TRIPLE HELIX noms.pmd

O-074Organizational patterns of innovation in industrializing economies: Patentingin selected Asian nationsYuen-Ping Ho, Poh-Kam Wong, Singh Annette, National University of Singapore, SingaporeIntroductionThe challenge faced by developing Asian economies is sustaining long term economic growth, necessitating catching-up withmore advanced nations. In this, developing Asia can look towards the success stories of the Asian Newly Industrialized Nations(NIEs) of Taiwan, Korea and Singapore. Asian NIEs have made great strides in their economic development, achieved in part byrapid expansion of technological capabilities. In the catching-up process of these NIEs, Triple Helix dynamics have played animportant role, with universities and public research institutes (PRIs) being prominent in the national innovation systems (Fagerberg& Godinho, 2005; Matthews and Hu, 2007). This paper seeks to ascertain if selected developing Asian economies are followingin the footsteps of the NIEs by emphasising public sector science and technology in innovation and industrial development.Research Topic & FocusFive Asian economies are analysed and compared in this paper: the ASEAN4 economies of Malaysia, Thailand, Phillipines andIndonesia; and the emerging economy of China. The first part of the paper reviews the policy frameworks in these economies,focusing on how, triple helix interactions are fostered and promoted. Generally, there are policy initiatives in all five economiesto implement triple helix-type systems for innovation and knowledge transfer. However, policy approaches are at differing levelsof advancement and maturity, and have taken different forms.Among the ASEAN4 economies, Malaysia and Thailand have placed specific emphasis on the innovation role of the public andhigher education sectors, while the approaches in the Philippines and Indonesia prioritise the contribution of public organizationsto the development of local enterprises and human capital. The Malaysian government has introduced various measures tostrengthen university-industry links and to enhance commercialization of research from universities and PRIs in its NationalInnovation Agenda (Saad et al, 2008; Cheng, 2009). In Thailand, public sector reform that began in 2002 has granted greaterautonomy to PRIs and universities, as well as led to implementation of schemes to encourage entrepreneurial and technologytransfer activities by universities (Virasa, 2009). Indonesia’s long term Knowledge-Based Society 2025 strategy incorporateselements of the Triple Helix model; however, current manifestations of Triple Helix interactions are most strongly seen inregional cluster development initiatives, with universities and government being essential sources of technical and infrastructuralsupport for SMEs in specific localities (Irawati, 2006, 2007). The Philippines National Innovation Strategy 2007, Filipinovation,spells out specific roles for universities and the government in its action agenda. However, in these very early days ofimplementation, Filipino PRIs and universities have not produced research with commercial impact and the innovation systemis also hampered by lack of innovation and absorptive capacity in the private sector (Velasco, 2009).In contrast to the ASEAN4 economies, China operates on a strong government-pulled triple helix model, in which governmentis the initiator and most important actor (Etzkowitz and Chu, 2007). Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, following the FirstNational Conference on Science and Technology, universities and PRIs engaged heavily in research for regional development. Inthe Second National Conference on S&T, industry was called upon to achieve independent innovation, with universities andgovernment providing support. This shift towards emphasising private industry’s innovation capabilities is also seen in the reformof the university-owned enterprises (UOE) structure, which began in 2000 with government encouraging universities to de-linkfrom affiliated UOEs (Dai and Xue, 2009).Methodology & DataWe expect that these differences in policy approaches to organizational arrangements for innovation will be reflected in theinnovation trends of these economies. Using patents granted by the US Patents & Trademark Office (USPTO) as an indicatorof innovation output (Grilliches, 1990; Jaffe and Tratjenberg, 2002), this paper examines ownership patterns and the quality ofpatents from the Triple Helix actors, to establish the quantitative and qualitative contribution of universities and PRIs in developingAsian economies. This analysis allows for a comparison of the progress achieved by developing Asian economies with theexperience of successful catch-up NIEs of East Asia. As has been found previously patenting trends show that Asian NIEs haddrawn strongly on university and public sector innovation during the catch-up process (Wong et al, 2009).The patents database used for analysis comprises USPTO-granted patents with at least one inventor who was resident in oneof the ASEAN4 economies or China at the time of invention. A total of 12,960 patents granted between 1st January 1976 and30th June 2009 are included. Patent assignees were categorised according to their Triple Helix sector: University, Industry orGovernment. Additionally, measures based on patent citations and non-patent references were computed as indicators ofpatent quality.Madrid, October 20, 21 & 22 - 2010156