Catch-up Industrialization and Growth Trajectory of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study on Asian Economies

Paper prepared for the 9th Globelics International Conference 2011 (Buenos Aires), 15th -17th Nov

Catch-up Industrialization and Growth Trajectory of Science and
Technology: A Comparative Study on Asian Economies

Chan-Yuan Wong
(Corresponding author)
Department of Science and Technology Studies, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya,
50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Email: wongcy111@gmail.com

Kim-Leng Goh
Department of Applied Statistics, Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of
Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract

As typical emerging economies in the race for acquiring innovation rents, many emerging
economies have the urgency to transform their economy in which dependent on export-oriented
manufacturing to knowledge-based economy. Many studies highlighted the pathways taken by
these economies to achieve development and how distinctive national innovation system
contributed to growth and productivity in science and technology. Through theoretical analysis
and empirical demonstration, this paper attempts to capture in a stylized the national innovation
system strategies in shaping science and technology trajectories for South Korea, Taiwan,
Singapore, Malaysia and China. The science and technology (proxied by papers and patents)
trajectories were examined using bi-logistic growth function. The findings suggests that catch-up
governing strategic model of South Korea and Taiwan had led to much longer and higher
development trajectories during the transition towards knowledge-based economy than countries
that are dependent on FDI for learning and acquiring technology such as Singapore and Malaysia.

Keywords: Catch-up Industrialization Models, Growth Trajectories, Science and Technology,
Papers and Patents, Asian Economies

1. Introduction

The newly industrialized economies (NIEs) and the emerging economies of Asia have been
growing fast and strong, even after experiencing several economic crises over the decades
(Keller and Samuels, 2003). South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan, as the newly industrialized
economies, are notable for maintaining high growth and rapid industrialization. They have
achieved remarkable rapid industrial and science and technological catch-up (Wong, 1999).
Their science and technology policies have successfully advanced the basic and applied research-
based activities that led to a development pattern that is consistent with self-propagating growth
in science and technology (Wong and Goh, 2009). Developing countries of Asia, such as China
and Malaysia emerged as fast-growing economies given their strong export performance and the
availability of cheap and semi-skilled labour. In the transition to a developed and knowledge-
based economy, these countries placed emphasis on upstream activities, attempted to raise

1


national investments in R&D and researchers since the 1990s to develop its science and
technological capabilities.

As typical emerging industrializing economies in the race for acquiring innovation rents1,
South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, China and Malaysia have the urgency to transform their
economy in which dependent on export-oriented manufacturing to knowledge-based economy.
Many studies highlighted the pathways taken by these economies to achieve development and
how distinctive national innovation system contributed to growth and productivity in science and
technology (Lall and Teubal, 1998, Fagerberg and Godinho, 2004, Hu and Mathews, 2008, and
Tseng, 2009). These late industrializing economies have been engaging in standard-related
activities, building manufacturing capabilities and focusing on import substitution of parts and
components (Amsden and Tschang, 2003). As their production moves up the value chain (from
being merely standard followers to standard leaders), these economies stepped up investment in
applied research to improve their technological capability (Ratanawaraha, 2005). A few
countries of Asia begun to catch-up with the advances economies, largely attributed to their well
functioning national innovation system (Mazzoleni and Nelson, 2003, Wong and Goh, 2009 and
2010a). The strategic model of national innovation system of these economies led to promising
development in the potential and vitality of science and technology, provided policy lessons for
the other developing economies.

The evolving models of science and technology policies led to divergent trajectories of
science and technology growth and diffusion. Wong (1999), Wong and Ho (2007) and Wong and
Goh (2010b) suggest the generic technological capability development routes in two distinctive
models:
• New Start-ups for Product Technology Pioneering Model: The model generally involves
government incentives and supports to fuel entrepreneurial activities, reduce risks by
firms that involved in costly investment for innovation, and stimulate R&D investment
for science and technology. Advanced entrepreneurial infrastructure is central for
development. Technology policy is basically designed to avoid over-reliant on MNCs’
technologies during early industrialization. State intervention practice is essential to build
technology capabilities and competencies, particularly during the infant stage of
industrial development (Nelson, 1993, Alavi, 1999 and Reinert, 2008).
• FDI Leveraging Model- Technology policy is developed to favor the MNCs
(Multinational Corporations) that wish to upgrade their manufacturing process
capabilities to manufacture new and advanced products. The spillover of know-how from
the multinationals would spawn many local supporting industries and lead to constantly
increase of technology among local linkages firms. This could be done so by focusing on
the provision of basic infrastructure, political stability and security to support export-
intensive manufacturing activities.

1
The race is largely attributed to the compliance of many Asian economies to the establishment of WTO standard
rules since the mid of 1990s. Many Asian economies amended their IPR (intellectual property rights) to comply with
TRIPS agreement and other WTO standards.

2


Industrial policy2 of late industrializing economies like South Korea and Taiwan have
traditionally placed emphasis on entrepreneurial infrastructure and development of local-owned
manufacturing industries, while FDI leveraging countries like Singapore and Malaysia have
traditionally emphasized on institutions that facilitates the operation of MNCs and spillover of
technology between the MNCs and its local subsidiaries firms. In search for workable policies
for science and technology, China has been maintaining two competing models operated at the
local (or regional) level3 toward science and technology development. The success of one region
in science and technology provides some guides and policy implications to other regions to adopt
similar policies and model for development. The policies run in regions may eventually be
elevated to central policies for development of national science and technology (Naughton and
Segal, 2003).

In the transition to knowledge-based economy, science and technological stock emerged
to be significant. Both models generally witnessed positive effects on science and technological
knowledge stock and development in many Asian emerging countries since the 1990s (Wong
and Goh, 2010b). Commitments and initiatives to improve competitiveness appear to be in place
in these emerging countries, it remains to be observed to what degree of successful development
of their technological innovation.

To date, although many studies have been conducted to examine the extent of science and
technological growth and development in many Asian emerging countries, a systematic approach
to examine the diverging growth trajectories of science and technology is still severely lacking in
the literature. The focus of the preceding diffusion and development studies (Bhattacharya, 2004,
Hu and Mathews, 2005, Leydesdorff and Zhou, 2005, Zhou and Leydesdorff, 2006, and Wong
and Goh, 2010a,c) without considering the models of science and technology policies and
structural change of economic activities limits a comprehensive understanding of Asian science
and technology growth in knowledge-based economic development. By the mean of theoretical
analysis 4 and empirical demonstration, this study aims to trace the science and technology
(proxied by papers and patents respectively) growth trajectories based on bi-logistic growth
function considering the structural change in economics activities from industrial-based to a
knowledge-led development. The study provides a comparative analysis on selected NIEs and
fast-growing economies in Asia. South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia and China are
included in this study for their different level of achievement in development and adoption of
different models for science and technology development.

