLearning from small but progressive nations like Denmark, Israel, New Zealand and Taiwan, strong institutions are needed to make change permanent in an emerging [...]

]]> By: Learning about Innovation Systems from Taiwan | Synthesist http://synthesistblog.com/learning-innovation-systems-from-small-developed-nations-178-0/#comment-1998 Learning about Innovation Systems from Taiwan | Synthesist Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:21:44 +0000 http://synthesistblog.com/?p=6137#comment-1998 [...] Today, I just finished reading the book. I am writing this as an addendum to my SYNTHESiST post on February 21, Learning Innovation Systems from Small Developed Nations. [...] [...] Today, I just finished reading the book. I am writing this as an addendum to my SYNTHESiST post on February 21, Learning Innovation Systems from Small Developed Nations. [...]

]]> By: Philippines-Fabricated Rotary Filling Machine | Synthesist http://synthesistblog.com/learning-innovation-systems-from-small-developed-nations-178-0/#comment-1080 Philippines-Fabricated Rotary Filling Machine | Synthesist Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:36:10 +0000 http://synthesistblog.com/?p=6137#comment-1080 [...] must elect leaders who support innovation policies in the mode of pluralist Denmark, Israel and New Zealand as in a previous [...] [...] must elect leaders who support innovation policies in the mode of pluralist Denmark, Israel and New Zealand as in a previous [...]

]]> By: admin http://synthesistblog.com/learning-innovation-systems-from-small-developed-nations-178-0/#comment-796 admin Sun, 07 Mar 2010 10:00:22 +0000 http://synthesistblog.com/?p=6137#comment-796 Anent to previous reply, The arrival of the information age made a big difference in Lundvall's view because intensive learning became more critical for innovation. His later studies in the 1990s highlighted the need for interaction and for a 'learning economy.' In this post-industrial context, centralized control will not yield the best results in national innovation systems. Freedom to experiment and path create to mash-ups or technology enabled systems like micro-finance is the way to go. Leapfrogging on path dependent ways that centralized control will recommend (our government signed in 2009 agreement with Taiwan along this lines) will not work because it puts as on a follower strategy versus the developed countries and other emerging countries already ahead of us like China, Korea and Taiwan. We have winners that should be our launching pad. We must use our brains to path create from them toward areas we can control. Anent to previous reply,
The arrival of the information age made a big difference in Lundvall’s view because intensive learning became more critical for innovation. His later studies in the 1990s highlighted the need for interaction and for a ‘learning economy.’ In this post-industrial context, centralized control will not yield the best results in national innovation systems. Freedom to experiment and path create to mash-ups or technology enabled systems like micro-finance is the way to go. Leapfrogging on path dependent ways that centralized control will recommend (our government signed in 2009 agreement with Taiwan along this lines) will not work because it puts as on a follower strategy versus the developed countries and other emerging countries already ahead of us like China, Korea and Taiwan. We have winners that should be our launching pad. We must use our brains to path create from them toward areas we can control.

