Government policy and trajectories of radical innovation in Dirigiste states: A comparative analysis of national innovation systems in France and Korea

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 451-470

  Lee, Soo Hee ^a   Yoo, Taeyoung ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPETITIVENESS; GLOBALIZATION; INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY; INNOVATION; TECHNOLOGY POLICY;

ASIA; EURASIA; EUROPE; FAR EAST; FRANCE; KOREA; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 34447337243     PISSN: 09537325     EISSN: 14653990     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09537320701403383     Document Type: Article

References (94)

1. See P. Hall & D. Soskice, Introduction, in: P. Hall & D. Soskice (Eds), Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage (New York, Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 1-68.
2. A. Sorge, Strategic Fit and the Societal Effect: Interpreting Cross-National Comparisons of Technology, Organization and Human Resources, Organization Studies, 12(2), 1991, pp. 161-190.
3. Hall & Soskice provide an industry specific definition of radical innovation that 'is especially important in fast-moving technology sectors ⋯ as in biotechnology, semiconductors, software development, ⋯ telecommunications or defence systems', p. 39.
4. R. Hoskisson, D.Yiu & H. Kim, Corporate Governance Systems: Effects of Capital and Labor Market Congruency on Corporate Innovation and Global Competitiveness, Journal of High Technology Management Research, 15(2), 2004, pp. 293-315.
5. V. Schmidt, French Capitalism Transformed, yet Still a ThirdVariety of Capitalism, Economy and Society, 32(4), 2003, pp. 526-554.
6. Kogut points out that 'France is drowned in the Mediterranean Sea by the varieties of capitalism (VoC) framework'; see B. Kogut, The Globalizing Learning Economy & Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 2003, pp. 157-163.
7. V. Walsh & M. Le Roux, Contingency in Innovation and the Role of National Systems: Taxol and Taxotere in theUSAand France, Research Policy, 33, 2004, pp. 1307-1327.
8. T. Hayashi, Effect of R&D Programmes on the Formation of University-Industry-Government Networks: Comparative Analysis of Japanese R&D Programmes, Research Policy, 32(8), 2003, pp. 1421-1442.
9. H. Etzkowitz & L. Leydesdorff, The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and 'Mode 2' to a Triple Helix of University - Industry - Government Relations, Research Policy, 29, 2000, pp. 109-123.
10. O, Gassmann & M. von Zedtwitz, New Concepts and Trends in International R&D Organization, Research Policy, 28(2-3), 1999, pp. 231-250.
11. M. Porter, New Strategies for Inner-City Economic Development, Economic Development Quarterly, 11(1), 1997, pp. 11-27.
12. V. Walsh, Design, Innovation and the Boundaries of the Firm, Research Policy, 25(4), 1996, pp. 509-529.
13. S. Jasanoff, Technological Innovation in a Corporatist State: The Case of Biotechnology in the Federal Republic of Germany, Research Policy 14(1), 1985, pp. 23-38.
14. 'The idea of promoting entrepreneurship through government activism sounds peculiarly French.' See G. Trumbull, Silicon and the State: French Innovation Policy in the Internet Age (Washington, DC, Brookings Institution, 2004), p. 17.
15. B. Amable & B. Hancke, Innovation and Industrial Renewal in France in Comparative Perspective, Industry and Innovation, 8(2), 2001, pp. 113-133.
16. M. Goyer, Corporate Governance and the Innovation System in France 1985-2000, Industry and Innovation, 8, 2001, pp. 135-158.
17. B. Schmidt, From Cooperation to Integration: Defence and Aerospace Industries in Europe, Chaillot Paper 40, July 2000.
18. K. Pavitt & P. Patel, Sources and Directions of Technological Accumulation in France: A Statistical Comparison with FR Germany and the UK, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 2, 1990, pp. 3-26.
19. M. Hobday, H. Rush & C. Bessant, Approaching the Innovation Frontier in Korea: The Transition phase to Leadership, Research Policy, 33, 2004, pp. 1433-1457.
20. C. Freeman, The 'National System of Innovation' in historical perspective, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19, 1995, pp. 5-24.
21. B.-A. Lundvall, Introduction, in: B.-A. Lundvall (Ed.), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning (NewYork, Pinter, 1992), p. 12.