There are significant commonalities between the selected economies to warrant some
arguments and discussion of Asian innovation system. These economies are compared in this

2
We follow the definition of Chang (2003, pg. 113) where industrial policy is defined as “a policy that intended to
affect particular industries to achieve outcomes that are perceived by the state to be efficient for the economy as a
whole”. “The policy attempts to change the economic structure over and beyond what the market is able to do by
inducing the private sector agents into new activities that they do not have interest in entering under free market
situation” (Chang, 2003, pg. 313). State-own enterprises or government linked companies in these economies were
established to facilitate their economic development in specific sectors (sectors in which required huge capital
investment and protection such as transportations, utilities and automobile industries).
3
The improvised strategy is viable due to the size and diversity of the country (see Naughton and Segal, 2003).
4
This study seeks to integrate insights from institutional theory and innovation studies to provide a coherent view on
the national institutional dynamics that drive the development of science and technology.

3


study for several reasons. The science and technology development path of these economies had
many similarities in their evolution trajectories, technological option and avenue of innovation5
(Hobday et al., 2001, Archibugi and Pietrobelli, 2003, Fagerberg et al., 2007, Tseng, 2009 and
Wong and Goh, 2010b). Their science and technology policy evolved from solely supporting
technological development in manufacturing industries to strengthening the role of national
science and technology institutions to support transformation towards a knowledge-based
economy. It would therefore be interesting to compare the extent of divergence in science and
technological growth trajectories of these economies.

2. Concept and Methodology

The aim of this section is to lay out a conceptual model describing the contexts for catching-up
strategies and a taxonomy of bi-logistic growth function explaining growth trajectories of science
and technology.

2.1 Elucidation of Catching-up Industrialization Strategies

The order of discussion proceeds from the case of new start-ups for product technology
pioneering model to FDI leveraging model.

Basically, there are two dominant catch-up governing strategies for new start-ups for product
technology pioneering model adopted by many developing economies to learn and acquire
technologies through mechanisms other than FDI.
• Chaebol conglomerate approach
• SMI-state network approach

For the case of South Korea and Taiwan, the strategies were effective in acquiring many
technology capabilities (particularly in ICs and semiconductor), and their economies succeeded
in catching-up and moving towards the world production frontier. This virtuous cycle is built
based on synergies and systemic effects6.

The South Korean strategy for technological development is to build up the process
capability in the initial stage, then followed by the mastering of sophisticated products through
imitative R&D. Foreign knowledge and technology was the main source for technological catch-
up of the local firms during the 1960s. The firms of South Korea adopted the reverse product life
cycle strategy to develop their technology capability. The strategy involved is to first develop the
process capability, then followed by developing sophisticated products through imitative R&D.
Finally, firms invest in R&D for own product and process technologies (Wong, 1999).

To move up the value-chain of technology, South Korea practice a state protection
strategy, and mobilized resources targeted at chaebol firms to build technology capabilities and
competencies, particularly during the infant stage of industrial development. The direct support

5
The use of information and communication technologies (ICT) is particularly essential for economic growth in
these economies.
6
The magnitude of knowledge spillover to the local economies was impressive due to the adoption of the mentioned
strategies to develop high technological sectors.

4


for large chaebol firms not only facilitated them to develop their own products and selling under
their own brands in the local market, but also enabled them to establish R&D capability to
compete successfully in a few global industries such as automobile, semiconductors, consumer
electronics and telecommunication equipment. The government incentives and supports fueled
entrepreneurial activities in the 1970s and 1980s, reduced risks by firms involved in costly
investment for innovation, and stimulated R&D investments for science and technology (Wong,
1999, Lee, 2006 and Rasiah, 2007). Their dynamic technology policy led to systemic learning
and catching-up with the advanced technology of developed countries in most chaebol firms,
which subsequently led to growing technological capabilities (Lee and Lim, 2001, Yun, 2007,
and Joo and Lee, 2009).

The Taiwanese firms adopted the Original Equipment Manufacturing (OEM)-Original
Design Manufacturing (ODM)-Original Brand Manufacturing (OBM) strategy to develop their
technology capability (Hou and Gee, 1993 and Wong, 1999). The strategy involved is to first
develop the process capability through the mastering of contract assembly operations (Original
Equipment Manufacturing, OEM), then followed by developing sophisticated products through
imitative R&D. Finally firms invest in R&D for own product and process technologies (Original
Design Manufacturing, ODM). According to Jan and Chen (2006), the R&D system of Taiwan
consist of industrial firms, government supported institutions and universities. Most of the
Taiwanese firms are small. Therefore the R&D resources for developing new technology are
limited. In addition, large firms in Taiwan spent little on R&D activities and the firms were
dependent on their foreign partners (the MNCs) to develop new technology. The government
supported institutions, including the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) established
in 1973, are to support the technology development of small and medium industries (SMIs) of
Taiwan. ITRI plays an important role in initiating, developing and supporting industrial R&D
activities. ITRI have set up laboratories with firms with the purpose of improving quality and
manufacturing processes of products. Many firms (such as UMC and TSMC) have successfully
spun-off from technology acquired from the ITRI laboratories (Hu and Mathews, 2005). Many
Taiwanese firms now attempt to develop their own products that are sold under their own brands
(Original Brand Manufacturing, OBM). All these activities are strongly supported by the ITRI
laboratories and development schemes. Taiwanese firms gradually move to higher value-added
products and involved in themselves science-based technological R&D activities7. Accordingly,
many academic researchers increased their involvement in R&D activities for industrial firms8.
Interaction between firms, government support research institutions and universities is central for
development in which activities between science, technology and market initiate, import, use,
modify and diffuse science and technology.

The role of the Taiwan government changed from investment and facilitation to the role
of triggering R&D activities during 1970s to stimulate learning and innovations in SMIs. The
Taiwanese SMIs transformed their simple manufacturing operations to higher value-added ODM
activities and OBM. According to Rasiah and Lin (2005), the integrated operations of market,
government and social trust had reduced government failure in R&D investment to help raise the
flow of reliable information and performance-oriented commitment.

7
The activities include telecommunication engineering, biomedical, IC design, optoelectronics and material science.
8
During the 1970s and 1980s, the interaction between universities and industrial firms is limited.