]]> By: admin http://synthesistblog.com/learning-innovation-systems-from-small-developed-nations-178-0/#comment-795 admin Sun, 07 Mar 2010 09:41:53 +0000 http://synthesistblog.com/?p=6137#comment-795 Hi James, Ha Joon Chang is so statist and predictable that I do not read him anymore. Lundvall who was a younger partner of Freeman in researching that classic 1984 study at SPRU, Sussex U, updates the theory and says that actual conditions in each country dictate the final formula of NIS for that country. I commented on that book (IFIAS 6) here: http://synthesistblog.com/technical-change-and-economic-theory-a-great-book-find-in-september-113-0/ and here: http://synthesistblog.com/innovation-as-intensive-learning-and-emulating-the-east-asian-nies-103-0/. Among economists, Lundvall has to concede this point because the methodology they used in deriving the conclusions were inductive logic that implies no conclusion in theory can be derived. Other scholars using this method like Elinor Ostrom actually warn about using grounded theory derived in this manner as a metaphor for policy. The inductive nature of the methodology of evolutionary economics is still a problem. For myself, I did not come into evolutionary economics starting from an ideological standpoint but rather because I am an engineer and believe that even economies can be built. While I am left of center on the purpose of economics (ie equity in opportunity) I am right of center on the means to attain so (i.e. small government, strong countervailing institutions, but enlightened leadership) to get the nation where it ought to be. In this sense, I am optimistic about people and mistrustful of government based on observed history. Hi James,
Ha Joon Chang is so statist and predictable that I do not read him anymore.
Lundvall who was a younger partner of Freeman in researching that classic 1984 study at SPRU, Sussex U, updates the theory and says that actual conditions in each country dictate the final formula of NIS for that country.
I commented on that book (IFIAS 6) here: http://synthesistblog.com/technical-change-and-economic-theory-a-great-book-find-in-september-113-0/ and here: http://synthesistblog.com/innovation-as-intensive-learning-and-emulating-the-east-asian-nies-103-0/.
Among economists, Lundvall has to concede this point because the methodology they used in deriving the conclusions were inductive logic that implies no conclusion in theory can be derived.
Other scholars using this method like Elinor Ostrom actually warn about using grounded theory derived in this manner as a metaphor for policy.
The inductive nature of the methodology of evolutionary economics is still a problem.
For myself, I did not come into evolutionary economics starting from an ideological standpoint but rather because I am an engineer and believe that even economies can be built. While I am left of center on the purpose of economics (ie equity in opportunity) I am right of center on the means to attain so (i.e. small government, strong countervailing institutions, but enlightened leadership) to get the nation where it ought to be. In this sense, I am optimistic about people and mistrustful of government based on observed history.

]]> By: James Matthew Miraflor http://synthesistblog.com/learning-innovation-systems-from-small-developed-nations-178-0/#comment-790 James Matthew Miraflor Sun, 07 Mar 2010 05:37:49 +0000 http://synthesistblog.com/?p=6137#comment-790 I concede that much of the failure of the economic subsectors to modernize is due primarily to cultural failures which lead to the disincentivization of organizational learning. As you said, the lack of a system of “trust” and a sense of “urgency” prevents the transition to modernity. Prof. Randy David has good articles on this, wherein he expounded how the lack of delineation between social subsystems such as the family, religion, and politics, leads to overburdening and inefficient functioning of each subsystem. For example, political dynasties, as the family subsystem overstepping the boundaries of the political subsystem, leads to the ineffective functioning of the latter. You can view it here: http://mlq3.tumblr.com/post/357716614/randy-david-on-the-socio-political-landscape-in-2010 But on this, I am leaning to classical (as opposed to the new) institutional economics for a solution, insofar as I argue that these social subsystems can only be properly demarcated and separated from each other via social institutions, and that these institutions must be deliberately designed and will not evolve independently from a vacuum. So the question is relegated to, what institutions do we design, from scratch if need be? What institutions do we need to fix? For technology, Christopher Freeman has an answer. If Freeman is to be a guide, the task then of the Philippine state is to create a “national system of innovation… the networks of institutions in the public and private sectors whose activities and interactions initiate, import, modify and diffuse new technologies”. Thus, institutions must pave the way to the creation of an environment where coordinated innovation is possible amongst the most important private and public actors, organizations and institutions that take part or influence R&D and innovation in the country. The question then becomes, who among these actors are in a best position to lead the creation of such a national system? Is it the public, or the private, sector? It seems that the cases you expounded (Israel, New Zealand, Denmark) deemphasizes the role of the public sector. On this, I would differ in opinion. To elaborate my point, we look again at Freeman who said that the creation of a national system of innovation is accompanied by the creation of a “new technological system” defined by Freeman as a “constellation of innovations which are technically and economically interrelated” – citing as example the “cluster of (inter-related) innovations that gained force from the 1930s onwards in petrochemicals, synthetic materials and plastics machinery”. On this, we have to ask, is the private sector up to the task of creating such “constellation of innovations”, each of which needs the other in order to thrive? Can the private sector, operating on the rules of the free market, evolve such a system? I say, that only through deliberate and intelligent design by the public sector, through the government, can such constellation of innovations be set up as fast as possible. This was the case in South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan (electronics), and even Cuba (biomedical technology). Economist Ha-Joon Chang would agree. Chang argued that if anything is, industry fails because market actors underestimate long-term gains of particular activities, and are not adequate to the task of coordinating large interdependent decisions necessary for accelerated and sustainable growth, which failure to do so can result to wastage due to irreversible duplicative investments and overcapacity. Thus, my conclusion is, the state must intervene in order to support multiple technological industries in order to build the constellation of innovations necessary for a national innovation system. Among others, this will need employing the classic infant industry protection as an economic strategy. Just to note, there are those who would want to emphasize the reverse relationship. Venezuelan intellectual Carlota Perez for example, believes in technological systems emerges out of innovation, after which new forms of social organization and economic (capital) structure that is custom-fit to the new technological system will emerge. Perez uses the terms “new techno-economic paradigms” for these new ways to manage and organize economic life. I say, that the relationship is reciprocal: the state creates institutions to allow innovations, and then innovations reengineer institutions and thus the state. All for now. I do wish technology books will also be discussed sa Book Reading sessions natin.:-) James I concede that much of the failure of the economic subsectors to modernize is due primarily to cultural failures which lead to the disincentivization of organizational learning. As you said, the lack of a system of “trust” and a sense of “urgency” prevents the transition to modernity.

