From technological catch-up to innovation-based economic growth: South Korea and Taiwan compared

Abstract

This paper sets out to analyse the divergent models pursued by South Korea and Taiwan in regard to technological catching-up and their ongoing transition towards innovation-based economies. It is found that South Korea's former high-debt and chaebol-dominated model inclined it to pursue a Schumpeterian scale-based technological development, while Taiwan's former pro-stability, small- and medium-sized-enterprise (SME)-based model tended to favour its emphasis on a neo-Marshallian network-based technological development. It will be argued that the state's approach to economic liberalisation and firms' demand for capital for technological upgrading are the major factors that have underpinned the adjustment efforts of these two countries.

How Do High, Medium, and Low Tech Firms Innovate? A System of Innovation (Si) Approach

“…One limitation of the analysis is that within groups of course differences exist. For instance, while Taiwan and South Korea are put in the same group, some differences exist between both economies, as found in Wang's (2007) work.…”

Lessons from the global financial crisis for the semiconductor industry

“…The semiconductor industry in Taiwan is mainly composed of small and medium enterprises (Chen, 2010). While South Korea tends to pursue scale-based technological development, Taiwan emphasizes network-based technological development (Wang, 2007;Tseng, 2009). On the other hand, Japanese firms benefit by the vertical and horizontal or upstream and downstream integration of semiconductor divisions and the linkage to banks belonging to a common business group (called keiretsu) (Windrum and Tomlinson, 1999;Brown and Linden, 2009, p. 16).…”

‘System Destroys Trust?’—Regulatory Institutions and Public Perceptions of Food Risks in Taiwan

“…Such results reinforce the concerns with the governance structural problems of newly emerging countries which was mentioned at the beginning of this research. At the same time this survey's results also reveal some distinctive aspects: the geographical and globalized levels are both worthy of a more detailed discussion; geographically, as a result of the fact that even until now there is still a lack of academic writing about the risk governance and society of many East Asian countries, it is therefore impossible to ascertain whether or not the phenomenon seen in Taiwan are prevalent in the area as a whole; at least on a globalized level, it is possible to clearly reflect on the conflict facing newly industrialized countries as they cope with the assault of globalization; on the one hand their governments must strive to catch up, lagging behind but trying to learn high tech industrialization and economic development (Wang 2007) while intentionally neglecting issues of social risk (Chou ibid. ), while on the other hand, when their society experiences the reality of globalized risk, being limited by the limitations of their technological governance model which in turn leads to strong criticism and sense of dissatisfaction.…”