5


Singapore, Malaysia and China (the province of Guangdong in particular) adopted a
strategy that emphasized government facilitation of multinational corporations (MNCs)-induced
technological learning (Koh and Wong, 2005). Their science and technology policy supported
the MNCs that aimed to upgrade their manufacturing process capabilities to manufacture new
and advanced science and technological products in Singapore. Thus, the local assembly firms
that were awarded contracts by the MNCs might also benefit in the process. The industrial
technology grew from simple manufacturing operations in the 1970s to high value-added
products and manufacturing activities, and science-based technological R&D activities
accelerated since the early 1990s. In the early 1990s, the government of Singapore and Malaysia
started to increase their investment in basic research activities to pursue application pioneering
strategy. This strategy accelerated the development of technological capabilities among the
MNCs and local firms through the adoption of new and advanced technologies in their
manufacturing processes. There are many studies suggest that Singapore and Malaysia has the
potential for attracting applied research activities from MNCs (see Amsden and Tschang, 2003
and Chandran and Wong, 2010). The MNCs have taken the advantage of the local resources (in
term of local talents and infrastructures) to build their capacity and appropriate the collective
knowledge embodied in organizational routines and institutional memory for their economic and
technological gain.

2.2 Taxonomy of Bi-logistic Growth Function

In an innovation system, universities and research institutions (the national science system) are
the core producers of science output (knowledge production and transfer) while industries (the
national technological system) are the core producers of technology output (Lundvall, 1992). We
believe the extents of functions of an innovation system are managed and policies and
institutions are adopted through conscious and collective with bounded rationality choices.
Therefore, due to the unique national innovation system, and co-ordinated strategies and efforts
for science and technology, a nation would have distinctive characteristics in the development
process. It is important to study the production of science and technology as output of the
national innovation system.

Research on science and technology production in the literature explains how science and
technological innovation spreads among adopters through the form or pattern of the S-curve
(Daim et al., 2006). Following Kondratieff-Schumpeterian business life cycle theory, there are
many functions used as analytical approach to capture the life cycle of science and technology
and explain the phenomena or test specific growth hypothesis (Baudish and Grupp, 2006). The
simple logistic function stated below is of the most common form:

K (1)
pt =
1 + ae −bt

where:
pt: value of the unit of science/technology at time t,
K: potential limit of growth or carrying capacity
a: initial stage of growth
b: velocity

6


To plot the S-curve on log-linear function,

L = p t (1 + ae − bt )
L
− 1 = ae −bt
pt
L (2)
log( − 1) = log a + bt
pt

The logistic growth function has a carrying capacity K that is constant, with the base
given by coefficient a. The carrying capacity provides an indication to the underlying potential
of the process. A constant carrying capacity of the logistic growth function implies that the limit
to potential of science or technological production is fixed at some given level.

The simple logistic function that has its origin in the biological realm9 is often used to
model the production of science and technology due to its rich empirical description and its
effectiveness in capturing the changing nature of science and technology (Devezas et al., 2005).
The epidemiological concept is used to describe the spread or production of science and
technology. The production of science and technology is basically influenced by internal sources,
a process through contacts among agents of the social and innovation system. Many studies
(Gupta et al., 1997, Anderson, 1999, Teng el at., 2002, Watanabe et al., 2003, Bengisu and
Nekhili, 2005, Devezas et al., 2005, and Nagamatsu et al., 2006) demonstrated that the external
influence is relatively weak (revealed through extremely low coefficients and poor fit of the
internal influence model) compared to internal influence. Many studies which focused on
internal influences found this function useful to fit and describe the growth pattern of science and
technology (Anderson, 1999, Foster and Wild, 1999, Teng el at., 2002, Bengisu and Nekhili,
2005, Devezas et al., 2005, and Kucharavy and Guio, 2008).

The selected Asian economies are currently evolving from an economy dependent on
labours and capitals to economies that dependent on knowledge-based development. The shift is
likely to witness an increasing return to production of science and technology. This is attributed
to the properties of knowledge that have characteristics akin to increasing returns (Foray, 2006).

Considering the perspective of paradigm shift from industrial to post-industrial
knowledge-based economic development, it is crucial to separate the production into two stages
of development (before and after knowledge-based economic development) to capture the two
impulses of growth. Given two serial paradigm processes, each paradigm is modeled with a
simple logistic function 10 . By this, the persistence and ability to improve the production of
science and technology (the growth characteristics) in the process of paradigm shift can be

9
The function is also commonly used to study population growth, a metaphor of biological realm such as evolution,
selection, life cycle and survival of the fittest.
10
The bi-logistic growth function is useful to depict system with two serial logistic growth processes. Each set of
growth is depicted with a simple logistic function. The extended function makes is useful only when dramatic shifts
away from the first simple logistic behaviour can be observed (Yang and Williams, 2008).

7


observed from the acceleration of the emergence of the second waves. The following equation
depicts two combined simple logistic growth functions.

K1 K2
p (t ) = −b1t
+ (3)
1 + a1e 1 + a 2 e −b2t

where:
K1 and K2 are the carrying capacity for the first and second waves respectively.
a1 and b1 are coefficients for the first logistic function
a2 and b2 are coefficients for the second logistic function

A spectrum of curves can be generated from Equation 3. We follow the Meyer’s
taxonomy of curves (see Meyer, 1994) as a reference to analyze the systems of production of
science and technology. Figure 1 shows the four basic patterns of growth curves in bi-logistic
function.

L L
log( − 1) log( − 1)
pt pt
99% 99%

1% 1%

(a) Sequential (b) Superposed

L L
log( − 1) log( − 1)
pt pt
99% 99%

1% 1%

(c) Converging (d) Diverging

Figure 1: Taxonomy of the Bi-logistic Growth Function
Source: Meyer (1994).

8


Following explains some characteristics of the linearized logistic growth curve shown in Figure
1:
• Sequential logistic occurs when the second logistic curve starts once the first logistic
curve reaches almost the saturation. This bi-logistic pattern takes place when a declining
rate of a routinized R&D of an economy is replaced or reorganized by another form of
R&D structure/activities for continuous development (see Teubal 1996 and 1997).
• Superposed logistic occurs when the second logistic curve starts to emerge when the first
reaches about 20-50 percent of saturation. The witnessing of a continuous successive
phenomenon, for example, scientific knowledge to science-based technologies (or when
science co-evolves with technology) marks the dynamic of superposed pattern of bi-
logistic growth curve (see Schmoch, 2007).
• Converging logistic occurs when both logistic curves emerge at different period of time
and culminate at about the same saturation. This pattern shows that the second logistic
pulse has a higher but much faster growth time than the first pulse. The witnessing of
extension of life-cycles in a development process marks the pattern of converging bi-
logistic growth curve (see Watanabe et al., 2001).
• Diverging logistic occurs when both logistic curves emerge at about the same time but
grow at different rates with different level of carrying capacity. This pattern exhibits a
strong evidence of self-propagating growth in the development of science and technology.
The higher and longer pulse in the second logistic curve shows a successful development
of an economy in developing new growth avenues for science and technology (Watanabe
et al., 2006 and Wong and Goh, 2010c).

