Learning and Innovation

Abstract

Much innovation research views catch-up as a process that at low levels of development starts with imitation, and whose end point is innovation; and it posits that different stages require different frameworks to explain what is going on. In its more extreme versions it adds a horizontal to the over-time differentiation and demands that individual or groups of countries be appreciated for their contextual dissimilarities, requiring in each case yet another tailor-made model. The purpose of this review essay is to argue that to derive and justify different sui-generis frameworks from differential catch-up experiences is a non-sequitur, theoretically unsatisfactory, empirically unhelpful and not constructive for policy. Conceptually, all the pieces for a more unified approach are in place. We know how firms gain competitiveness through dynamic capabilities and complementary assets. We also know that firm-level technological capabilities are related to national (and perhaps regional) technological capabilities. Finally, we know that governing and supporting institutions matter in addressing the uncertainty resulting from problems of information, coordination, and so forth. This provides an opportunity to apply insights from theories of firm behaviour and new evolutionary thinking on technologies and institutions to historically informed, comparative studies of firm-based catch-up over the last decade or so.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 80 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.