Cooperation for competitiveness of emerging countries: learning from a case of nanotechnology

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore a cooperation‐driven stage in the traditional framework of country competitiveness development and also suggest an approach to address pragmatic issues related to cooperation in the context, particularly, competitiveness evaluation and choice of partner country.Design/methodology/approachThe objectives of the research were achieved by a research design that leveraged quantitative tools with strength of case study research. Quantitative data for benchmarking were obtained from a carefully selected Country Competitiveness Report. For identifying criteria of competitiveness for success of a country (aka critical success factors CSF), content analysis of strategic reports from competitive countries was employed.FindingsCooperative strategies and flagship firms emerged to be CSFs that can drive investment needed for innovation and technology development, the later stages in country competitiveness development framework. Evaluation of competitiveness can be quite difficult and resource‐intensive process, but can be improved with innovative mix of different approaches and tools. With quite consistent and effective results in one more international context and a new industry, the assets‐processes‐performance (APP) framework of competitiveness can provide a simple, yet valuable approach with flexibility to adapt across levels and contexts, a vital need.Practical implicationsCompetitiveness leaders should review cooperation processes and performance. They should evolve strategies to leverage cooperation on relevant dimensions.Originality/valueA key contribution of this paper is proposing a vital cooperation‐driven stage for country competitiveness and operationlizing it using three major frameworks of competitiveness in a practical and useful context of nanotechnology, when many countries are evolving their strategies for such industries. An approach is tested to simplify evaluation of competitiveness in a difficult context of emerging industries. It can help leadership take more informed critical decisions about competitiveness and assess their impact for enhancing desired impacts of the decisions. For the purpose, comparing three alternatives, the author extends the APP framework with strategy concept of CSF to enhance its flexibility, thus contributing to needs of effectiveness and simplicity of emerging country context.

Effects of Competitive Advantage on Companies Superiority in the Global Market

“…differentiation and cost leadership strategies, sustainable CA also can be developed (Porter, 1985). As mentioned before, Momaya (2011) proposed that the firms should to drive investment in innovation and technology development. However, it is noticed that the competitive strategy can be considered to attain the goals of company, but it should be approximately difficult.…”

Which One to Choose Multi Focus or Trade-Off Among Competitive Priorities? Evidence from Finnish SMEs

“…The authors provide a clear distinction between these two terms and say that productivity is the firm's internal capacity while competitiveness represents the position of a firm in respect to its competitors. [63], also competitiveness cannot be measured through single measure [62]. Therefore, instead of using commonly used financial and nonfinancial measures of competitiveness in the survey we asked respondent to express their perception on firm competitiveness in general.…”

Competitiveness of Togolese Banking Sector

“…Outputs can be realized through competitive potentials by the competitiveness process [23], similar to the Asset-Process-Performance (APP) framework [24].…”