Innovation, Institutions and Entrepreneurs: The Case of ‘Cool Japan’

Abstract

The Japanese innovation system is said to possess distinct weaknesses. One indicator is that in most new key industries, Japan is underrepresented on the world market. Given Japan's success until the beginning of the 1990s, this development was quite unexpected and has induced comprehensive reforms of the Japanese innovation system. Apparently, those institutions that were responsible for the economic success of the 1980s now hinder Japan's ability to adapt to and create new industries. This paper argues that while some reforms of the Japanese innovation system may be necessary, a paradigm change is not. Mainly one argument is provided for a more optimistic stance towards the sustainability of Japan's competitiveness: the plasticity of innovation systems. With reference to one new and 'cool' industry, the Japanese game software sector, the relevance of the concept of plasticity is illustrated.

Digital content promotion in Japan and South Korea: Government strategies for an emerging economic sector

“…Japan and South Korea have not been immune to the path dependency problem outlined above. Japan's innovation system, in particular, has been criticized for weaknesses in its ability to support start‐ups, establish new sectors, and create effective linkages between universities and industry (Storz, ). However, as Cornelia Storz discovered in her research into the Japanese game software sector, the Japanese innovation system has “plasticity” and works better for some sectors than for others.…”

“…However, as Cornelia Storz discovered in her research into the Japanese game software sector, the Japanese innovation system has “plasticity” and works better for some sectors than for others. In the game software industry, Storz () argues “entrepreneurs created their own innovation system for game software by converting and displacing institutions and by combining them to form a new institutional setting” (p. 418). This plasticity might also include a governmental flexibility that sees it able to adjust policies to new circumstances or sectors like digital content.…”

Management with Chinese Characteristics: at the intersection of culture and institutions

“…Therefore, the paper argues that a more specific denomination of cultural factors should be necessary to avoid biased and unspecified results in both theoretical and empirical approaches. authors also argue that Japan's innovative capabilities lack behindnot only do they appear to be unable to establish new industries (Storz, 2008a), they are also underrepresented in the new key industries worldwide (Storz, 2008b), struggle to revitalize innovation leadership and are stuck in closed innovation paradigms (Ikeda et al, 2016), are mostly taking a slower, incremental innovation approach, as opposed to radical innovation, which is more prevalent in Europe (Pettigrew et al, 2000), and are even prone to block innovative initiatives (Vaszkun, 2013). Confucianism is a major determinant of culture and society in many emerging economies in Eastern Asia (e.g., China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan).…”