Taiwanese IT firms’ offshore R&D in China and the connection with the global innovation network

Although it is evident that technology is becoming increasingly globalized, resulting in the expansion of R&D internationalization by firms, despite this discernible trend, the substantial body of literature in this area is based mainly on the experience of the developed country. This paper aims to contribute to the understanding of this issue by examining the R&D internationalization of a newly-industrializing country, Taiwan being a prime example, and its connection with the global production network. We begin with an examination of the literature on R&D internationalization and globalization, based upon which we propose a conceptual framework adapted from Dunning’s eclectic paradigm. In doing so, we set out to develop arguments based not only on the reasons why cross-strait R&D internationalization may be undertaken by Taiwanese information technology (IT) firms, but also the likely patterns of their R&D portfolios across the strait. Drawing on an original questionnaire survey and firm-level interviews, the paper presents and discusses empirical data on the cross-strait R&D deployment of Taiwanese IT firms. It then goes a stage further, using the ‘smiling curve’, to put forward a ‘holistic’ view of the cross-border innovation network in the IT hardware industry, in order to determine what cross-strait R&D internationalization means to the global production network.     

Secrets to shield or share? new dilemmas for military R&D policy in the digital age

The US Department of Defense (DOD) normally pursues a closed approach to technological development. It captures results from its own sponsored research and development (R&D), and the results are kept shielded by restrictions on related publications and exports. This R&D strategy is no longer viable. Now most military technology has commercial origins, the US no longer dominates all relevant technological fields, and sophisticated dual-use technology is accessible to adversaries in open global markets. DOD can address this dilemma by drawing on external R&D that tests a technology’s general capabilities against a variety of potential uses and by placing more of its internal emphasis on technology integration. Historically, this approach to military R&D also yields more commercial spin-offs.     

Freerider behaviour and the public finance of R&D activities in enterprises: the case of the Spanish low interest credits for R&D

This paper analyses the freeriding behaviour in the case of public finance for R&D activities in enterprises. It will start with a brief discussion about the concept of freeriding and its importance to justify public support measures and offers a review of the methods, indicators and results reflected in the evaluation studies.In the second part of the paper, the impact of the Spanish low interest credits for R&D projects for individual firms will be analysed. A profile of the “freerider firms” will be offered, defined as those supported firms whose innovative efforts do not depend on public aid and probably would or could have carried out the same level of innovative activities without public support. Moreover, the paper presents some evidence that firms with a freerider behaviour show a lower level of goal achievement related to their technical and commercial objectives and consider the learning effects as less important than the other firms. This could suggest, indirectly, that freeriders generate fewer externalities available for the production system as a whole—than the non-freerider firms.     

Three frames for innovation policy: R&D,systems of innovation and transformative change

Science, technology and innovation (STI) policy is shaped by persistent framings that arise from historical context. Two established frames are identified as co-existing and dominant in contemporary innovation policy discussions. The first frame is identified as beginning with a Post-World War II institutionalisation of government support for science and R&D with the presumption that this would contribute to growth and address market failure in private provision of new knowledge. The second frame emerged in the 1980s globalising world and its emphasis on competitiveness which is shaped by the national systems of innovation for knowledge creation and commercialisation. STI policy focuses on building links, clusters and networks, and on stimulating learning between elements in the systems, and enabling entrepreneurship. A third frame linked to contemporary social and environmental challenges such as the Sustainable Development Goals and calling for transformative change is identified and distinguished from the two earlier frames. Transformation refers to socio-technical system change as conceptualised in the sustainability transitions literature. The nature of this third framing is examined with the aim of identifying its key features and its potential for provoking a re-examination of the earlier two frames. One key feature is its focus on experimentation, and the argument that the Global South does not need to play catch-up to follow the transformation model of the Global North. It is argued that all three frames are relevant for policymaking, but exploring options for transformative innovation policy should be a priority.     

Post-Soviet science: Difficulties in the transformation of the R&D systems in Russia and Ukraine

In the late 1980s, the Soviet Union was among the foremost leaders of world science, thanks in large part to its heavy involvement in military programmes. The USSR developed a large research infrastructure but it lacked effective mechanisms for the commercialization of research results. The main aim of the transformation of R&D systems in the post-Soviet states in the 1990s and early 2000s was the re-orientation of scientific activities away from military and towards civilian goals. Analysis of statistical data at the macro-level suggests that this attempt was not particularly successful. Indeed, most newly independent states could not even preserve a ‘critical mass’ of scientific activities in order to remain among the list of significant producers of research results. In the post-Soviet countries (and in this paper we focus on Russia and Ukraine as the largest states of the region), inputs from the R&D system have failed to generate wealth-creating outputs because of a systemic inability to use the resources for generating commercially viable results effectively. All post-Soviet countries, including Russia and Ukraine, urgently need not only a major transformation within the R&D system, but also important changes in the wider ‘environment’. It is important to stress that, in recent years, changes in R&D have been determined not only by the general economic situation itself but also by the general policy of the post-Soviet states. While Russia has expressed ambitions to regain its former influence as a great power and to use S&T to achieve this goal, Ukraine has no clearly determined objectives for the development of its national science system. However, both countries face certain common problems. The development of relevant institutes and the stimulation of demand for R&D results from the side of industry, broader involvement in the international division of scientific work, and the introduction of adequate legal protection for intellectual property rights are all of critical importance for S&T institutes and other research organizations in Russia and Ukraine. This paper shows that the reforms in the R&D sector have been relatively modest and rather unsystematic over the last one and a half decades. The key challenges, which relate to the inertia and the negative aspects of the previous period (for example, a extremely low level of replacement of aging manpower, largely outdated scientific equipment in research laboratories, and institutional mechanisms that are not relevant to the market economy), pose serious problems for the transformation of the R&D systems in both countries, despite new possibilities and a willingness to increase financial support for R&D.