1、 外文翻译 原文 Asias national innovation systems: Institutional adaptability and rigidity in the face of global innovation challenges Material Source: Asia Pac J Manag (2009) 26:589609 DOI 10.1007/s10490-008-9105-4 Author:Mark Dodgson The case clearly reveals the continuing tension between policy ambition
2、s by government and corporate realities. Korean cultural factors remain significant constraints on the technological entrepreneurship of the liberal market economy. Whilst the varieties of capitalism literature acknowledges this, the NIS literature (and much of the innovation literature as a whole)
3、is generally yet to recognize the significance of continued cultural legacies. Continual innovation is a key to the sustained competitiveness of nations, industries and firms. Innovation rarely occurs within the confines of individual organizations and patterns of innovation can be thought of as a s
4、ystem involving many contributors. The national characteristics of innovation systems strongly influence their performance. As many Asian nations are striving to perform at the technological forefront to build and sustain their competitiveness, the relationships between the social and economic insti
5、tutions and organizations that facilitate innovation and the businesses that deliver it are fruitful grounds for research. This paper has examined the dynamics of some selected elements of these relationships in two leading Asian economies, both of whose remarkable economic development is explained
6、by, and continued ambitions depend upon, developing innovative capacities and globally competitive technological industries. The means used to analyze these dynamics are two broad features of liberal market economies argued to be particularly important in encouraging radical innovation. The first is
7、 the evolution of supportive institutions and organizations in Taiwan, especially the developing role of a major research and technology transfer organization, the growth of new forms of capital, and the emergence of a biotechnology sector. These represent a significant departure from a past, succes
8、sful model based on accessing technology internationally, then diffusing it. The second is the encouragement of technology-based entrepreneurship in Korea, a significant departure in a country whose industry is dominated by large firms. These examples were used to examine how Asian institutions migh
9、t support or hamper the establishment and growth of new innovation-supporting organizational forms. The Taiwanese case showed significant efforts to shift beyond a very successful past model of innovation based on technological learning and diffusion and catch-up with worlds leading practices. New i
10、nstitutional forms are emerging in Taiwan: more basic research, greater numbers of science parks with mandates to commercialize that research, a greater focus on intellectual property protection, new models of collaboration, a venture capital industry, and new corporate behaviours, such as spin-outs
11、. Whilst there is little evidence of the success of some of these initiatives, such as the development of biotechnology which, in any case, because of the technology life cycles involved might not be expected to occur for some time, there is no doubting the extent of the institutional adaptation occ
12、urring. The liberal market economy model of innovation, based on R&D, intellectual property and venture capital, is being emulated whole-heartedly in Taiwan. It may be that any success of such evolution in Taiwan may be a result of the large number of US-trained and work experienced scientists and e
13、ngineers returning to Taiwan, and the strong political and social leanings of many of its population towards the US. In which case it emphasizes the importance of non-economic -underpinnings to institutional change seen so clearly in the Korean example. The adaptation of Taiwans economic institution
14、s is mutually complemented and supported by its social and cultural institutions. Koreas economic institutional adaptation in its attempts to encourage technological entrepreneurship is hampered by a lack of corresponding social institutional change. The Korean technology-based entrepreneurial firm
15、had virtually everything going for it in relation to the economic institutional supports for it ambitions. It was led by an experienced entrepreneur and was supported by the governments, it possessed a key technological standard and had access to international skills, capital and markets. Yet it fai
16、led, in major part, because of the legacy of continued cultural restraints on entrepreneurship. These constraints included continual deference to and domination of the chaebol at the top of the hierarchy, and the strong influence of patriotism, tending towards nationalism, on the part of the company
17、s owners. Both the NIS and varieties of capitalism literatures emphasize the importance in their analysis of the broad context in which firm strategies are developed and implemented. As we have seen in the case of the limited success of Taiwanese biotechnology and the predatory behaviour of chaebol,
18、 there remain significant legacies in the structures and behaviours of Asian firms that may limit innovation, based upon administrative heritage (Carney & Gedajlovic, 2003). Nonetheless, this paper argues that there are major economic and policy pressures encouraging their continued evolution. The f
19、ocus of this paper is less on the particular strategies for, and the management and organization of, innovation within individual firms, and more on their dynamic, systemic and environmental influences. It is concerned with systems evolution rather than firm performance. Case studies, such as those
20、reported here, cannot of course, be generalized and“ prove nothing. Yet as a research method they are well suited to studying emerging phenomena and behaviour: how things evolve over time and why they evolve in that way. The depth of research behind the cases leads to confidence in the assertions ma
21、de about the extent of the institutional adaptation occurring in some Asian countries, and the continued importance of cultural influences on the environment in which business is practiced. Recognition of the importance of national culture has implications for governments and firms in other Asian co
22、untries, such as Japan and China, encouraging technological entrepreneurship and other innovation-supporting features of liberal market economies. Policies designed specifically to transfer the Anglo-Saxon, “ stock market or liberal market model need to account for the enduring social and cultural d
23、ifferences that affect strategic behaviour. Attitudes to risk, hierarchy and group and social relations vary across cultures, as will their impact on innovation. Similarly, there are implications for international firmssuppliers, customers, investorsworking innovatively with firms in other cultures.