2.3 Data Source

Scientific resources and production play an important role in technological and knowledge-based
economic development (Schmoch, 1997). The term science is often defined as “the creation,
discovery, verification, collation, reorganization and diffusion of knowledge about physical,
biological/natural and social nature” (Kline and Rosenberg 1986, pp. 287). The term technology
is defined as an instrument of adaptation that includes the manufactured hardware or artifacts,
skill and knowledge required to design, manufacture and use technology hardware and different
forms of organization. Forms of organization include institutional settings and rules for the
generation of knowledge and for the use of technologies (Grupp, 1994, and Dosi et al., 2006).
Technology can also refer to a collection of techniques.

The term science and technology used in this paper denotes the basic and applied
research respectively. Publications are considered specifically as one of the main activities that
represents the scientific innovation11 for the analytical purpose. Publications (papers) that report
theoretical works and research findings are the main channel for documentation and
dissemination of scientific findings to further the development of science. Patents represent the
codified part of technological innovation12 that reflects the interest in commercial exploitation of
a new technology (Kondo, 1990, Grupp, 1994 and Kumaresan and Miyazaki, 1999). According
to Schmoch (1997) and Grupp (1998), patents as the most frequently adopted indicator for
11
Scientific innovation denotes the increases in value of scientific knowledge.
12
Technological innovation denotes the increases in value of technological knowledge.

9


technology provide measure to inventive and innovative activities that lead to new products or
processes in the market.

This paper attempts to elucidate the innovation system of selected Asian economies in
shaping the growth trajectories of science and technology using bi-logistic growth function. The
data used in this paper are the historical series of ISI publications from 1981 to 2005 (ISI, 2005)
and utility patents granted from the US Patent Office and Trademarks (USPTO) from 1984 to
2004 (USPTO, 2005) for selected Asian economies including China13, Taiwan, South Korea,
Singapore and Malaysia. The ISI database covers world leading journals of science and the US’s
patents cover useful information of technological activity14. This study assumes that the NIEs
and the selected emerging countries in Asia have high tendency to patent their
invention/innovation in the USPTO15, as US is the major export market for the selected countries
(Bhattacharya, 2004 and Schmoch, 2009). In addition, using US patents data helps to prevent
home bias16 effect that could be observed in many national patent office (Dachs et al., 2007).

The years covered in this study is useful to reveal the context of two broad trends of
development which shape the evolution of innovation system for NIEs and the selected
developing countries. The trends are the establishment of science and technology policy for
development during 1980s and the continual growth of science and technological production
since the 1990s. The ISI publications here refer to all fields of sciences, including natural,
physical, health and social sciences. Patents are recorded by grant year that indicates when
market access of technologies was secured. The reasons for using these data are their availability,
completeness for analysis, and comparability across different countries. The data provide
uniform and time robust measures of science and technological innovation, which reflect
immediate market and knowledge-based economic development (Hu and Mathews, 2005).

3. Analysis and Results

This section focuses on modeling the growth trajectories of science and technology, using the
number of papers and patents as proxy. The bi-logistic growth function (Equation 3) is fitted.
The results of the estimated growth trajectories for South Korea and Taiwan are firstly discussed.
The subsequent sub-section discusses the results for the FDI leveraging countries, including
Singapore, Malaysia and China.
.
3.1 South Korea and Taiwan

Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate the number of papers and patents for South Korea and Taiwan
respectively. The figures provide the estimated total production of papers and patents (labeled as
estimation), the estimated second logistic curve and the data (labeled as observation). Given the
co-existing waves of evolution of papers and patents, the time when each wave emerges can be
13
Data for Hong Kong is merged with the data for China.
14
The document provides details of inventive and innovative activities (Bhattacharya, 2004).
15
Utility patents data from USPTO can be an appropriate indicator for technological innovation (Hu and Mathews,
2005).
16
Many inventors apply for their patents at their home patent office. The national internal influence is highly
attributed to the competitive environment in the US market. Many Asian firms (local or MNCs) always seek
protection for their innovation to compete in the US market.

10


identified. Each set of growth function models an evolution of a paradigm. South Korea and
Taiwan have succeeded in developing new growth avenues over the period examined. In the mid
of 1990s witnessed the first logistic wave being over taken by the second logistic wave. These
signals hinted a transition from the emergence of science and technology to knowledge-driven
activities. The science and technology experienced the paradigm shift from industrial to
knowledge-based economy in the early 1990s, which subsequently witnessed the emergence of
the second waves of papers and patents production toward the end of 1990s. The persistency of
search for new science and technological growth trajectory development would lead to
sustainable growth in science and technology.

The papers and patents of South Korea and Taiwan exhibit a diverging bi-logistic growth
pattern. The second wave that dwells with significant efforts of knowledge-based economic
development shows a longer and higher pulse than the first wave. South Korea and Taiwan
regard papers and patents as a unique “capital” to generate value from the intangible assets (the
knowledge). Many universities, research institutions and industrial firms (the science and
technological systems) of these economies exploited these assets through aggressive application-
oriented R&D activities. The trend corresponds to the argument of Foray (2006) that codification
of knowledge for the production and reproduction of science and technology is essential for
transformation towards a knowledge-based economy. The self-propagating behaviour of science
and technology resulted from the significant efforts of the respective government to ensure the
successful development of the core sectors (such as biotechnology and information and
communication technology) in a knowledge-based economy.

The R&D activities and the successful development of these emerging sectors require
learning by searching capabilities and necessary assimilation capacity in their science and
technology system in order to benefit from the spillover effects of science and technology.
Chaebol firms of South Korea were established to provide avenue for development of indigenous
science and technology capabilities. The role of universities public research institutions evolved
from training and preparing high of high-quality graduates and conducting basic and applied
research for the growth of national productive high-technology enterprises to commercializing
their research outputs for the market (Sohn and Kelly, 2007). IPR system of South Korea was
established to facilitate administrative procedure and improve the quality and efficiency of patent
examination in the USPTO (Lee and Kim, 2010). Such conducive environment and efforts for
knowledge-based economic development brought about a rapid increase in the number of papers
and patents during the 1990s. The emerged of second wave can be attributed to the agile and
cooperative structure of the national innovation system that successfully overcomes the inertia of
the old paradigm (undertaking absorptive and adaptive technology development).