Prof. Randy David has good articles on this, wherein he expounded how the lack of delineation between social subsystems such as the family, religion, and politics, leads to overburdening and inefficient functioning of each subsystem. For example, political dynasties, as the family subsystem overstepping the boundaries of the political subsystem, leads to the ineffective functioning of the latter. You can view it here:

http://mlq3.tumblr.com/post/357716614/randy-david-on-the-socio-political-landscape-in-2010

But on this, I am leaning to classical (as opposed to the new) institutional economics for a solution, insofar as I argue that these social subsystems can only be properly demarcated and separated from each other via social institutions, and that these institutions must be deliberately designed and will not evolve independently from a vacuum.

So the question is relegated to, what institutions do we design, from scratch if need be? What institutions do we need to fix?

For technology, Christopher Freeman has an answer. If Freeman is to be a guide, the task then of the Philippine state is to create a “national system of innovation… the networks of institutions in the public and private sectors whose activities and interactions initiate, import, modify and diffuse new technologies”. Thus, institutions must pave the way to the creation of an environment where coordinated innovation is possible amongst the most important private and public actors, organizations and institutions that take part or influence R&D and innovation in the country.

The question then becomes, who among these actors are in a best position to lead the creation of such a national system? Is it the public, or the private, sector? It seems that the cases you expounded (Israel, New Zealand, Denmark) deemphasizes the role of the public sector. On this, I would differ in opinion.

To elaborate my point, we look again at Freeman who said that the creation of a national system of innovation is accompanied by the creation of a “new technological system” defined by Freeman as a “constellation of innovations which are technically and economically interrelated” – citing as example the “cluster of (inter-related) innovations that gained force from the 1930s onwards in petrochemicals, synthetic materials and plastics machinery”.

On this, we have to ask, is the private sector up to the task of creating such “constellation of innovations”, each of which needs the other in order to thrive? Can the private sector, operating on the rules of the free market, evolve such a system?

I say, that only through deliberate and intelligent design by the public sector, through the government, can such constellation of innovations be set up as fast as possible. This was the case in South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan (electronics), and even Cuba (biomedical technology).

Economist Ha-Joon Chang would agree. Chang argued that if anything is, industry fails because market actors underestimate long-term gains of particular activities, and are not adequate to the task of coordinating large interdependent decisions necessary for accelerated and sustainable growth, which failure to do so can result to wastage due to irreversible duplicative investments and overcapacity.

Thus, my conclusion is, the state must intervene in order to support multiple technological industries in order to build the constellation of innovations necessary for a national innovation system. Among others, this will need employing the classic infant industry protection as an economic strategy.

Just to note, there are those who would want to emphasize the reverse relationship. Venezuelan intellectual Carlota Perez for example, believes in technological systems emerges out of innovation, after which new forms of social organization and economic (capital) structure that is custom-fit to the new technological system will emerge. Perez uses the terms “new techno-economic paradigms” for these new ways to manage and organize economic life.

I say, that the relationship is reciprocal: the state creates institutions to allow innovations, and then innovations reengineer institutions and thus the state.

All for now. I do wish technology books will also be discussed sa Book Reading sessions natin.:-)

James

]]>