24、 Cultural specificities cannot be ignored, even in globalized high-tech environments. Ignoring international differences neglects what Zahra (2005) calls the subtle and profound impact of the institutional and cultural settings of the home countries. Innovation processes are undertaken within the co
25、ntext of an influential cultural overlay affecting NIS and varieties of capitalism. The varieties of capitalism and NIS literatures recognizes how institutional frameworks shape strategy, but only the former analyses in any depth how these are affected by culture. As the study of Asian innovation wi
26、ll increase along with its empirical importance. This deficiency needs to be addressed. As this research agenda is pursued, and greater congruence between varieties of capitalism and innovation systems (or, more broadly, political economy, business and innovation studies) is sought, new frameworks o
27、f analysis might be explored as integrating devices, such as the organizational field concept from organization studies (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). It would be valuable, for example, to explore the Taiwanese biotechnology case and its patterns of collaboration as an organizational field (Phillips, La
28、wrence& Hardy, 2000). It may provide a productive intermediary analytical lens for unpacking the interplay between national innovation systems and business practices. It may provide opportunities for more nuanced analysis on the impact of culture on strategy than the somewhat polarized view that eit
29、her highlights or denies its significance (see Singh, 2007). One of the most notable features of Asian NIS, of course, is their diversity, and many important questions remain about the evolution of innovation systems in Asia. A valuable future research agenda will be to consider in greater detail th
30、e specific transitional challenges for nations at different levels of development within an evolutionary and systematic framework. There is much research still to be conducted into the significance and contribution of innovation systems in rapidly technologically developing nations such as Malaysia
31、and Thailand. There remains, of course, the major question of why Taiwan and Korea have differed so broadly in their capacity to adapt their social institutions when attempting to follow the liberal market model. It is possible to speculate that the existing industry structure, which is, of course,