For the case of Taiwan, the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) was established by
the government to support the technology development of electrical, electronics and
semiconductor SMIs. Taiwanese firms gradually moved to higher value-added products and were
involved in science-based technological R&D activities. The complementing environment and
leveraging consortia structure of institutions for research resources, in which ITRI engaged in
industrial development and applied research, universities conduct basic research and industries

11


50,000
45,000 1000
99%
100
(1)
40,000 10 (2)
1
35,000 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49
0.1

30,000 0.01

0.001
1%
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
81
83
85
87
89
91
93
95
97
99
01
03
05
07
09
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Year
estimation second logistic curve observation

(a) Papers

10,000

9,000 100000
10000 99%
1000
8,000 100
(1)
10 (2)
7,000 1
0.1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49
0.01

6,000 0.001 1%

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0
84
86
88
90
92
94

96
98
00
02
04
06
08

10
12
14
16

18
20
22
24
26
28
30
19
19
19

19
19
19
19
19
20
20

20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

20

estimation second logistic curve observation Year

(b) Patents

Figure 2: Papers and Patents of South Korea. The inset shows the linearlized both of logistic
growth curves.

12


50,000

45,000
1000
99%
40,000 100

35,000 10 (1) (2)
1
30,000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
0.1
25,000
0.01 1%
20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
81

83

85

87

89

91

93

95

97

99

01

03

05

07

09

11

13

15

17

19

21
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

(a) Papers

12,000

100000 99%
10,000 10000

1000

100
(1)
8,000 10 (2)
1

0.1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39

6,000 0.01 1%

4,000

2,000

0
84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

Year


(b) Patents

Figure 3: Papers and Patents of Taiwan. The inset shows the linearlized both of logistic growth
curves.

13


commercialize R&D results, led to significant development in knowledge-based economy
(Chang and Shih, 2004 and Phillips and Su, 2009). Since the success of ITRI17, many Taiwanese
from abroad, particularly from the Silicon Valley, started their business and R&D activities in
Taiwan (Lin, 2009 and Wu et al. 2010). In addition, the reduction of government intervention
and involvement to allow the private sector to lead science and technology and market of ICs,
electronics and semiconductor in 1993 brought about a subsequent boom in 2000. The self-
propagating process dwells in the second wave of Taiwan is driven by a range of collective
institutions that encourage investment and risk-taking in high-technology, conducive
environment (such as Hsinchu science park) in for science and technology activities and huge
supply of engineers and R&D scientists that would creates the demand-pull cycle.

3.2 Singapore, Malaysia and China

Figure 4, 5 and 6 illustrate the case of Singapore, Malaysia and China. The transition from the
industrial-based to knowledge-driven activities witnessed the emergence of second waves in the
production of papers and patents during the 1990s.The papers of Singapore exhibit a superposed
bi-logistic growth pattern. Both curves culminate at about the same saturation. In the early 1990s,
the Singapore government started to increase their investment in basic research activities to
pursue application pioneering strategy. This strategy accelerated the development of
technological capabilities among the MNCs and local firms through the adoption of new and
advanced technologies in their manufacturing processes. However, such pursue has not led to
much higher pulse in the second logistic curve. The increased of basic research activities on
manufacturing processes (to solve immediate manufacturing problems) of MNCs could tended to
stray away from triggering self-propagating behaviour between science and technology. The
patents of Singapore exhibit a converging cum diverging pattern of bi-logistic growth. Both
logistic curves emerge at different rates with different level of carrying capacity. The second,
larger logistic pulse has a higher and much faster growth time than the first pulse. The
experience of Singapore provides an interesting contrast to the cases of South Korea and Taiwan.
The Singapore science and technology policy had favoured the MNCs that seek to upgrade their
manufacturing process capabilities to manufacture new and advanced products in Singapore
(Amsden and Tschang, 2003). However, many MNCs (as the national productive high-
technology enterprises) of Singapore may not have the interests of advancing applied research
activities. Thus, since the 1990s, universities, research institutions and many selected state-
owned enterprises were heavily funded by the state to strengthening the learning capabilities in
technology (applied research) and commercialize research outputs with high-technology spin-off.
The efforts of advancing applied research activities witnessed significant growth in patents since
the 1990s, it remains to be observed to what degree of successful development of their
technological innovation for knowledge-based economy.

The papers of Malaysia exhibit a converging bi-logistic growth pattern. Both curves
culminate at about the same saturation. Both logistic curves emerge at different period of time
and culminate at about the same saturation. The efforts to develop basic research during the
transition to knowledge-based economy witnessed a significant increase in papers production.

17
The establishment of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) had induced many returnees from
abroad to start up their own Integrated Circuit (IC) design house and other high technology companies in Hsinchu
Science Park of Taiwan (Lin, 2009).

14


21,000
100
99%
18,000 10
(1)
(2)
1
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57
15,000
0.1

0.01 1%
12,000

9,000

6,000

3,000

0
1981
1983
1985
1987

1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017

2019
2021
2023
2025
2027
2029
2031
2033
2035
2037
2039

(a) Papers

700
1.00E+07 99%
600 1.00E+06
(2)
1.00E+05

1.00E+04 (1)
500 1.00E+03

1.00E+02

1.00E+01
400
1.00E+00

1.00E-01
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49
1%
300 1.00E-02

200

100

0
84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

Year

(b) Patents

Figure 4: Papers and Patents of Singapore. The inset shows the linearlized both of logistic
growth curves.

15


3000

1000
99%
2500
100 (1)

2000 10 (2)
1
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49
1500 1%
0.1

1000

500

0
81

83
85
87
89
91
93
95
97

99
01
03

05
07
09
11
13
15
17

19
21
23
25
27
29
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19

19
19
20
20

20
20
20
20
20
20

20
20
20
20
20
20
20

(a) Papers

200

180 1000
99%
100
160
10 (2) (1)
140
1
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49
120
0.1

100 0.01 1%

80

60

40

20

0
84
86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30
19

19

19

19

19

19
19

19

20

20

20
20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20


(b) Patents

Figure 5: Papers and Patents of Malaysia. The inset shows the linearlized both of logistic
growth curves.

16


600000

100000
99%
10000
500000
1000 (1)
100
(2)
10
400000
1
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49
0.1

0.01 1%
300000

200000

100000

0
81

83

85

87

89

91

93

95

97

99

01

03

05

07

09

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

(a) Papers

6,000
10
99%
5,000 (2)
1
4,000 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49
(1)
0.1
3,000
1%
0.01
2,000

1,000

0
84

87

90

93

96

99

02

05

08

11

14

17

20

23

26

29

32
19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20


(b) Patents

Figure 6: Papers and Patents of China. The inset shows the linearlized both of logistic growth
curves.