22. C. Edquist, Systems of Innovation Approaches - Their Emergence and Characteristics, in: C. Edquis & M. McKelvey (Eds), Systems of Innovation: Growth, Competitiveness and Employment, vol. 1 (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2000).
23. K. Pavitt & P. Patel, The Technological Competencies of theWorld's Largest Firms: Complex and Path-dependent, but not much variety, Research Policy, 26(2), 1997, pp. 141-156.
24. M. Pianta, Technology, Growth and Employment: Do National Systems Matter?, in: D. Archibugi, J. Howells & J. Michie (Eds), Innovation Policy in a Global Economy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997).
25. Freeman, op cit., Ref. 9.
26. B.-A. Lundvall,Why Study National Systems and National Styles of Innovation? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(4), 1998, pp. 407-421.
27. R. Nelson, National Innovation Systems: A Retrospective on a Study, Industrial and Corporate Change, 1(2), 1992, pp. 347-374.
28. Lundvall, op. cit., Ref. 10.
29. Freeman, op. cit., Ref. 9.
30. B. Amable, Institutional Complementarity and Diversity of Social Systems of Innovation and Production, Review of International Political Economy, 7(4), 2000, pp. 645-687.
31. M. Goyer, Corporate Governance, Employees, and the Focus on Core Competencies in France and Germany, in: C. Milhaupt (Ed.), Global Markets, Domestic Institutions: Corporate Law and Governance in an Era of Cross-Border Deals (NewYork, Columbia University Press, 2003), pp. 183-213.
32. Aoki develops the concept of institutional complementarities with an analysis of the Japanese bank-based financial system and technological development. See M. Aoki, The Contingent Governance of Teams: Analysis of Institutional Complementarity, International Economic Review, 35(3), 1994, pp. 657-676.
33. Amable, op. cit., Ref. 15, p. 645.
34. Hall & Soskice, op. cit., Ref. 1, pp. 17-21.
35. M. O'Sullivan, Contests for Corporate Control: Corporate Governance and Economic Performance in the United States and Germany (NewYork, Oxford University Press, 2000).
36. Hall & Soskice, op. cit., Ref. 1
37. Zysman, How Institutions Create Historically Rooted Trajectories of Growth, Industrial and Corporate Change, 3, 1994, pp. 243-283
38. M. Porter, Capital Disadvantages: America's Failing Capital Investment System, Harvard Business Review, 62(3), 1992, pp. 65-82.
39. Hoskisson et al., op. cit., Ref. 2.
40. See Ref. 5.
41. Walsh & Le Roux, op. cit., Ref. 5.
42. Walsh & Le Roux, op. cit., Ref. 5.
43. P. Mustar & P. Laredo, Innovation and Research Policy in France (1980-2000) or the Disappearance of the Colbertist State, Research Policy, 31, 2002, pp. 55-72, (p. 63).
44. Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, op. cit., Ref. 5.
45. Hall & Soskice, op. cit., Ref. 1, p. 35.
46. Lundvall, op. cit., Ref. 10.
47. Nelson, op. cit., Ref. 12.
48. M. Orru, Dirigiste Capitalism in France and South Korea, in: M. Orru, N. Biggart & G. Hamilton (Eds), The Economic Organization of East Asian Capitalism (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 1997).
49. E. Cohen, France: National Champions in Search of a Mission, in: J. Hayward (Ed.), Industrial Enterprise and European Integration: From National to International Champions in Europe (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995)
50. M. Vaughan, The Grandes Ecoles: Selection, Legitimation, Perpetuation, in: J. Howarth & P. Cerny (Eds), Elites in France: Origins, Reproduction and Power (London, Pinter, 1981).
51. P. Culpepper, 'Institutional Change in Contemporary Capitalism: Coordinated Financial Systems since 1990', World Politics, 57(2), 2005, pp. 173-199
52. B. Amable, The Diversity of Modern Capitalism (New York, Oxford University Press, 2003)
53. Goyer, op. cit., Ref. 16
54. R. Whitley, The Institutional Structuring of Innovation Strategies: Business Systems, Firm Types and Patterns of Technical Change in Different Market Economies, Organization Studies, 21(5), 2000, pp. 855-886
55. R. Whitley, Internationalization and varieties of capitalism: The limited effects of cross-national coordination of economic activities on the nature of business systems, Review of International Political Economy, 5(3), 1998, pp. 445-481.
56. Orru, op. cit., Ref. 31.