32、the result of decades of political, economic, social, cultural and religious influences, has been an important factor. The traditional small firm-based economy of Taiwan, although strongly influenced by Chinese business practices based around the family, is a more flexible and adaptable structure th
33、an the large conglomerate. Greater and more in-depth longitudinal research around this question would be valuable. There remains another profound question in this context, and that is whether the liberal market model is indeed the best for encouraging radical innovation in Asia. And there is an intr
34、iguing related question of whether an Asian model of innovation might emerge. Using the social relational view of NIS, then many beneficial characteristics such as high degrees of cooperativeness is in place. Many Asian economies possess enormous reserves of funds, and there is a greater tolerance o
35、f long-term attitudes and investments. Continued deep cultural legacies on issues such as trust between organizations, a noted feature of coordinated market economies, will remain important for innovation and entrepreneurship. Of course there are major deficiencies in Asia compared to the West, part
36、icularly in research and educational infrastructure and the close nexus between manufacturing and services innovation, but international innovation systems, like biological systems, need diversity and adaptation to survive. The predominant US model of innovation faces its own limitations and its foc
37、us is almost entirely on wealth creation. It may be the more welfare-orientated forms of capitalism that most effectively apply the skills and capabilities of innovation to the pressing social problems of income inequality, health, energy and the environment. 译文 亚洲国家创新系统 ： 制度的适应性和刚性面临全球的创新挑战 资料来源 :
38、亚洲包装技术 J.(20 09)26:5 89-60 9 10.10 07 / s10490-008-9105-4 作者： 马克 道奇森 此例 清楚地揭示出 ， 政府的政策野心和公司的现实之间的 持续 紧张 的现象 。韩国文化因素 ，是在 进行技术创业的自由市场经济 起到重要制约作用的因素 。而 多样化 的资本主义文学 ， 承认越来越文学 (和许多创新文学作为一个整体 )，通常是没有认识到持续的意义是文化宝藏。 对于国家、行业和企业来讲，要维持竞争力，不断创新是关键。 创新很少发生在有限的个人组织 ， 模式的创新能被认为是一个涉及诸多贡献的系统。民族特色的创新体系很强烈地影响他们的表现。许多亚
39、洲国家正在努力执行在 科技第一线建立和保持自己的竞争力 ， 把 社会、经济制度和组织之间的相互关系当成 是 有效促进创新和贸易发展 的研究 依据 。 本文已经研究了一些动力学 的指定 元素在两 处 主要的亚洲经济 之间的关系 ,包括他们的显著的经济发展 ,继续解释野心依靠 ， 发展创新型的能力和全球竞争力的技术行业。 这些方法 通常分析这些 动因是 自由市场经济国家特别吵着要去鼓励 “ 激进 ”创新 的两大特点 。 在 台湾 ，首先 是演化的制度和组织在支持 ,特别是发展中作用的主要研究机构和技术转让 ， 成长的新形式的资本 和新 出现 的 生物技术领域。这些 是 背离过去 的重要代表， 成功