17


Unlike the case of South Korea and Taiwan, the patents of Malaysia exhibit a diverging
pattern of bi-logistic growth. The second logistic pulse has a higher pulse and much faster
growth time than the first pulse. The efforts of advancing applied research activities have led to
only gradual increase of patents in the second wave of patents. We observe that the basic
research activities were lacking in sense of purpose and highly fragmented from the production
structure of technology (see Wong et al. 2010). This could be attributed to the rising
“bureaucratic barriers” and lacking of “political will” the gradually developed within the
technological and institutional foundation of society (see Felker, 2003, Ritchie, 2005 and Gomez,
2009).

The papers of China exhibit a diverging pattern of bi-logistic growth. Systematic reform
of Chinese innovation system began since the mid of 1980s. Since then, China undertook
reforms in their institutional structure to advance the horizontal linkages among national research
institutions18, universities and industries (Xue, 1997, Naughton and Seagal, 2003, Motohashi and
Yun, 2007, Hu and Mathews, 2008, and Zhao et al., 2009). The current economic growth of
China has recorded positive effects on scientific activities. The combination of huge supply of
engineers and R&D scientists and technicians, strong basic R&D investment and the return of
qualified Chinese scientists from overseas contributed to the development of a knowledge-based
economy, and China had caught up with Singapore and South Korea in the production of science
(Leydesdorff and Zhou, 2005 and Zhou and Leydesdorff , 2006). China has become one of the
leading nations in terms of research output. The scientific system of China had progressed in an
exponential rate (Leydesdorff and Zhou, 2005, and Kostoff et al. 2007). The patents of China
exhibit a diverging pattern of bi-logistic growth. The second wave could be dwells with
significant supply-push efforts to develop science and technology capabilities shows a much
faster pulse than the first wave. To move to high value-added technological production, the
science and technology policy was developed to encourage upgrading of manufacturing process
capabilities for the manufacturing of new and advanced products by the MNCs and local
conglomerate firms. Many industrial-cluster science parks, high-technology infrastructures and
research institutions were established to provide industries with the necessary support and such
efforts successfully induced industrial technological innovation and patenting activities. Closer
examination of the patenting data shows that most patents belong to multinationals of Taiwanese
and American origin. These foreign assigned multinationals’ patents comprise the major share of
total Chinese patents in the US patent system. Many MNCs have taken the advantage of the local
resources (in term of local talents and infrastructures) to build capabilities and appropriate these
patents for their economic and technological gain. According to Naughton and Seagal (2003),
there are many local-owned firms benefited from the spillover effects in these cluster and moved
away from cheap-labour manufacturing activities since the mid of 1990s. China has then
progressively streamlining its institutions to subsidize learning to advance its locally own
productive organizations (as national champions). There is a tendency for Chinese innovation
system to be converging towards of its Korean or Taiwanese counterparts. Closer observation of
the patenting data shows that that ratio of locally-owned organization is increasing with time.
However, it can be observed that the production of patents for China is relatively lower
compared to South Korea and Taiwan, suggesting a gap to be caught-up. It appears that there are
untapped potentials of scientific resources (the increase of papers) for technology development

18
Chinese government has gradually reduced their funding to research institutions’ operational costs, pushing them
to acquire resources from industries (Xue, 1997).

18


due to the nature of manufacturing activities and technological competencies of the MNCs19 and
local firms in China.

4. Conclusion

The findings of this paper have expanded the research on innovation system in characterizing
science and technological trajectories in emerging Asian economies. In order to achieve the
objectives of research, this study first constructed a conceptual framework to analyze the
trajectories of science and technology. The framework of analysis in this study is adopted
extensively from the Wong’s theoretical perspective (see Wong, 1999) on national innovation
system and Meyer’s taxonomy (see Meyer, 1994) of bi-logistic growth function. Bi-logistic
growth function is found useful and effective in highlighting the path of science and
technological evolution underlying its catch-up industrialization model. The use of bi-logistic
growth function to explain the national innovation system in particular and the changing level of
science and technology is a relatively new effort in the literature.

For the case of South Korea and Taiwan, the economies that learn and acquire
technologies through mechanisms other than FDI, the evidence suggests a sign of transition from
industrial-based to knowledge-driven activities and the formation of evolving dynamic
propagating behaviour in science and technology. Their second wave of bi-logistic curve that
dwells with significant efforts of knowledge-based economic development shows a longer and
higher pulse than the first wave.

On contrary, the pursued to develop science and technology by the FDI-leveraging
countries such as Singapore and Malaysia has not led to much longer and higher pulse in the
second logistic curve. Based on these two distictive governing approaches, this study highlights
the generic evolutionary paths that may be useful as policy lessons, particularly for the
developing economies. The findings indicate that institutional dynamics of chaebol conglomerate
approach of South Korea and SMI-state network approach of Taiwan are important to drive the
self-propagating behaviour particularly in the second wave of bi-logistic curve. Although
Singapore, Malaysia and some provinces of China deliberately directed FDI towards selected
priority high-technology sectors to develop some indigenous science and technology capabilities,
the production of papers and patents witnessed an interesting contrast to the cases of South
Korea and Taiwan. This could be largely attributed to the nature of manufacturing-based
activities and technological competencies of the MNCs in these economies. Recently, there are
significant efforts by the state of these economies to strengthen the learning capabilities in
technology. Many universities, research institutions, selected state-owned enterprises and (local-
owned) private conglomerate firms were heavily supported to advance applied research activities.
Given the efforts in establishing their collective institutions for science and technology
production, it is expected that the following pulse (the “third wave”) of the logistic curve and the
potential (carrying capacity) for science and technology development will increase.

19
The inertia of MNCs-focused export-oriented economy built over the years could be a hindering factor for the
economy to leap-frog into a knowledge based economy.

