Competition Models: Innovation Systems in Asia
Speakers
Abstract
| Richard Whitley |
| 'Changing Competition Models: The effects of internationalisation, technological change and academic expansion on dominant economic logics' |
| In this paper, I outline a framework for analysing how some of the key changes in the business environment that have become widespread since the collapse of the Bretton Woods system have affected, and are continuing to influence, the central conditions encouraging companies to pursue particular kinds of economic logics, and altered their prevalence and nature in different contexts as a result. First, I present a taxonomy of seven ideal types of competition models that resemble many of the dominant logics identified in comparative studies of 20th century capitalisms, such as Fordism, Diversified Quality Production (DQP) and radical, discontinuous innovation, and then suggest how different kinds of conditions seem likely to encourage firms to follow these strategies. Next, I summarise the major changes that have taken place in, and between, many market economies since the 1960s and have often been cited as important factors influencing institutional and business system restructuring, and then suggest how they can be expected to alter these conditions and so affect dominant competition models. |
| Steven Casper |
| 'Institutional frameworks and public policy towards biotechnology: Can Asia learn from Europe?' |
| Governments around the world are targeting biotechnology as a key growth industry of the future. During the mid-1990s many Continental European governments introduced policies to hasten the formation of biotechnology industries, but with only modest success. In recent years many Asian countries have introduced aggressive policies towards biotechnology. Can Asian governments learn from the European experience? Sector specific policies must be placed in the context of pre-existing national institutional frameworks within an economy. Institutional frameworks within liberal market economies, such as found in the US or UK, encourage the formation of entrepreneurial technology firms characteristic of the biotechnology industry. Within more organized or coordinated economies, on the other hand, institutions are not compatible with the funding or organization of entrepreneurial technology firms. The German economy is orientated around the so-called organized model, and has not been able to develop a sustainable biotechnology industry, despite intensive funding from its government. Several Asian economies, including Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, have introduced policies towards biotechnology that share striking parallels with policies developed previously in Germany. The success of public policy towards biotechnology will be strongly determined by the broader orientation of institutional frameworks in each economy. While the Taiwanese economy may be evolving towards an institutional framework orientation that may support biotechnology, Japan and South Korea each share strong national institutional elements with the “organized” model, and as such may come to share similar problems in creating a sustainable industry. |
| Contact information: |
| Johannes Meuer |
|
|
