Internationalization of innovation systems_

Internationalizationofinnovationsystems:

Asurveyoftheliteratureଝ

BoCarlsson∗

DepartmentofEconomics,WeatherheadSchoolofManagement,CaseWesternReserveUniversity,

10900EuclidAve.,Cleveland,OH44106-7235,USA

Received7April2004;receivedinrevisedform17August2005;accepted24August2005

Availableonline17November2005

Abstract

Whilethereisalargeliteratureontheinternationalizationofeconomicactivity(includingR&D)atthecorporatelevel,therearenotmanystudiesofthedegreeofinternationalizationofinnovationsystems.Thefewstudiesthatexistshowthatnationalinnovationsystemsarebecominginternationalized,eveniftheinstitutionsthatsupportthemremaincountry-specific.TotheextentthatthefarmorenumerousstudiesofinternationalizationofcorporateR&Ddiscussinnovationsystemsatall,theypointtothecontinuedimportanceofnationalinstitutionstosupportinnovativeactivity,eventhoughthatactivityisitselfbecomingincreasinglyinternationalized.

©2005ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved.

Keywords:Innovationsystems;Internationalization;Nationalinstitutions;Literature

1.Introduction

Whatdoweknowaboutinternationalizationofinnovationsystems?Thatisthequestioninthispaper.ItseemsfittingataconferencehonoringtheworkofKeithPavittintheareaofinnovationtotakeupa

ଝThispaperwasoriginallypresentedattheconferenceentitled

“WhatDoWeKnowaboutInnovation?”inhonorofKeithPavitt,SPRU-ScienceandTechnologyPolicyResearch,UniversityofSus-sex,Brighton,UK,13–15November2003.Iwouldliketothankthediscussantsandsessionparticipantsaswellasthreeanonymousref-ereesforvaluableandconstructivecomments.Allremainingerrorsandomissionsarethoseoftheauthor.

∗Tel.:+12163684112;fax:+12163685039.E-mailaddress:Bo.Carlsson@case.edu.0048-7333/$–seefrontmatter©2005ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.08.003

particularstrandinPavitt’sresearchoverthelast10–15yearsfocusingontheextentofinternationalizationoftheR&Dactivitiesoflargebusinessfirms(PatelandPavitt,1991;Pavitt,2001,2002;PavittandPatel,1999).Thisresearchalsodealswiththerelationshipbetween“global”corporationsandso-callednationalsystemsofinnovation.Thisiswhatmotivatesthispaper.Pavitt’sfindingsmaybesummarizedasfollows:

•Theskillsandknow-howthatgivefirmscompetitiveadvantagearelessinternationalizedthanallotherdimensionsofcorporateactivity.EvenverylargecorporationsinmostcasesperformmostoftheirR&Dathome.

B.Carlsson/ResearchPolicy35(2006)56–6757

•“Asaconsequence,companies’innovativeactiv-itiesaresignificantlyinfluencedbytheirhomecountry’snationalsystemofinnovation:thequal-ityofbasicresearch,workforceskills,systemsofcorporategovernance,thedegreeofcompeti-tiverivalryandlocalinducementmechanisms,suchasabundantrawmaterials,thepriceoflaborandenergy,andpersistentpatternsofprivateinvest-mentofpublicprocurement”(PavittandPatel,1999,p.94).

•“Ingeneralterms,basicresearchandrelatedtrain-ingimprovecorporate(andother)capacitiestosolvecomplexproblems.Mostofthecontributionsareperson-embodiedandinstitution-embodiedtacitknowledge,ratherthaninformation-basedcodifiedknowledge.Thisexplainswhythebenefitsofbasicresearchturnouttobelocalized,ratherthanavail-ableindifferentlytothewholeworld”(PavittandPatel,1999,p.103).

•“[T]hetechnologicalcompetitivenessoffirmsinevitablydependsonnationalsystemsofinnova-tion,andnationalsystemsofinnovationinevitablydependongovernmentpolicy.Thelevelofbusiness-fundedR&Disinfluencedbynationalpolicies(e.g.competition,macroeconomics),andalsobythebehaviorofnationalinstitutions(e.g.agenciesfund-ingbasicresearch,banksandstockmarkets,systemsofcorporategovernance)”(PavittandPatel,1999,p.110).Someofthesefindings,especiallythefirstclaim,areinmanywayscontrarytothepopularviewoftheincreasingimportanceofglobalizationofeconomicactivity.Theyarethereforecontroversial.Muchofthecontroversystemsfromviewinginternationalizationfromdifferentperspectives.Mostoftheliteratureonglobalizationfocusesontheactivitiesoffirmsasman-ifestedininternationaltradeandforeigndirectinvest-ment.Theseactivitieshaveunquestionablyincreasedoverthelastseveraldecades.OneoftheimportantcontributionsofKeithPavitt’sresearchoninternation-alizationisthatitfocusesontheR&Dactivitiesoffirmsasdistinctfromotheractivitieswithinfirmsandfindsthatthistypeofactivityislessinternationalizedthanothers.Anotherperspectiveoninternationalizationisobtainedifonelooksatnetworksoralliancesamongfirms;theseareobservedtobeincreasinglyinterna-tionalwhilealsobeingorientedtowardsR&D.Other