19


References

Alavi, R. (1999), Rents, Technological Innovation and Firm Competitiveness in a Bumiputera
Malaysian Firm, In Jomo, K.S., Felker, G. and Rasiah, R. (Ed.) (1999). Industrial
Technology Development in Malaysia: Industry and Firm Studies, London: Routledge.
Pp. 329-359.
Amsden, A. and Tschang, F. T. (2003), A New Apporach to Assessing the Technological
Complexity of Different Categories of R&D (with Example from Singapore), Research
Policy, 32, 4, pp. 553-572.
Anderson, B. (1999), The Hunt for S-curve Growth Paths in Technological Innovation: A Patent
Study, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 9, 4, pp. 487-526.
Archibugi, D. and Pietrobelli, C. (2003), The Globalisation of Technology and its Implications
for Developing Countries, Windows of Opportunity or Further Burden?, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 70, 9, pp. 861-883.
Bengisu, M. and Nekhili, R. (2005), Forecasting Emerging Technologies With the Aid of
Science and Technology Databases, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73, 7,
pp. 835-844.
Bhattacharya, S. (2004), Mapping Inventive Activity and Technological change through Patent
Analysis: A Case Study of India and China, Scientometric, 61, 3, pp. 361-381.
Chandran, VGR. and Wong, C-Y. (2010), Patenting Activities in Developing Countries: The
Case of Malaysia, World Patent Information, forthcoming.
Chang, H-J. (2003), Globalisation, Economic Development and the Role of the State, London:
Zed.
Chang, P-L. and Shih, H-Y. (2004), The Innovation Systems of Taiwan and China: A
Comparative Analysis, Technovation, 24, 7, pp. 529-539.
Dachs, B., Mahlich, J. C. and Zahradnik, G. (2007), The Technological Competencies of Korea’s
Firms: A Patent Analysis, In Mahlich, J. and Pascha, W. (Ed.), Innovation and
Technology in Korea, New York: Physica-Verlag, pp. 127-146.
Daim, T. U., Rueda, G., Martin, H. and Gerdsri, P. (2006), Forecasting Emerging Technologies:
Use of Bibliometrics and Patent Analysis, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
73, 8, pp. 981-1012.
Devedaz, T. C., Linstone, H. A., and Santos, H. J. S. (2005), The Growth Dynamics of the
Internet and the Long Wave Theory, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72,
8, pp. 913-935.
Dosi, G., Llerena, P. and Labini, M.S. (2006), The Relationships Between Science,
Technologies, and Their Industrial Exploitation: An Illustration Through the Myths and
Realities of the so-called European Paradox, Research Policy, 35, 10, pp. 1450-1464.
Fagerberg, J. and Godindo, M. M. (2004), Catching-up and Innovation, In Fagerberg, J., Mowery,
D. and Nelson, R. R. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fagerberg, J., Srholec, M. and Knell, M. (2007), The Competitiveness of Nations: Why Some
Countries Prosper While Others Fall Behind, World Development, 35, 10, pp. 1595-1620.
Felker, G. (2003), Technology Policies and Innovation Systems in Southeast Asia, In Jomo, K.S.
(Ed.), Southeast Asian Paper Tiger? From Miracle to Debacle and Beyond, pg. 136-172.
Foray, D. (2006), The Economics of Knowledge, Cambridge: The MIT Press.

20


Foster, J. and Wild, P. (1999), Detecting Self-organisational Change in Economic Processes
Exhibiting Logistic Growth, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 9, 1, pp. 109-133.
Gomez, E. T. (2009), The Rise and Fall of Capital: Corporate Malaysia in Historical Perspective,
Journal of Contemporary Asia, 39, 3, pp. 345-381.
Grupp, H. (1994), The Dynamics of Science-based Innovation Reconsidered: Cognitive Models
and Statistical Findings. In Granstrand, O. (Ed.). Economics of Technology, Amsterdam:
Elsevier, pp. 223-251.
Grupp, H. (1998), Foundations of Economics of Innovation: Theory, Measurement and Practice,
Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Gupta, B. M., Sharma, P. and Karisiddappa, C. R. (1997), Growth of Research Literature in
Scientific Specialties: A Modeling Perspective, Scientometrics, 40, 3, pp. 507-528.
Hobday, M., Cawson, A. and Kim, S. R. (2001), Governance of Technology in the Electronics
Industries of East and South East Asia, Technovation, 21, 4, pp. 209-226.
Hou, C. and Gee, S. (1993), National System Supporting Technical Advance in Industry: The
Case of Taiwan, In Nelson, R. R. (Ed.), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative
Analysis, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 384-413.
Hu, M-C. and Mathews, J.A. (2005), National Innovative Capacity in East Asia, Research
Policy, 34, 9, pp. 1322-1349.
Hu, M-C. and Mathews, J.A. (2008), China’s National Innovative Capacity, Research Policy, 37,
9, 1465-1479.
ISI. (2005), Thomson ISI-National Science Indicators Database, Stamford Connecticut:
Thomson Reuters.
Jan, T. S. and Chen, Y. (2006), The R&D System for Industrial Development in Taiwan,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73, 5, pp. 559-574.
Joo, S. H. and Lee, K. (2009), Samsung’s Catch-up with Sony: An Analysis Using U.S. Patent
Data, Learning, Paper Presented at International Conference on Innovation and
Competitiveness in Asia: Policy Space for Technological Catch-up, Hangzhou: Apr 25-
26.
Keller, W. W. and Samuels, R. J. (2003), Innovation and Asian Economies, In Keller, W. W. and
Samuels, R. J. (Ed.), Crisis and Innovation in Asian Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 1-22.
Kline, S.J. and Rosenberg, N. (1986), An Overview of Innovation. In Laudan R., and Rosenberg
N. (Ed.) The Positive Sum Strategy. Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth,
Washington: National Academy Press, pp. 275-305.
Koh, W. T. H. and Wong, P. K. (2005), Competing at the Frontier: The Changing Role of
Technology Policy in Singapore’s Economic Strategy, Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 72, 3, pp. 255-285.
Kondo, M. (1990), Japanese R&D in robotics and genetic engineering. in: Sigurdson J. (Eds.),
Measuring the Dynamics of Technological Change, London: Pinter. pp. 130-145.
Kostoff, R., Briggs, M. B., Rushenberg, R. L., Bowles, C. A., Pecht, M., Johnson, D.,
Bhattacharya, S., Icenhour, A.S., Nikodym, K., Barth, R. B., Dodbele, S. (2007),
Comparisons of the Structure and Infrastructure of Chinese and Indian Science and
Technology, Technology Forecasting and Social Change, 74, 9, pp. 1609-1630.
Kucharavy, D. and Guio, R. (2008), Logistic Substitution Model and Technological Forecasting,
Paper Presented at TRIZ Future 2008, Synthesis in Innovation, Enschede: Nov 5-7.

