Measuring systemic problems in National Innovation Systems. An application to Thailand

Firms’ innovation benefiting from networking and institutional support: A global analysis of national and firm effects

“…Institutionalized beliefs about inter-firm networking are reproduced when policy makers attempt to induce inter-firm collaboration by sponsoring and otherwise supporting business incubators, science parks, industry clusters and other forms of administrative structures to facilitate networking among firms (Chaminade et al, 2012;Larédo, 1998;Nishimura and Okamuro, 2011). Formal laws and rules for contracting, laws for protecting intellectual property rights (Autio and Ács, 2010), for reducing corruption (Anokhin and Schulze, 2009), and consistency and strength in law enforcement (Aidis et al, 2008), are also manifestations of dominant institutionalized beliefs about the regulation of transactions among firms.…”

Layers of co-existing innovation systems

“…Malerba, 2004). To investigate individual innovation systems, many researchers have conducted in-depth case studies, analysing for example the (national) innovation system of the United States (US) (Mowery, 1992) and Thailand (Chaminade et al, 2012), the (regional) innovation systems of the Emilia-Romagna in Italy (Cooke et al, 1997) and Silicon Valley in the US (Saxenian, 1991), or the (sectoral) innovation systems of the biotechnology (Pisano, 1991) and the computer game (Storz, 2008) industries. The main advantage of in-depth case studies lies in their focus on the idiosyncrasies of individual innovation systems, including their historical origins-particularly actors and institutions.…”

“…Second, we include two indicators for a firm's participation in the public sciences system: (i) the use of public innovation funds (Chaminade et al, 2012) and (ii) cooperation with public research organizations such as universities or other public science institutions (Castellacci, 2008;Tether and Tajar, 2008).…”

“…Our two indicators measure (i) the importance of intellectual property (IP) protection and patenting (˛= 76%) (Chaminade et al, 2012) and (ii) the relevance of publicly available information (˛= 70%) for a firm's innovative activities (Cassiman and Veugelers, 2006).…”

“…Innovation systems in larger and more complex economies, such as China, India or the US, will contain a larger variety of context-specific innovation systems than smaller countries with less complex economies such as Estonia, New Zealand or Singapore. In turn, this interpretation implies that systemic problems in national innovation systems (Chaminade et al, 2012) will predominantly arise when policy-makers fail to maintain the generic innovation systems at the central layer.…”