perspectivesoninternationalizationinvolveviewingnotonlytheactivitiesoffirmsbutalsofinancialinsti-tutions,universities,businessandpolicyagencies,laws,cultureandsocialnormsatregionalornationallevels.

Pavitt’sworkinthisarenacoincidedwiththeemer-genceofresearchoninnovationsystems,particularlynationalinnovationsystems,andinfluenced,aswellaswasinfluencedby,thisnewresearch.Itisinteresting,therefore,toexaminewhattheliteratureoninnova-tionsystemshastosayonthesematters,andhowthefindingsoninnovationsystemsrelatetothoseview-inginnovativeactivitiesfromotherperspectives.ArePavitt’sviewsconfirmedornot,andwheredotheyfit?

Thepaperisorganizedasfollows.Webeginwithabitofbackgroundonthestudyofinnovationsys-tems.Wethenreviewtheliteratureoninnovationsystemswithrespecttointernationalization,begin-ningwithdirectempiricalstudiesofinternational-izationofinnovationsystems.Thisisfollowedbyareviewofstudiesonglobalization/internationalizationofcorporateR&D,viewedfromaninnovationsys-temsperspective.Wethenexaminetheliteratureoninstitutionalbarrierstointernationalizationandrelatedissues.Thefindingsarediscussedintheconcludingsection.

2.Background:thestudyofinnovationsystemsThestudyofinnovationsystemsbeganatSPRUinthe1980s.GiventheoriginatSPRU,Pavittwascer-tainlyawareofthiswork,evenifhewasnotdirectlyinvolvedinit.Thenotionof‘innovationsystem’isrootedinFriedrichList’sconcept‘nationalsystemsofproduction’(List,1841).AccordingtoLundvall(2003),Freeman(1982)firstusedtheterm‘nationalsystemofinnovation’inanunpublishedpaper.TheideawaspickedupbyseveralscholarsinbothEuropeandtheUnitedStatesnetworkingwithFreemanandhiscolleaguesatSPRU.Lundvall(1985)atAalborgUniversitypublishedabookin1985inwhichthecon-cept‘innovationsystem’appeared(althoughwithouttheadjective‘national’).Thefirstpublicationusingtheterm‘nationalinnovationsystem’wasFreeman’sbookonJapan(Freeman,1987).Thefollowingyear,aneditedvolumeonTechnologyandEconomicTheory

58B.Carlsson/ResearchPolicy35(2006)56–67

(editedbyDosietal.,1988)containedfourchaptersonnationalinnovationsystems(Freeman,1988;Lundvall,1988;Nelson,1988;Pelikan,1988).Anotherbookpub-lishedthesameyear(FreemanandLundvall,1988)alsocontainedacoupleofchaptersonnationalinnovationsystems(AndersenandLundvall,1988;Gregersen,1988).

Anationalsystemofinnovationmaybedefinedasthatsetofdistinctinstitutionswhichjointlyandindi-viduallycontributetothedevelopmentanddiffusionofnewtechnologiesandwhichprovidestheframe-workwithinwhichgovernmentsformandimplementpoliciestoinfluencetheinnovationprocess.Assuchitisasystemofinterconnectedinstitutionstocreate,storeandtransfertheknowledge,skillsandartifacts,whichdefinenewtechnologies.Theelementofnation-alityfollowsnotonlyfromthedomainoftechnologypolicybutalsofromelementsofsharedlanguageandculturewhichbindthesystemtogether,andfromthenationalfocusofotherpolicies,lawsandregulationswhichconditiontheinnovativeenvironment(Metcalfe,1997,p.2).

