Innovation capacity and economic development: China and India

Abstract

Both China and India, the emerging giants in Asia, have achieved significant economic development in recent years. China has enjoyed a high annual GDP growth rate of 10 per cent and India has achieved an annual GDP growth rate of 6 per cent since 1981. Decomposing China and India's GDP growth from 1981 to 2004 into the three factors' contribution reveals that technology has contributed significantly to both countries' GDP growth, especially in the 1990s. R&D outputs (high-tech exports, service exports, and certified patents from USPTO) and inputs (R&D expenditure and human resources) further indicate that both countries have been very committed to R&D and their output is quite efficient.Both governments have played an essential role in transforming their national innovation systems so that they can be more adaptable to economic development. The main focus of their reforms has been to link the science sector with the business sector and to provide incentives for innovation activities. Balancing import of technology and indigenous R&D effort is another major theme. Innovation capability development has become more and more critical to the success of biofirms in India and China. Institutional factors have great influence on choice of innovation at the firm level, i.e., the decision at firm level in terms of indigenous R&D or import of technology. Nevertheless, limited financial resources and insufficiently qualified human resources remain two major challenges for domestic companies in both countries.

Does innovation promote economic growth? Evidence from European countries

“…Previous studies on this issue, in general, can be categorized in four different forms (Cetin 2013;Pradhan et al 2016), namely supply-leading hypothesis (SLH), demand-following hypothesis (DFH), feedback hypothesis (FBH), and neutrality hypothesis (NLH). The SLH shows unidirectional causality from innovation activities to economic growth (see, for instance, Pradhan et al (2016), Cetin (2013) Guloglu and Tekin (2012), Fan (2011), Yang (2006). The DFH reflects unidirectional causality from economic growth to innovation activities (see, for instance, Pradhan et al (2016), Sadraoui et al (2014), Cetin (2013), Sinha (2008), Howells (2005)).…”

“…As cited above, innovation and economic growth cause each other in the development process (Agenor and Neanidis 2015;Aghion et al 2010;Fan 2011). There are two ways we can address the innovation-growth issue: first, the regional disparities of innovation activities and economic growth in the European countries, and second, the causal link between innovation and economic growth in these countries.…”

How the Level of Economic Growth and the Constituent Elements of Innovation Attract International Talent?

“…This would result in a significant amount of newly created knowledge and the availability of skilled staff necessary for excellence scientific research. Such research would generate the knowledge needed to build new technologies, expand collaboration in research, and advance technological development (World Economic Forum, 2014;Sara et al, 2012;Fan, 2011;Love & Roper, 1999). Protecting innovations through patents is essential so that companies can obtain benefits that allow continued investment in innovation activities (Schumpeter, 1934;Eurostat and OECD, 2005).…”

Strategic Macro-Environmental Factor Analysis for Entry into the Fish Vaccines Market in India

“…To develop talent, 300 educational and research centers offer biotechnology degree programs (Chakraborty & Agoramoorthy, 2010) and more than a dozen fisheries colleges offer courses in Fisheries Science and Aquaculture in each state (Ayyappan & Gopalakrishnan, 2006 Metcalfe defined a National Innovation System (NIS) as the framework of institutions and government policies that promote the innovation process by institutional collaboration (Bagchi-Sen & Smith, 2008) and Raman (2010) described a technology management strategy for India as one that benefits the mass rather than a selected few. The Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST) is the apex body in India that develops the NIS for India under which the Indian Science and Technology Policy of 2003 (Fan, 2011) and the NBDS of 2008 were created to enhance institutional infrastructure and collaborations across sectors (Natesh & Bhan, 2009 [2007][2008][2009][2010][2011]. The benefits lie in the learning process for public and private sectors through partnerships (Mohan, 2011); this is especially true for public laboratories that are to earn at least 30-50% of their R&D expenses either by retaining equity holdings in private enterprises or by out-licensing their technologies (Fan, 2011).…”

“…The Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST) is the apex body in India that develops the NIS for India under which the Indian Science and Technology Policy of 2003 (Fan, 2011) and the NBDS of 2008 were created to enhance institutional infrastructure and collaborations across sectors (Natesh & Bhan, 2009 [2007][2008][2009][2010][2011]. The benefits lie in the learning process for public and private sectors through partnerships (Mohan, 2011); this is especially true for public laboratories that are to earn at least 30-50% of their R&D expenses either by retaining equity holdings in private enterprises or by out-licensing their technologies (Fan, 2011). To address the challenge of transferring and managing intellectual property (IP), the R&D Bill of 2007 was introduced (Natesh & Bhan, 2009).…”