21


Kumaresan, N. and Miyazaki, K. (1999), An integrated network approach to systems of
innovation: The case of robotics in Japan. Research Policy 28, 6, pp. 563-585.
Lall, S. and Teubal, M. (1998), Market-stimulating Technology Policies in Developing
Countries: A Framework with Examples from East Asia, World Development, 26, 8, pp.
1369-1385.
Lee, K. and Kim, Y. K. (2010), IPR and Technological Catch-up in Korea, In Odagiri, H., Goto,
A., Sunami, A. and Nelson, N. (Ed.), Intellectual Property Rights, Development and
Catch-up: An International Comparative Study, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lee, K. and Lim, C. (2001), Technological Regimes, Catching-up and Leapfrogging: Findings
from the Korean Industries, Research Policy, 30, 3, pp. 459-483.
Lee, K-R. (2006), Performance and Source of Industrial Innovation in Korea’s Innovation
System, In Lundvall, B-A, Intarakumnerd, P., and Vang J. (Ed.), Asia’s Innovation
Systems in Transition, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 178-199.
Leydesdorff, L. and Zhou, P. (2005), Are the Contribution of China and Korea Upsetting the
World System of Science? Scientometric 63, 3, pp. 617-630.
Lin, Y. (2009), The Contribution of the Diaspora to Taiwan’s High Tech Industrialization,
Presented at Tenth Malaysia Plan, Brain Gain Workshop: A Review of Successful Brain
Gain Programmes, Putrajaya: 18-19 June.
Lundvall, B-A. (Ed.) (1992), National Innovation Systems: Towards a Theory of Innovation and
Interactive Learning, London: Pinter.
Mazzoleni, R. and Nelson, R.R. (2007), Public Research Institutions and Economic Catch-up,
Research Policy, 36, 10, pp. 1512-1528.
Meyer, P.S. (1994), Bi-Logistic Growth, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 47, 1,
pp. 89-102.
Motohashi, K. (2008), Assessment of Technological Capability in Science Industry Linkage in
China by Patent Database, World Patent Information, 30, 3, pp. 225-232.
Nagamatsu, A., Watanabe, C. and Kwok, L. S., (2006), Diffusion Trajectory of Self-propagating
Innovations Interacting with Institutions- Incorporation of Multi-factors Learning
Functions to Model PV Diffusion in Japan, Energy Policy, 34, 4, pp. 411-421.
Naughton, B. and Seagal, A. (2003), China in Search of a Workable Model, Technology
Development in the New Millennium, In Keller, W. W. and Samuels, R. J. (Ed.), Crisis
and Innovation in Asian Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 160-
186.
Nelson, R. R. (Ed.) (1993), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, New York:
Oxford University Press.
Phillips, F. and Su, Y-S. (2009), Advances in Evolution and Genetics, Implications for
Technology Strategy, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76, 5, pp. 597-607.
Rasiah, R. (2007), FDI and Technological Capabilities, Presentation Prepared for the Sanjaya
Memorial Workshop, Delhi: 10-14 September.
Rasiah, R. and Lin, Y. (2005), Learning and Innovation: the Role of Market, Government and
Trust in the Information Hardware Industry in Taiwan, International Journal of
Technology and Globalisation, 1, ¾, pp. 400-431.
Ratanawaraha, A. (2005), Late Standardization: From Catching-up to Forging Ahead, Paper
Presented at the 2nd Asialics International Conference, Jeju Island: April, 17-20.
Reinert, E. S. (2008), How Rich Countries Got Rich and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor,
London: Constable.

22


Ritchie, B. K. (2005) Coalitional Politics, Economic Reform, and Technological Upgrading in
Malaysia, World Development 33, 5, pp. 745-761.
Schmoch, U. (1997), Indicators and the Relations Between Science and Technology,
Scientometrics, 38, 1, pp. 103-116.
Schmoch, U. (2007), Double-boom Cycles and the Comeback of Science-push and Market-pull”,
Research Policy, 36, 7, pp. 1000-1015.
Schmoch, U. (2009), Patent Analysis in the Changed Legal Regime of the US Patent Law since
2001, World Patent Information, 31, 4, pp. 299-303.
Sohn, D-W., and Kenny, M. (2007), Universities, Clusters and Innovation Systems: The Case of
Seoul, Korea, World Development, 35, 6, pp. 991-1004.
Teng, J. T. C., Grover V. and Guttler W., (2002), Information Technology Innovations: General
Diffusion Patterns and Its Relationships to Innovation Characteristics, IEEE Transaction
on Engineering Management, 49, 1, pp. 13-27.
Teubal, M. (1996), R&D and Technology Policy in NICs as Learning Processes, World
Development, 24, 3, pp. 449-460.
Teubal, M. (1997), A Catalytic and Evolutionary Approach to Horizontal Technology Policies
(HTPs), Research Policy, 25, 8, pp. 1161-1188.
Tseng, C-Y. (2009), Technological Innovation and Knowledge Network in Asia: Evidence from
Comparison of Information and Communication Technologies among Six Countries,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76, 5, pp. 654-663.
USPTO. (2005), A Patent Technology Monitoring Report, Virginia: US Patent and Trademark
Office.
Watanabe, C., Hur, J.Y. and Lei, S. (2006), Converging Trend of Innovation Efforts in High
Technology Firms Under Paradigm Shift: A Case of Japan’s Electrical Machinery,
Omega, 34, 2, pp. 178-188.
Watanabe, C., Kondo, R., Ouchi, N. and Wei, H. (2003), Formation of IT Features through
Interaction with Institutional Systems: Empirical Evidence of Unique Epidemic
Behaviour, Technovation, 23, 3, pp. 205-219.
Watanabe, C., Zhu, B. and Miyazawa, T. (2001), Hierarchical Impacts of the Length of
Technology Waves: An Analysis of Technolabor Homeostasis, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 68, 1, pp. 81-104.
Wong, C-Y. and Goh, K-L. (2009), Modeling the Dynamics of Science and Technology
Diffusion of Selected Asian Countries using a Logistic Growth Function, Asian Journal
of Technology Innovation 17, 1, pp. 75-100.
Wong, C-Y. and Goh, K-L. (2010a), Modeling the Behaviour of Science and Technology: Self-
propagating Growth in the Diffusion Process, Scientometrics, 84, 3, pp. 669-686.
Wong, C-Y. and Goh, K-L. (2010b), The Evolution and Potential for Development: Science and
Technology of NIEs and Selected Emerging Countries, Presented at 8th Globelics
International Conference, Kuala Lumpur: November 1-3.
Wong, C-Y. and Goh, K-L. (2010c), Growth Behavior of Publications and Patents: A
Comparative Study on Selected Asian Economies, Journal of Informetrics, 4, 4, pp. 460-
474.
Wong, C-Y., Thirucelvam, K. and Ratnavelu, K. (2010), Diffusion Trajectories of Emerging
Sciences in Malaysian R&D System, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77,
7, pp. 1109-1125

23

Catch-up Industrialization and Growth Trajectory of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study on Asian Economies

Catch-up Industrialization and Growth Trajectory of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study on Asian Economies

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (19)

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a Catch-up Industrialization and Growth Trajectory of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study on Asian Economies

Semelhante a Catch-up Industrialization and Growth Trajectory of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study on Asian Economies (20)

Mais de iBoP Asia

Mais de iBoP Asia (20)

Último

Último (20)

Catch-up Industrialization and Growth Trajectory of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study on Asian Economies