Itwassoonrecognizedthat,dependingonthepur-poseoftheinquiry,themostusefuldefinitionofinnovationsystemsmightnotcoincidewithnationalborders.Thus,in1988agroupofSwedishscholarscommencedparallelworkon‘technologicalsystems’focusingoninnovationsinparticulartechno-economicareas.Suchsystemsmayormaynotbegeograph-icallyandinstitutionallylocalizedwithinnationsorregionsbuttheymayhavelinkstosupportinginstitu-tionselsewhere.ThisworkhasresultedinastreamofpublicationsbeginningwithCarlssonandStankiewicz(1991)andsummarizedinbookseditedbyCarlsson(1995,1997,2002).Somewhatlatertheterm‘regionalinnovationsystems’wasused,focusingoninnova-tiveactivitieswithingeographicregionsatthesub-orsupra-nationallevel(Cooke,1992).Similarly,in1997thenotionof‘sectoralinnovationsystems’waslaunched(BreschiandMalerba,1997).Thus,therearenowfourdefinitionsofinnovationsystemscom-monlyusedintheliterature:national,regional,sec-toralandtechnological.Inaddition,recentlytherehasemergedabranchofliteraturedealingwithothercon-ceptsofinnovationsystems,particularlyatthefirmlevel.

Thenotionofinnovationsystemshasspawnedarichfieldofresearchineconomicsandrelateddis-ciplines.Bytheendof2002,about750publicationshadappeared.1ThisliteratureissurveyedinCarlsson(2003).Thetaskinthepresentpaperistoexaminethisliteraturewithregardtointernationalizationofinnova-tionsystems.About250ofthe750innovationsystemstudieshavetermssuchas“global”or“international”intheirtitle,keywordsorabstract(ortableofcon-tents,inthecaseofbooks).Aftercarefulscreening,about35%(87entries)arelabeled“global”or“inter-national”intheclassificationschemeusedinthestudy(seeCarlsson,2003fordetails).Mostoftheseare‘international’inthesensethattheymakeinternationalcomparisonsofsystemsatvariouslevels(national,regional,sectoralortechnological).Only36entriesdealwiththeprocessofinternationalizationorglob-alizationoftechnologyorofinnovationsystems.Itshouldbenoted,however,thatthereisavastlitera-tureoninternationalizationofcorporateR&D,onlyaportionofwhichappearsinthisdatabasethatdealsonlywithinnovationsystems.Twenty-twoofthe36entriesarejournalarticles;therestarebooksandbookchapters.

Forthepurposesofthisstudy,theentriesweregroupedunderthefollowingheadings:

(1)empiricalstudiesofinternationalizationofinnova-tionsystems;

(2)internationalization/globalizationof(corporate)

R&D;

(3)institutionalbarrierstointernationalization;(4)otherstudies.

3.Empiricalstudiesofinternationalizationofinnovationsystems

Itturnsoutthatthereareonlyfivestudiesexplicitlyexamininginternationalizationempiricallyatthesys-temlevel(NiosiandBellon,1994,1996;Bartholomew,1997;Fransman,1999;Niosietal.,2000).

1

Therewereseveralprecursors(Bowersetal.,1981;Krupp,1984;Saviotti,1986)basedontheengineeringconceptof‘technologicalsystems’referringtocomplexsystemsofphysicalartifactssuchaslargeelectricalsystems(Hughes,1983;Bijker,ThomasandPinch,1987;MayntzandHughes,1988).Thisliteratureisnotincludedinthisnumber.

B.Carlsson/ResearchPolicy35(2006)56–6759

ThemostcomprehensiveofthesestudiesarethosebyNiosiandBellon(1994,1996).2Theseauthorsstud-iedthedegreeofopennessofnationalinnovationsys-temsintheUnitedStates,JapanandleadingcountriesinEurope.InternationalizationwasmeasuredbyR&Dinmultinationalfirms,internationaltechnicalalliances,internationaltechnologytransfer,internationaltradeofcapitalgoodsandinternationalflowsofscientificandtechnicalpersonnel.Theyconcludedthat

(1)Therearewidenationaldifferencesbetweencoun-triesintherateandtypesofglobalizationoftheirNIS.Smallercountriesareatoneendofthespec-trum,withhighlevelsofflowsofscientificandtechnologicalknowledgeandembodiedtechnol-ogycrossingtheirborders,whilelargercountriesaremoreself-sufficientandthuslessaffectedbyinternationaltechnologicalandscientificflows.(2)Allthetypesofflowsstudiedareconsiderable,

mostfiguresbeinginthe10–30%rangeascom-paredwithnationalstocks.Also,alltypesofinter-nationalflowsaregrowingandtherateofgrowthofsomeofthemhasbeenacceleratingoverthepast10years,asifglobalizationtrendswerespeedingup.NISsmayappearless‘national’todaythantheydid20yearsago.

(3)Differenttypesofflowsdifferintheirintensity,

withpatentsenjoyingthehighestdegreeofinterna-tionalglobalization(butbeingalsotheleastindica-tiveofactualflows),andresearchers(oneofthebestindicatorsofflows)probablythelowest.Sci-entificinternationalcooperationflowstendtobemoreintensethantechnologicalones,reflectingthedisembodiednatureofpureknowledge,gov-ernmentsupportofinternationalizationandscien-tificcreationwithinmostlypublicorsemi-publicinstitutions.

