Lundvall and Dynamic STI- and DUI-Learning Interactions for National Innovation Systems 17.0
Note: This post has been re-written in a more accessible and longer style. Please click here for link to Post 154, the better version.
I asked Professor Bengkt-Ake Lundvall for a copy of his out-of-print 1992 book. Instead, he pointed me here to the 2007 “post script.” I thank him heartily.
Professor Lundvall was with Christopher Freeman (see Post #5) and the IKE-group in Aalborg. They developed the first version of national innovation systems (NIS) in 1981.
Four points from his paper strike me as key to the NIS process.
1. From its roots with J Schumpeter and F List, learning and new knowledge are the drivers of innovation and technical progress (TFP).
2. There are two kinds of learning. STI-learning is science and technology to innovation learning. DUI-learning is doing, using and interacting. DUI is also called learning-by-doing.
STI is often the focus of national systems because of the lack of metrics to justify DUI effects. Neo-classical economists derive STI effects from proxies like new patents and PhDs.
My own view, at least in the Philippines, is institutional. Except for very few like Sec Follosco, no one stands for DUI-based innovation. STI has the DOST and the universities advocating for it as is their charter.
3. Demand-pull from growth gives the widest route to innovation. Continuous interaction between STI and DUI in a vector-driven, virtuous cycle to create ‘global, explicit’ knowledge is the effective mechanism.
The Philippines did not achieve technical progress because growth was nil (no factor accumulation – Post #11). STI efforts led innovation while DUI as learning-by-doing came from ailing industry.
Also, in Cororaton, there was hardly any DUI learning between the export and local sectors because of the dual economy. The volume split flattened the learning curve. There were efforts to connect the two via common service facilities, etc. The tariff wall between export and local market and, anecdotally, (a) higher prices and margins with (b) less quality demand by the local market worked – push and pull – to a dual economy.
4. The Professor suggests the NIS as a focusing device at its core, the firms. For the Philippines, much work needs to be done at the wider setting – the political economy – to reverse the hollowing out of production sector and re-build DUI competence-building.
Professor Lundvall’s NIS concept (he refuses to call it a general theory – a rallying cry for scientific revolution and paradigm shift) binds together aspects of the Philippine situation into a problem that can be solved.
Please visit Professor Lundvall’s paper here. It ‘s meaty and strong.
It took me a few days to take in his insights and fit it in 340 words (I failed but the extra 88 words are worth it).
(We thank Professor Beng-Anke Lundvall for allowing us to feature his paper.)
