Creeping Tiger, Soaring Dragon: India, China and Competition in Information Technologies

Chaudhuri, Anindya

doi:10.1111/j.1749-124x.2012.12000.x

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We excluded research papers that not reported case studies (Bonvillian, 2014; Carayannis, 2014; Carayannis and Campbell, 2011; Chea, 2008; Fukuda and Watanabe, 2008; Gobbe, 2014; Hawk et al , 2012; Huhtamäki et al , 2011; Nambisan, 2013; Rubens et al , 2011; Samila and Sorenson, 2010; Smulders, 2013; Traitler et al , 2011; Watters, 2013; Yilmaz, 2011; Zahra and Nambisan, 2011; Chandran and Sundram, 2014; Faraj et al , 2012; Chidambaram, 2014; Heller, 2013) or qualitative case studies (Chaudhuri, 2012; Volkova and Jakobsone, 2013).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovation ecosystems: a meta-synthesis

Ferasso

Takahashi

Gimenez

2018

IJIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This metasynthesis aims to build a theory on the concept of innovation ecosystem from the state of the art of qualitative case studies available in indexed scientific production using interpretive synthesis (Hoon, 2013). Design/methodology/approach This research was conducted by the postulates of the metasynthesis method (Hoon, 2013) to generate theory from qualitative case studies. The authors retrieved 77 research papers from databases, of which 6 were used for synthesis purposes. Each selected research paper reported one or more cases, which were analyzed separately. At the final stage, a data synthesis was structured and the cases were crossed, which allowed the development of a schematic representation and a theoretical construction of the innovation ecosystem concept. The approach used in this research is a metatheoretical assumption from economics and management and ecology to explore the theoretical gap in the concept of innovation ecosystems. Findings There is not yet a conceptual consensus on the term, which sometimes leads researchers to address partial or complementary concepts. The analysis identified constitutive elements of an innovation ecosystem that lead to structuring a framework of organic and dynamic interrelationships that a given organization has with various external organizations, allowing the creation of innovative products in a faster way. Research limitations/implications This paper helps scholars and researchers consider a new metatheoretical perspective to analyze dynamics, constitutive elements and multilevels of an innovation ecosystem. Practical implications For practitioners, this paper sheds lights on the importance of recognizing a systemic consideration of innovation ecosystems that falls in global relationships, industry dynamics and identification of main global–local actors/enablers to produce innovations internally at a given organization. Originality/value The novelty of this paper lies in a more delineated definition and a schematic representation of an innovation ecosystem based on a global–local perspective of product creation and manufacturing and interactions that a given company has, regardless of the geographical location of its dispersed strategic partners.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovation ecosystems: a meta-synthesis

Ferasso

Takahashi

Gimenez

2018

IJIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…He cites a lack of government commitment to R&D, inadequate links between different types of organizations, and 'official neglect' of the country's universities (Krishna 2013). Focusing on information and telecommunications technologies in particular, Anindya Chaudhuri sees India as lagging far behind the United States and increasingly behind China as well (Chaudhuri 2012). He suggests that the Indian government makes too little effort to ensure that the R&D activities conducted by foreign firms in India generate positive spillovers for the country more generally.…”

Section: The Unimpressedmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In other ways, however, they do seem to be developing at very different rates. Relying on a range of different indicators, several scholars have emphasized that China has progressed farther and faster than India, albeit to different degrees (Dahlman 2010;Chaudhuri 2012;Altenburg et al 2008).…”

Section: New Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Powerhouses or pretenders? Debating China's and India's emergence as technological powers

Kennedy

2015

The Pacific Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Are China and India emerging as innovative technological powerhouses in the twenty-first century? This essay reviews the interdisciplinary debate that has been inspired by this question in recent years. It begins by considering recent studies that are relatively impressed with China's and India's recent accomplishments and potential in this regard. Next, it reviews works that are less impressed with their track records and prospects. It then considers a series of more equivocal studies that remain more or less undecided about China's and India's technological trajectories. The final section evaluates the debate as a whole and proposes new directions for scholarship in this field.Technological creativity represents a key source of national power, a point long recognized by international relations scholars. New technologies not only spur economic growth and national prosperity, but can also provide states with leverage in international trade. New technologies from railroads to nuclear energy have also generated new sources of military power, at least for states that can surmount the financial and organizational hurdles to military innovation (Horowitz 2010). Moreover, nations vary widely in their innovative capacities. Long-cycle theorists, who have probed the

show abstract

“…The key references are articles in (international) economics and business journals (Barba Navaretti & Venables, 2004;Melitz, 2003;Wagner, 2007). The literature specifically focused on developing countries is predominantly centred on China and India (Chaudhuri, 2012;Franco, Ray, & Ray, 2011;P. P. Li, 2007;Zhang & Zhang, 2003).…”

Section: International Trade and Foreign Direct Investment (Fdi)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Combining Innovation Systems and Global Value Chains for Development: Towards a Research Agenda

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper contributes to ongoing work which seeks to bring together the national innovation systems and global value chain literature for the study of economic development. We depart from the view that such a new combination will be helpful both in enhancing the understanding of socioeconomic processes in developing countries and in building a more useful knowledge base for action. To this aim, we combine bibliometric analysis with a qualitative review of work from both bodies of literature. The purpose is to inform a research agenda suited for policy-relevant studies of economic development in the global economy.

show abstract

Creeping Tiger, Soaring Dragon: India, China and Competition in Information Technologies

Cited by 11 publications

References 22 publications

Innovation ecosystems: a meta-synthesis

Innovation ecosystems: a meta-synthesis

Powerhouses or pretenders? Debating China's and India's emergence as technological powers

Combining Innovation Systems and Global Value Chains for Development: Towards a Research Agenda

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About