(4)TheEuropeanUnionappearstobetheonlymajor

supranationalscientificandtechnologicalblocknowemerging.Japanseemstobemuchlessinter-nationalized(anditsinternationalizationisaimedprincipallyattheUSA),andCanada–USAinter-action(inspiteofNAFTA)islessevidentthanintheEU.

2

Niosietal.(2000)focusesprimarilyonCanada’ssystemofinno-vationbuttouchesalsoontheextentofitsintegrationwiththatintheUnitedStates.

(5)Finally,nationalpoliciesseemtoplayakeyrole,

withsomecountriesfilteringtheflows(Japan),andothersbeingmoreopentotheentryandexitofsci-enceandtechnologyresourcesandproducts(liketheUSAandCanada)(NiosiandBellon,1996,pp.153–154).TheoverallconclusionofNiosiandBellonisthatthroughimitation,technologydiffusionandtransfer,nationalsystemsmayconvergeuptoapoint.Theyalsonotethatthereareimpedimentstoconvergenceintheformof“differentnaturalfactorendowments,cumu-lativeeffectsofindustrialorganizationandspecializa-tion,differentnationalstocksofknowledge,differentnationaleconomicandpoliticalinstitutions”(NiosiandBellon,1996,p.156).Thus,whilenationalinnovationsystemsarebecomingmoreintertwinedandcomplex,thelocalandnationalnetworksarestillimportant.Bartholomew(1997)alsostudiedtheinterdepen-denceofnationalsystemsinseveralcountries,namelytheUnitedStates,UnitedKingdom,JapanandGer-many.Butthestudyislimitedtobiotechnology,andthuscoversonlyaportionoftheoverallnationalinno-vationsystemineachcountry.BartholomewfoundthatnationalpatternsinbiotechnologyR&Darelinkedtotheconfigurationofcountry-specificinstitutionalfea-turestoformasystemthateithersupportsorimpedestheaccumulationanddiffusionofknowledgebetweenthescientificandindustrialcommunities.Shearguedthatthe“particularcharacteristicsofnationalsystemsofbiotechnologyinnovationformthebasisforcom-plexinterdependencewithintheglobalsystem,throughinternationaltechnologicalcooperationandthecross-borderadoptionandadaptationofinstitutionalformsandpractices”(p.141).Sheconcludedthat

tappingintoforeigninnovationsystemsthroughinter-nationalcooperativealliancesgivesfirmsaccesstoawiderrangeofsolutionstotechnologicalproblems.Formingcross-borderalliancesthusmaybeoneofthemostimportantmeansforfirmstoenhancetheirinnovativecapabilityinbiotechnology,underscoringthegrowingsignificanceofinter-firmpartneringinthenewageofalliancecapitalism(p.262).

Fransman(1999),ontheotherhand,madeanin-depthstudyofanationalinnovationsystemanditsdegreeofinternationalization,buttheanalysisis

60B.Carlsson/ResearchPolicy35(2006)56–67

restrictedtoonlyonecountry,Japan,andthedevelop-mentofitsnationalinnovationsysteminthe1970sand1980s.Fransmanusedmeasuresofinternation-alizationsimilartothoseusedbyNiosiandBellon,applyingthemtotheactivitiesofcompaniesandgov-ernmentaswellasuniversities.HeconcludedthateventhoughJapanstilllagsbehindothercountriesintermsoftheglobalizationofitsscienceandtechnologysys-tem,thedegreeofinternationalizationhasincreasedsignificantlyoverthelastdecades;theJapanesesys-temisnowless‘self-contained’thanitwaspreviously(pp.177–178).FransmanalsodiscussedtheroleoftheJapanesegovernment,particularlyMITI(theMinistryofInternationalTradeandIndustry),instrengtheningthescienceandtechnologybaseofJapanesecompa-nies.Henotedthat

whileforeigncompanieswerebothallowedandencouragedtojoinMITI’snationalR&Dprogrammesfrom19,theseprogramscontinuetobesetwithnationalobjectivesinmind.TheobjectivesincludestrengtheningthecompetitivenessofJapanesecompa-niesandincreasingbasicandscientificresearchcapa-bilitiesinJapan.Inotherwords,whileforeigncompa-niesareencouragedtojointheseprograms,theyarenotallowedtoinfluencethechoiceofprograminthefirstplacenortheobjectivesoftheprogram(p.188).FransmansummarizedtheroleofMITIinthefol-lowingway:

MITIhasrespondedtotheglobalizationofscienceandtechnologybyretainingitsobjectivesofstrength-eningboththecompetitivenessofJapanesecompa-niesandJapanesecompetenciesinbasicresearchandscience;byinternationalizingitsnationalcooperativeR&Dprogramsbyallowingandencouragingthepar-ticipationofforeigncompanies;andbytakingtheinitiativeinestablishingfullyinternationalizedcoop-erativeresearchprogramswhoseobjectivesandmodusoperandiarenegotiatedwiththeotherparticipatingcountries(p.1).

