Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
Lee and Kim analyze the NIS of East Asia and Latin America, and to show the sources of the divergent economic performance in these groups of countries. This divergence between East Asia and Latin America reflects that these two regions selected different policy priority in knowledge development; the priority was given to technology in East Asia whereas it was given to science in Latin America. The main characteristic of R&D expenditure in Latin America is that universities and public labs are taking up most of the R&D but they are decoupled from the demands from the private sector. The role of Latin America’s private sectors remains weak, and the difference in corporate R&D among the East Asian countries and Latin American countries are substantial. East Asia and Latin America initially imported foreign technologies, but only East Asia has been able to build up its indigenous technological capabilities. One of the reasons for this difference is that in East Asia, the domestic corporate sectors were the main agents of technology imports, whereas the trans-national corporations were the main agents for production in Latin America. R&D investment by TNCs in Latin America was mainly carried out in their home countries, and the TNCs sought to protect their technologies by confining it within the boundary of the TNCs [Hanson (Economic Development, Education and Transnational Corporations, Routledge, p. 54, 2008)]. Emerging new technologies in short cycle fields present better growth prospects, and the possibility of higher profitability associated with less collision with the technologies of advanced countries and the presence of first-mover advantages. This divergence in technological specialization can be considered as one explanation how the Asian countries went beyond the middle income trap situation in the mid-1980s, whereas Latin American countries failed to overcome the trap. The view of Lee and Kim based on short or long cycle times also differs from the traditional recommendation to focus on trade-based specialization, which is more suitable for low-income countries, because it argues that middle-income countries need to specialize in technological sectors that rely less on existing technologies, and look at the greater opportunities associated with new technologies. It is also complementary to the growth identification and facilitation framework of Justin Lin (New Structural Economics: A framework for Rethinking Development and Policy‚ Washington, DC, The World Bank 2012).
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Albuquerque, E. (2001). Scientific infrastructure and catching up process. Revista Brasileira de Economia,55(4), 545–566. CrossRef
Albuquerque, E. (2003). Immature systems of innovation: Introductory notes about a comparison between South Africa, India, Mexico and Brazil based on Science and Technology Statistics. Textos para DiscussÃ£o Cedeplar-UFMG td221. Cedeplar: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
Alcorta, L., & Peres, W. (1998). Innovation systems and technological specialization in Latin America and the Caribbean. Research Policy, 26, 857–881.
Arocena, R., & Sutz, J. (2001). Changing knowledge production and Latin American Universities. Research Policy,30(8), 1221–1234. CrossRef
Arnold, W. (1988). Science and Technology development in Taiwan and South Korea. Asian Survey,8(4), 437–450. CrossRef
Barro, R. J.,& Lee, J. (2000). International data on educational attainment: Updates and implications. CID Working Paper, 42.
Bell, R. M., & Pavitt, K. (1993). Technological accumulation and industrial growth: Contrasts between developed and developing countries. Industrial and Corporate Change,2(2), 157–210. CrossRef
Bernardes, A., & Albuquerque, E. (2003). Cross-over, thresholds, and interactions between Science and Technology: Lessons for less-developed countries. Research Policy,32, 865–885. CrossRef
Cimoli, M. (Eds.) (2000). Developing innovation systems: Mexico in a global context. New York: Continuum.
Dahlman, C. J., & Frischtak, C. R. (1993). National systems supporting technical advance in industry: The Brazilian experience. In R. R. Nelson (Eds.), National innovation systems. A comparative analysis (pp. 414–450). New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hanson, M. (2008). Economic development, education and transnational corporations. UK: Routledge.
Herrera, S., & Pang, G. (2005). Efficiency of public spending in developing countries: An efficiency frontier approach. Policy Research Working Paper Series 3645, The World Bank.
Hidalgo, C.A., Klinge, B., Barabási, A.L.‚ & Hausmann, R. (2007). The Product Space Conditions the Development of Nations. Science317(5837), 482–487.
Hausmann, R., Pritchett L., & D. Rodrik 2005. Growth accelerations. Journal of Economic Growth,10(4), 303–329.
Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M. & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics108(3), 577–598.
Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. 2002. Patents, Citations, and Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy. US: MIT Press.
Jones, B. F., & Benjamin A. Olken 2005. The Anatomy of Start-Stop Growth. NBER Working Papers,11528.
Justin Lin, Y. (2012). New Structural Economics: A framework for Rethinking Development and Policy. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Katz, J. (2001). Structural reforms and technological behavior: The sources and nature of technological change in Latin America in the 1990s. Research Policy,30, 1–19. CrossRef
Kim, Y. K., & Lee‚ K. (2015). Different impacts of scientific and technological knowledge on economic growth: Contrasting science and technology policy in East Asia and Latin America, Asian Economic Policy Review, 10(1), 43–66.
Lee, K. (2013). Schumpeterian analysis of economic catch-up: Knowledge, path-creation, and the middle-income trap. Cambridge Univ. Press.
Lee, K., & Kim, B.-Y. (2009). Both institutions and policies matter but differently for different income groups of countries: Determinant of long run economic growth revisited. World Development,37(3), 533–549. CrossRef
Lee, K. (2005). Making a technological catch-up: Barriers and opportunities. Asia Journal of Technology Innovation,13(2), 97–131. CrossRef
Lee, K., & Yoon, M. (2010). International, intra-national, and inter-firm knowledge diffusion and technological catch-up: The US, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan in the memory chip industry. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management,22(5)‚ 553–570.
Lopez-Martinez, E., & Piccaluga, A. (2000). Knowledge flows in national systems of innovation. Edward Publisher.
Lundvall, B. A. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Printer Publishers.
Matesco, V. (1994). Technology strengths of Brazilian businesses. IPEA, Brazil: Discussion Paper.
OECD. (1996). Reviews of national Science and Technology Policy: Republic of Korea. Paris: OECD.
Pack, H. (2001). Technological change and growth in East Asia: Macro and micro perspectives. In J. Stiglitz & S. Yusuf (Eds.), The Asian miracle revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Perez, C., & Soete, L. (1988). Catching up in technology: Entry barriers and window of opportunity. In G. Dosi et al. (Eds.), Technical change and economic theory. London: Pinter Publishers.
Rodrik, D. (1996). Understanding economic policy reforms. The Journal of Economic Literature,34(1), 9–41.
Rodrik, D. (2006). Goodbye Washington Consensus Hello Washington Confusion? A review of the World Bank’s. Economic Growth in the 1990s: Learning from a decade of reform (2005). Journal of Economic Literature, 44 (Dec.), 973–987.
Velho, L. (2004). Science and Technology in Latin America and the Caribbean: An overview. UNU-INTECH Discussion Paper 2004-4. UN University-INTECH, 1–73.
- Comparing the National Innovation Systems in East Asia and Latin America: Fast Versus Slow
Yee Kyoung Kim
- Springer Singapore
- Chapter 3
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© BBL, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Neuer Inhalt/© hww, Wissenstransfer im Outsourcing/© WrightStudio | stock.adobe.com