57. M. Guillén, Corporate Governance and Globalisation: Is there convergence across countries?, in:T. Clarke (Ed.), Theories of Corporate Governance (London, Routledge, 2004)
58. R. La Porta, F. Lopez-de-Silanes & A. Shleifer, 'Corporate Ownership around theWorld, Journal of Finance, 54(2), 1999, pp. 471-517.
59. Nelson, op. cit., Ref. 12.
60. T. Smith, France in Crisis: Welfare, Inequality and Globalization Since 1980 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004)
61. Amable, op. cit., Ref. 15
62. Orru, op. cit., Ref. 31.
63. V. Schmidt, French Capitalism Transformed, yet still a Third Variety of Capitalism, Economy and Society, 32(4), 2003, pp. 526-554
64. R. Gilson, The Globalization of Corporate Governance: Convergence of Form or Function, American Journal of Comparative Law, 49, 2001, pp. 327-345
65. A. Amsden, Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization (NewYork, Oxford University Press, 1989).
66. Mustar & Laredo, op. cit., Ref. 26.
67. Mustar & Laredo, op. cit., Ref. 26.
68. OECD, Science and Technology Statistical Compendium, 2004, accessed by web.
69. M. O'Sullivan, Change and Continuity in the French System of Corporate Governance, INSEAD Working Paper, February 2001.
70. R. Burt, R. Hogarth & C. Michaud, The Social Capital of French and American Managers, Organization Science, 11(2), 2000, pp. 123-147.
71. Culpepper, op. cit., Ref. 33.
72. This paragraph is summarized from Mustar & Laredo, op. cit., Ref. 26, pp. 57-59.
73. H. Hudson, Global Connections: International Telecommunications Infrastructure and Policy (NewYork, JohnWiley & Sons, 1997), p. 120.
74. Hudson, op. cit., Ref. 46, p. 120.
75. In contrast to the ICT sector, the atomic energy sector has been equipped with both independent institutions such as CEA and subordinate institutions of CNRS such as IN2P3 (National Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics) since 1971.
76. OECD, French Policies for Industry and Innovation, 2002.
77. The French experience in telecommunications is contrasted with the Korean government policy in terms of introducing effective competition. This will be analysed in the latter part of this section.
78. STEPI (Science&Technology Policy Institute), A Study on the French R&D Strategy and its Implications on National Innovation System (Seoul: STEPI, 2002), in Korean.
79. Hudson, op. cit., Ref. 46, p. 286.
80. OECD, Korea's Policy Environment, 2002.
81. CDMA was commercialized by the ETRI (Electronics and Information Research Institute), the Korean equivalent of CNET and INRIA.
82. We define 'effective competition' as a market condition that limits the predatory power of market leaders, expedites new entrants to exercise their strategic choice, and consequently, facilitates the consumer rights of choice. The efficiency of effective competition is assessed by policy makers in terms of consumer benefits, technology development and industry expansion. Effective competition policy has been applied to several areas such as electricity (EU), postal service (UK) and telecommunications (US). Broadband Internet service in Korea is cited as a successful case of this policy.
83. OECD, Broadband Internet Access in OECD Countries: A Comparative Analysis, 2003.
84. OECD, op. cit., Ref. 53.
85. Ministry of Science and Technology web page (http://www.most.go.kr).
86. OECD, Measuring the ICT Sector, 2000.
87. J. Hagedoorn & M. Cloodt, Measuring innovative performance: Is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, 32, 2003, pp. 1365-1379.
88. OECD, Compendium of Patent Statistics, 2003.
89. OECD, op. cit., Ref. 61.
90. OECD, Measuring the Information Economy, 2002.
91. OECD, Patents and Innovation: Trends and Policy Challenges, 2004.
92. The strategies pursued by the government acting as the key stakeholder directly affected the diffusion of a new technology. See J. Choudrie, A. Papazafeiropoulou & H. Lee, A Web of Stakeholders and Strategies: A Case of Broadband Diffusion in South Korea, Journal of Information Technology, 18(4), 2003, pp. 281-290.
93. A news article is suggestive: 'despite the government's effort to make appropriate policies during the past 20 years, France has not got world-class corporations in the chemistry and ICT sectors.' Le Monde Successful Privatisation in France, translated from Joongang Daily Newspaper, 18 July 1999.
94. Trumbull, op. cit., Ref. 6.