Thus,theevidencewehavefromempiricalstud-iesofinternationalizationofinnovationsystemsisnotextensive,butitseemstopointuniformlytoincreas-inginterdependenceofinnovationsystemsinvariouscountries.Itislessclearhowimportantthisinterdepen-

denceis,forexample,isthe10–30%figurereportedbyNiosiandBellonalargeorsmallnumber?Thequality,content,typeandthereforesignificanceofinteractionaredifficulttocapture,especiallyatthenationallevel.Moreresearchisclearlyneeded.However,eachoftheauthorsalsoemphasizestheimportanceofnationalpoliciesandinstitutions.Thatis,tosay,whateverthedegreeofinternationalizationofinnovationsystems,nationalpoliciesandinstitutionsstillplayacrucialrole.

4.Internationalization/globalizationofR&DMoststudiesonglobalizationofinnovative3activitydealwithR&Datthecorporatelevel.Giventhatthefocusinthepresentpaperisonthenationalorothersystemlevel,onlythatpartoftheliteraturewhichlinkscorporateR&Dtothesystemlevelisreviewedhere.ThereisnodoubtthattheR&Dactivitiesoffirmsarebeingincreasinglyinternationalized(asmeasured,forexample,bytheproportionofindustryR&Dexpen-dituresfinancedfromforeignsources,thenumberofinternationalalliances,etc.),althoughthedegreeofinternationalizationvariesamongcountries.Rather,thequestionishowtointerprettheevidence.

PatelandPavitt(1991),Tiddetal.(1997),Patel(1997),PavittandPatel(1999)andPatelandVega(1999)questiontheideathattechnologyisbecomingglobalevenifR&Dactivitiesarebeinginternation-alized.Thus,Patel(1997)concludesthat“thereisnosystematicevidence...tosuggestthatwidespreadglobalizationoftheproductionoftechnologyoccurredinthe1980s.Theevidence...,basedontheUSpatentingactivitiesof569firms(basedin13countriesandin17productgroups),showsthatforanover-whelmingmajorityofthemtechnologicalactivitiesarelocatedclosetothehome-base”(p.211).Thisisconsistentwiththeevidenceonpatentingactivitiesabroad.Patelconcedesthattherehasbeenanincreaseintheproportionofactivitiesundertakenbyfirmsfromoverseaslocationsbutnotesthat“thelargestincreasesininternationalizationhaveoccurredasaresultofmergersandacquisitionsandnotbymeansoforganicgrowth”(p.212).HefindsthatUKlargefirmsarethe

3

OverviewsofthisliteratureareavailableinArchibugiandMichie(1995,1997),Archibugietal.(1999)andaspecialissueofResearchPolicy(vol.28,2–3,March1999).

B.Carlsson/ResearchPolicy35(2006)56–6761

mostandJapanesefirmstheleastinternationalizedintermsoftheirtechnologicalactivities.ThemainideaisthateveniftheR&Dactivitiesofmultinationalfirmsareincreasinglybeingcarriedoutawayfromthehomecenter,theinternationalizationhasnotgoneveryfar;R&Dismuchlessinternationalizedthanothercorporateactivities,notablyproduction.

Otherauthorstakeadifferentview.WhileitiswidelyknownthatthevolumeofFDIhasbeenincreas-ingrapidlyoverthelasttwodecades,severalauthorsnotethattheincreaseinFDIiscloselylinkedtothestrategiesoffirmswithrespecttotechnologyacqui-sition,diversificationandexploitationandthatthesestrategieshavevariedovertime(Cantwell,1995,1997;CantwellandPiscitello,2000;CarlssonandMudambi,2003;Cantwelletal.,2004;Piscitello,2004;LeBasandPatel,2005).Intheinter-warandearlypost-waryears,largefirmstendedtodiversifytheirtechnologicalcompetencebytakingadvantageofscaleeconomies,especiallyviaexportsfromthehomecountry.Theirinternationalizationwasaimedprimarilyatthewiderexploitationinforeignmarketsofthebasiccompetencetheyhadalreadyestablishedathome.R&Dactivi-tieswereinternationalizedonlytoalimitedextentandmostlyorientedtoadaptingproductstoeachmarket.Bythemid-1970s,theseopportunitiesforlarge-scaleproductionhadbeengraduallyexhausted.Firmsbeganinvestinginsteadinbroadeningtheircompetencebaseforexistingproductlineswhilealsoexpandingtheirproductlines(GranstrandandSj¨olander,1990,1992).

