TRIPLE HELIX noms.pmd

ST-09Challenges facing China in pursuing indigenous innovation processreflection upon government-pulled triple helixYan Yang, Department Of Development And Planning, Aalborg University;School Of Management And Economics, UniversityOf Electronic Science And Technology Of China, ChinaIntroduction‘Domestic Innovation Gap’ has been identified as a national issue in China after 30 years’ reform and opening up. The promotionfrom ‘China Made’ to ‘China Create’ is urgently recognized for long-term, sustainable success. Kinds of steps have been takenby all level government since 2006. It is necessary to analyze the challenges in pursing indigenous innovation based on the past4 years’ experience and reflect it theoretically and practically in time .That is this study’s object and focus.This study proceeds in the following manner. First, briefly review the literature regarding indigenous innovation and governmentpulledtriple helix. Secondly, analyze the current situation of China’s pursing indigenous innovation: policies, outcomes, contributionof government, industry and university in National Innovation System through documentation, interviews. Aim to find challengesinternal. Next, study experience from other countries, aiming to find challenges external .Finally, provide the research findingsand discuss their managerial and theoretical implications.Literature Review(1)Understandings of Indigenous InnovationFrom available arts on indigenous innovation, indigenous innovation is mostly used to express Chinese term ‘zizhuchuangxin’(Qingrui Xu et al.,1998; HuiYan,2006; XieinLIU,2007;C Shin-Horng &WP Pam,2007; Xiaolan Fu & Yundan Gong,2008).‘Zizhu chuangxin’ can also translated as independent or homegrown innovation. Its ambiguity meaning has led to considerableconfusion inside China and abroad. However, the “Medium-to-Long-term Plan for Development of Science &Technology”(2006)points to zizhu chuangxin as having three components: genuinely original innovation; integrated innovations, the fusing togetherof existing technologies in new ways; and ‘re-innovation’, which involves the assimilation and improvement of imported technologies.Apart from the understanding indigenous innovation as ‘zizhu chuangxin’ in China above, Xielin LIU and Lundvall(2006) borrowthe term ‘endogenous innovation’ to express Chinese ‘zizhu chuangxin’ as strategic element of innovation driven growth andlearning-based economic development; PN Sopazi&TN Andrew(2005) hold the idea that The term indigenous innovation has thesame meaning as the following terms: traditional innovation, rural people’s innovation, farmers’ innovation, local innovation andcommunity innovation, and indeed other related terms; Shashank Mehta &Ravi Mokashi-Punekar go further on understandingindigenous innovation. Somehow, William Lazonick (2007) uses term ‘indigenous innovation’ with the same understanding ofShashank Mehta &Ravi Mokashi-Punekar.In this study, the term ‘indigenous innovation’ has several meanings as follows: firstly, indigenous innovation is closely relatedwith local and homegrown characters. It means that a kind of innovation can be called indigenous innovation on prerequisite thatthat innovation takes place in local such as inner enterprises, regions or nation but not abroad. Secondly, indigenous innovationdoesn’t mean R&D independently without collaboration with outside, as long as the core technology and intellectual propertyrights are grasped. It can be genuinely original innovation; integrated innovations, the fusing together of existing technologies innew ways; and ‘re-innovation’, but not depend on foreign technology, Thirdly, indigenous innovation is not only a macro strategy,but also capability and mission for world’s sustainability development.(2)Research on indigenous innovation in ChinaFrom available literature, university-industry linkage is a highlight issue in ‘indigenous innovation’: the university, as the producerof knowledge and industry as the user need each other. When university-industry collaborates with each other, it makesuniversity, industry themselves and ‘indigenous innovation’ sense. The rapid growth of the sub-regional economies in SantaClara County in California (Silicon Valley) associated with the contribution of Stanford University, in and around Boston (Route128) with that of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) ( Saxennian,1994) and the successful localities around Cambridgein the UK (SQW, 1985, 2000) should be good examples. In China, Projects and programs such as ‘985’ and ‘211’ were startedto promote university research and technology transfer. However, most universities, especially those in the top rank, are public.There is a native university-government affinity instead of university-industry linkage, characterized government-pulled triplehelix-- government typically pulls the other two spheres to achieve regional innovation, forming a government-pulled triple helixwith one head and two wings. ( Zhou,2008) . How and to what extent these highly supported universities performance in helpingindustry to develop indigenous innovation capability in government-pulled triple helix context (Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2007; Zhou,2008)? What is the challenges in the process? Some studies concentrating attention on technology transfer, subtle linkage ofinnovation capabilities and business performance(Richard C.M.Yam et al.,2004&Guan et al.,2006;K Chen & M Kenney,2007)and limited studies from perspective of entrepreneurial university ( Zhou,2008;Zhou &Peng,2008) can answer part of this questionindirectly . Lan Jun(2008) comments that industry–university–research institution is the better reflect ion upon reality of Chinabased on a system dynamics approach. Furthermore, Lucy Lu & Etzkowitz (2008) put forward the similar question from thestrategic perspective. However, those are far from enough to disclose problems and paths in China’s pursing indigenousinnovation in government-pulled triple helix context.Madrid, October 20, 21 & 22 - 2010368