IRPFinalWebsite

‘Deep-rooted weakness and fragmentation of Thailand’s innovation system and a lack of a
clear and shared vision of policies; a lack of supporting institutions such as Shumpeterian
entrepreneurship and trust; and, most importantly, path dependency and inertia in
the policy formulation process due to the problem of being locked into old paradigms.’
(Intarakumnerd, 2015, p.15).
Consequently, this results in a low number of willing risk takers, a lack of Venture Capital
funding, few Incubators and Accelerators and limited opportunities for exit within the
Thai startup ecosystem (Polapat Ark, 2017). Further, this may explain why research
reveals relatively little awareness of modern innovation paradigms in Thailand.
2.4.4 THE POSSIBLE CAUSES
Education
Only 12 per cent of Thailand’s population is university educated, compared to 30-45
percent for both China and Singapore. Further, universities prioritise the business
schools and medicine over R&D and it is therefore difficult to penetrate the academic
curriculum, stunting the aspiration to innovate (Intarakumnerd, 2015).
Research and Development
Thailand spends only half a percent of its GDP on R&D, compared to 2-4 per cent spent
by China and Singapore (Bisonyabut and Kamsaeng, 2015).
Regulatory Environment
Thailand’s regulatory environment and innovation initiatives are misaligned, causing
bottlenecks that encourage foreign innovations, rather than indigenous efforts (Polapat
Ark, 2017) .
2.4.5 THE IMPACT OF NATIONAL CULTURE
It is well documented that strategic behaviour differs across cultures (Scheneider, 1991).
The most widely accepted definition of national culture is that of Kluckhorn:
‘Culture consists in patterned ways of thinking, feeling, and reacting, acquired and
transmitted mainly by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human
groups, including their embodiment in artefacts; the essential core of culture consists
of traditional ideas and especially their attached values.’
(Kluckhorn, as cited in Engelen et al, 2015, p.734)
Thailand is a latecomer in trying to adopt and implement a system of innovation, yet
this does not fully explain why it has been less successful in terms of catching up with
innovative forerunners (Engelen et al, 2015; Intarakumnerd and Chaminadeb, 2011).
Therefore, examining national culture’s effect on corporate culture may help identify
patterns of shared values and beliefs that inform organisational function (Schein 1983).
Hofstede suggests that cultures can be analysed in terms of six cultural dimensions,
along which each national culture is given a fixed indexing (Fang, 2009). Hofstede’s
cultural dimensions for Thailand reveal the following (Hofstede, 2016; Buriyameathagul,
2013):
Power/Distance Dimension:
Thailand is a society in which inequalities are accepted; a strict chain of command and
protocol exists between bosses and employees. Attitudes towards managers are more
formal, and information flows are hierarchical and controlled.
24
Individualism vs Collectivism:
Thai society constructs its reality based on social interests rather than individual
interests, characterised in Thailand by non-confrontation, with offence taking leading
to loss of face and shame.