Inthe1990s,therateoftechnologicalchangespeededupanditbecameincreasinglydifficultforfirmstodiversifytheirtechnologybaseatasufficientpace.Firmsbeganincreasinglytorelyoninternationalnetworksinordertoexploitthecompetenceoffor-eigncentersofexcellence.“Anewlyemergingcom-plementaritybetweencompetenceaccumulationandthediversificationandinternationalizationofcorporatetechnologyisthusatwork”(CantwellandPiscitello,2000,p.44).

Thus,intheearlypost-warperiod,technologywasanimportantdriverofexportsandeventuallyofFDIpri-marilyinproductionfacilitiesasthecompanies’pres-enceinforeignmarketsincreased.Morerecently,thedesiretoacquiretechnologyhasbeenamajormotiveformultinationalfirmstolocateR&Dfacilitiesabroad.

Therequiredinvestmentshavetendedtoclusterincer-taingeographicregions....Thisexplainswhytherehasbeenashiftinattentionawayfromthemultinationalcorporations(MNCs)asamerevehicleoftechnologytransfertowardsthecrucialroleitplaysasacreatorofinnovationandtechnologicalknowledge”(CarlssonandMudambi,2003,p.104).

Cantwell(1997)showsthatnotonlytheextentbutalsothecharacterofinternationalR&DactivitiesofMNCshavechanged.Insteadofexploitinghomecountry-basedadvantagesabroadtheyarenowdoingR&Dabroad.

Technologyleadershavealteredthenatureofinter-nationaltechnologycreationbypioneeringtheinter-nationalintegrationofMNCfacilitiesintoregionalorglobalnetworks.Globalizationinthissenseinvolvestheestablishmentofnewinternationalstructuresfortechnologycreation.Inthepast,foreigntechnolog-icalactivityexploiteddomesticstrengthsabroad,itwaslocatedinresponsetolocaldemandconditions,itassistedinthegrowthofotherhigh-incomeareas,anditsrolerangedfromtheadaptationofproductstosuitlocaltastesthroughtotheestablishmentofnewlocalindustries.Atthattimethecapacitytodevelopinterna-tionallydispersedinnovationsderivedfromapositionoftechnologicalstrengthinthefirm’shomecountrybase,andledtosimilarlinesoftechnologicaldevelop-mentbeingestablishedabroad.Bycontrast,today,forcompaniesoftheleadingcentres,foreigntechnologicalactivitynowincreasinglyaimstotapintolocalfieldsofexpertise,andtoprovideafurthersourceofnewtech-nologythatcanbeutilisedinternationallyintheotheroperationsoftheMNC.Inthisrespect,innovationintheleadingMNCsisnowmoregenuinelyinternationalor,intheterminologyusedhere,ithasbecome‘glob-alized’(Cantwell,1997,p.236).Cantwellnotes,however,that

[i]tisstilltruethatthehomecountryisgenerallythesinglemostimportantsiteforcorporatetechnologicaldevelopment....Theaffiliatesoftheleadingcom-paniesinothermajorcentersmaybethoughtofasconstitutinganinteractivenetwork.Cross-investmentsbetweenthemajorcentersinthemosttechnologi-callydynamicindustries...haveprobablyhelpedto

62B.Carlsson/ResearchPolicy35(2006)56–67

reinforcetheexistingpatternofgeographicalspecial-ization,andtheimportanceofthesecentersaslocationsforinnovation.Havingbeenthefirsttoestablishaninternationalspreadoftechnologicalactivity,MNCsfromtheleadingcentersinagivenindustrynowexploitlocationaldiversityinpathsofinnovationtoagreaterextentthandootherfirms(Cantwell,1997,p.237).Takingtheanalysisonestepfurther,CantwellandSantangelo(2000),writingoncorporatenetworksandusingUSpatentdata,showthatMNCsarenowmorelikelythaninthepasttoexpandtheirR&Dactivitiesbeyondtheirhome-base,buttheyalsofindthatthetech-nologiestheydevelopabroadarelessscience-basedandlessdependentupontacitknowledgethanthosedevelopedathome.However,withinthescience-basedindustries,firmsmaygenerateabroadsometechnolo-giesthatareheavilydependentontacitknowledge,butnormallyinfieldsthatlieoutsidetheirowncoretech-nologicalcompetencies.Thus,theknowledgebaseathomestillplaysanimportantrole.