40、模型 以 访问技术 在国际上 的 散播 为 基础。 二是在工业国家的大公司占明显的主导地位时 ，韩国鼓励科技型企业家的培养和发展 。 这些例子是用来研究亚洲机构可能支持还是阻碍 新生 的创新支持 组织形式 的设立和成长 。 台湾 模式通过 明显的努力 ， 超越了 过去 非常成功的基于技术学习 、 扩散和追赶世界领先的实践创新模式。 新制度形式出现在台湾 ： 更多的基础研究 ,有大量科技园 ,受委托市场化的研究 ， 更重视知识产权保护 、 新型合作 模式、 创业投资行业、新的公司行为 ,如派生企业。 虽然很少有成功的一些这样的项目 ,如生物技术的发展 ,在任何情况下 ， 因技术涉及生命周期的可能
41、不能期待 在 一段时间内发生 ,但不可否认制度适应 程度 的 发生。 可能是这样的 ,任何成功的 改革在 台湾 会导致有 大量的 自我训练 和工作经验丰富的科学家和工程师回到台湾 ， 许多 有 强烈的政治和社会倾向的人口 会 向我们 走来 。在这种情况下 ， 它强调非经济的重要性基础 ， 很清楚地 可以 看到制度变迁在朝鲜的例子。适应台湾的经济制度是相通的配套和支持它的社会和文化机构。韩国的经济制度适应在它试图鼓励技术创业也因缺乏相应的社会制度的变革。 适应台湾的经 济制度是相通的配套和支持它的社会和文化机构。韩国的经济制度适应则体现在， 因缺乏相应的社会制度的变革 而去试图 鼓励技术创业 。
42、 韩国的 技术型创业公司几乎 有 所有 他们 想要的 ，有关 经济制度支持它的雄心壮志 。 这 名经验丰富的企业家 领导 在背后 受到政府 有力的支持 ,它拥有一种关键技术标准和拥有国际业务处理能力、 拥有雄厚的 资本和 广阔的 市场。然而它失败了 ，主要原因在于受到 那 些 遗产继续文化约束势头 的影响 。这些限制包括持续以统治手中的 高 层次的 权利为主， 强烈的影响趋于进行爱国主义、民族主义 ，甚至有 一部分 是 该公司的主人。 越来越多的资本主义文献 和多样性的 资本主义文献 ，都强调 分析广泛的公司开发和实现策略环境 的重要性 。正如我们在这个例子中所看到的 ， 台湾生物技术 和掠夺
43、性行为的有限成就，可能会对 重要的财阀遗产结构和亚洲公司行为的创新 有所限制 （卡尼尔 &高达基洛菲特， 2003） 。然而 ， 本文认为发生了重大的经济和政策的压力鼓励他们的继续进化。本文的重点 较少关注特定 策略 的用途 ,以及个体企业内部 的 管理 、 组织 以及 创新 ， 以及更多的动态、系统和环境的影响。它所关心的系统演化 ， 而不是公司业绩。 要 认识民族文化问题 ,在政府、 公司在其他亚洲国家 的重要性， 如日本和中国大陆一样 ， 鼓励技术企业家精神和其他 创新支持 自由市场经济的特点。转移到专门制定政策的“盎格鲁 -撒克逊”、“股票市场 ”或“自由市场”模式需要占了持久的社会和
44、文化上的差异 ， 会影响到一些战略性的行为。风险态度、层次和群体和社会关系的跨文化 以及 不同 之处， 将对创新 有影响 。同样的 ， 其含义如同 国际 工厂 、客户、 投资 企业创新在其他国家的文化。文化特异性不容忽视 ,甚至在全球化的高科技环境。无视国际差异忽略什么萨拉 (2005)称之为 “ 微妙和深刻的 ” 制度和文化的影响本国的设置。创新过程在其职权范围内进行颇具影响力的文化覆盖国际化的影响和各种资本主义。 多样化的 资本主义和国际化的制度框架形状如何承认文献策略 ， 但只有 对前 者关于 对影响之深度 ，以及 如 何受文化影响的分析。为研究亚洲创新将增加随着经验不足的重要性 ， 需
45、要解决的问题。当这研究议程被追 ， 和更大的同余品种间资本主义和创新系统 (或者 ,更广泛、政治经济、商业和创新研究 )分析新架构的追求 ， 集可能探索设备 ， 如“组织领域”概念 ， 从组织研究 (迪麦高 &伯维尔 1983 年 6 月初版 )。它将是很有价值的 ， 例如 ， 探讨台湾生物技术协作的方式案例 ,作为一种组织领域 (菲利普斯 ,劳伦斯 &耐寒 ， 2000)。它可能提供了一种生产中介分析镜头之间的相互作用拆箱的国家创新系统和商业实践。它可以为 不同的文化对策略 的 影响提供 细致入微的 分析 机会 ，而 不是强调 它的重要 意义 (见辛格 2007)。 最显著的特征之一 ， 当
46、然 ， 亚洲越来越多样化 ， 而他们的许多重大问题仍是 创新体系在亚洲的发展。一个有价值的未来的研究议程将是考虑的具体进行更详细的过渡 ， 挑战不同发展程度的国家在进化的、系统的框架。有大量的研究仍在进行城市创新体系 在 发展中国家 ， 如马来西亚和泰国快速的意义与贡献。 当然 ，还有 主要的问题 是 为什么台湾和韩国如此广泛存在分歧能力去适应他们的社会制度时 ， 试图跟随自由市场模型 。 这是可能的推测 ： 现有行业结构、就是 ， 当然 ， 由于几十年的政治、经济、社会、文化和宗教的影 响 ,已经成为了一种重要的因素。台湾传统的小 作坊 经济 受到 中国商业行为基于家庭的强烈影响 ， 是一种
47、更灵活性和结构而不要大的企业集团。更大更深入的纵向研究在这个问题是很有价值的。 在此背景下 ， 还有一个深刻的问题 ，那就是 自由市场模型在亚洲是否确实是最好的鼓励 快速 创新 的模式 。而且如果有一个有趣的相关问题 ： 亚洲的创新模式可能出现。使用“社会关系性的”看 国家创新系统 ,于是不少有益的诸如是在地方中 的 高抗程度的合作。许多亚洲经济体拥有巨大的外汇储备的资金投入 ，更大的包容 ， 并且有一个长期的态度和投资。 持续发展沟通 深厚的文化遗产的相互信任等事项 ，通过组织在 市场经济中的组织协调 ， 这是重要的创新和创业。当然 ，与西方 相比 ， 亚洲有重大缺陷 ， 尤其是研究和教育基础设施和密切的纽带制造业和服务业的创新 ， 但国际创新系统就像生物系统 ， 需要多样性和适应生存。主要的“我们模式”的创新面临其自身的局限性 ， 中心几乎全是财富的创造。它可能是更 加朝着 资本主义形式的 福利方向发展， 这是最有效地运用的技能和创新能力 ，来解决在社会中日益紧迫的收入差距问题、 卫生 问题 、能源问题 和环境 问题 。