LeBasandSierra(2002)confirmthisview.Theystudiedthestrategiesofthe345multinationalfirmswiththegreatestpatentingactivityinEurope.Theyfoundthatnearly70%ofthefirmslocatetheiractivi-tiesabroadintechnologicalareasorfieldswheretheyarestrongathome,withhome-baseaugmentingFDIinR&Dbeingamoreprevalentstrategythanhome-baseexploitingFDI.Technology-seekingandmarket-seekingFDIinR&Dturnedouttobemuchlessfre-quentstrategies.

Onthislatterpoint,Meyer-KrahmerandReger(1999)takeaslightlydifferentview.Theyfindthatqualitativemotives,suchaslearningfromtechnolog-icalexcellenceinleadmarketsanddynamicinterac-tionswithinthevaluechain,areincreasinglydrivingR&Dlocationdecisions.Theyalsofindthattheprocessofinternationalizationinresearchandtechnologyhasbeenaccompaniedbyanincreasinglyselectivefocusononlyaveryfewlocationsandtheconcentrationofinnovationactivitiesonworldwidecentersofexcel-lence.Likemanyotherscholarstheynotethatinterna-tionalR&Dactivitiesarestillheavilyfocusedwithinthe‘triad’oftheUnitedStates,EuropeandJapan.Theoverallimpressiononegetsfromthislitera-tureoninternationalizationofcorporateR&Disthatthedegreeofinternationalizationhasindeedincreasedoverthelastcoupleofdecadesandthatthenature

ofR&Dactivityabroadhaschangedinthefollowingways:itislargelyconductedwithincorporatenetworks(i.e.itisinter-nationalbutintra-firm),ittendstoaug-menthome-basetechnologicalcompetenceratherthansimplyexploitingitabroad,ittendstobelessscience-basedthantheR&Dconductedathome,andinthecaseswhenitdoesinvolvescience-basedactivitiesittendstobeinfieldsoutsidethecompanies’corecom-petencies.

“Technologicalcompetitionhasincreasinglybecomeglobalinscopeandrelatedtechnologylifecycleshaveshortened;firmshavecorrectlyrespondedtothisneworderbyimplementingmultifacetedinnovationstrate-giesthatreflectanewphilosophyabouttheinterde-pendenceofcompetingfirms.Speedininnovationisincreasinglybecomingthestrategicbenchmarkuponwhichcompetitivesurvivalwillbebenchmarked.Assuch,firmsarepartneringwithotherfirms,organiza-tionsandinstitutionsinanefforttosurvive,andarethustradingoffalossinappropriabilityfortiming”(DelaMotheandLink,2002,p.266).

ThesefindingsprovidepartialconfirmationofPavittandPatel’sviews.NotonlyhavetheR&Dactiv-itiesoffirmsbecomeincreasinglyinternationalized(asacknowledgedbyPavittandPatel);therearealsoindicationsthatthroughinternationalnetworks,oftenwithinmultinationalfirms,technologyhasalsobecomeincreasinglyglobalized(contrarytoPavittandPatel)atleastafter1990.4

Doesthismeanthatnationalpoliciesandnationalinnovationsystemsarebecomingirrelevant?Thatisthequestiontowhichwenowturn.

5.Arenationalsystemsofinnovationstillimportant?

PavittandPatelclaimthat,“farfrombeingirrel-evant,whathappensinhomecountriesisstillvery

4

ButitisstilltruethatR&DandinnovativeactivitiesarelessinternationalizedthanotheractivitiesofMNCssuchasproductionandFDI(thiswasPavittandPatel’smainpoint),andtotheextentthatR&Dactivitiescrossnationalborderstheyarestillmoreinter-national(involvingmorethanonecountry’sinstitutions)thanglobal(involvingmostorallcountries).

B.Carlsson/ResearchPolicy35(2006)56–6763

importantinthecreationofglobaltechnologicaladvan-tageforfirms.Thus,forpolicyanalysisitbecomesimportanttounderstandthenatureofthecountry-spe-cificfactorsthathaveaninfluenceincreatingnationaltechnologicaladvantage,includingthecompetitivecli-mate,thefinancialsystemandeducation,trainingandbasicresearchinstitutions”(Patel,1997,p.212).

Onthispointthereisnotmuchdisagreementamongauthors.Forexample,Freeman(1995)arguesthatinspiteofincreasinginternationalizationofinnovativeactivity,nationalandregionalsystemsofinnovationremainessential.Theirimportancederivesfromthenetworksofrelationships,whicharenecessaryforanyfirmtoinnovate.Whileexternalinternationalconnec-tionsareofgrowingimportance,theinfluenceofthenationaleducationsystem,industrialrelations,tech-nicalandscientificinstitutions,governmentpolicies,culturaltraditionsandmanyothernationalinstitu-tionsisfundamental.Inmanyways,suchinstitutionsarewhatmakeeachsystemunique.Theyrepresentalegacyofthepastandchangeonlyverygradually,therebycreatingstrongpathdependence.AsPavitt(1998)hasargued,thenationalsciencebaseissociallyconstructed:itisinfluencedbythecountry’slevelofeconomicdevelopmentandthecompositionofitseco-nomicandsocialactivities.Nelson(1992),reflectingonamajorcomparativestudyofnationalinnovationsystems,notesthattherearebothsimilaritiesanddiffer-encesamongcountriesininstitutionalarrangements,thattheyarepersistentovertime,andthatthedistinctivenationalcharacterofinnovationsystemsisthereforelikelytoremain.

Manyoftheinstitutionsrelevanttoinnovationsys-temsarenationalwhileothersareimportantattheregionalorevenlocallevel,andothersyetarespecifictoparticularsectorsortechnologies.Theirinfluencemaybepositiveornegativewithrespecttotheevolu-tionofaninnovationsysteminaparticulardomain.Theimportantpointisthatwhileinstitutionsareimportantfortheformationandfunctioningofparticularinno-vationsystems,theymayalso,bytheirverynature,impedeinternationalizationofinnovationsystems.Forexample,Foray(1995)analyzesthepersis-tenceofnationalspecificitiesintheintellectualprop-ertyrightssystems.Heshowsthatthepath-dependentnatureofanyinstitutionalarrangementisanobstacletotheinternationalstandardizationofthenationalsys-temsofintellectualpropertyrights(p.126):

“[T]hespecificitiesoftheinnovationsystems,towhicheachintellectualpropertyrightsregimeislinked,areanobstacletothestandardizationoftheseregimes.Toachieveasingle,globalregimewouldthusrequireareductioninthediversityoftheinnovationsystemsthemselves.However,...thiskindofdiversityisakeyfeatureoftheprocessofscientificandtechnologicalchange...[and]hasbeenthecentralfeatureofwest-erncapitalism[which]hasbeen...characterizedbyatrulyextraordinarypatternoforganizationaldiversity”(Foray,1995,p.128).

Otherinstitutionsexhibitsimilarfeatures.Educa-tion(includinghighereducation)ispredominantlypubliclyfundedinmostcountries.Thisgivestheedu-cationalsystemineachcountryitsdistinctivefeatures.Thisislikelytoremainso.Evenifhigh-levelscientistsanddoctoralstudentsworkandstudyabroad,theinter-nationalflowswillnotmateriallyaffectthelargebulkofstudentsathome.Also,mostfundingofbasicresearchcomesfrompublicsources(somemilitary)andtendstoreinforceexistingareasofstrengthineachcountry;internationalfundingoftransnationalresearchprojectsisnotlikelytomateriallychangetheresearchpro-filesofnations.Otherpublicinfrastructure,financialinstitutions,fiscal,monetaryandtradepolicies,lawsandotherinstitutionschangeonlyverygradually.Forreasonssuchasthese,GregersenandJohnson(1997),forexample,indiscussinghowtheprocessofEuro-peanintegrationaffectsnationalsystemsofinnovation,arguethatEuropeanintegrationwillnotdoawaywithnationalsystemsofinnovationinEuropeandthatonlyaverypartialEuropeansystemofinnovationinanar-rowsenseofthetermislikelytoemerge.

6.Otherbarrierstointernationalization

Besidesinstitutionsthereareotherimpedimentstointernationalizationofinnovationsystems.Forexam-ple,R&D-intensiveindustriessuchasbiotechnology,softwareandcomputerstendtobehighlyconcentratedspatially.Thisisdueinlargemeasuretothenatureofknowledge:oftentacitandthereforedifficulttotrans-fer.Knowledgespilloversaremostlylocal,notnationalandcertainlynotinternational.Closegeographicprox-imityandgoodconnectivityamongtheentitiesarerequiredforsuccessfulspilloverstotakeplace;this

B.Carlsson/ResearchPolicy35(2006)56–67

leadstotheformationofclusters.Leadingresearchuni-versitiestendtoplayanimportantroleinsuchclusters.Foreign-ownedmultinationalfirmsmaylocateactivi-tiesinsuchenvironmentsinordertotakeadvantageofspilloveropportunities(throughjointresearchventuresorhiringofcompetentpersonnel),thusovercomingthebarriersimposedbythenatureofknowledge.Itisofteneasiertoabsorbnewknowledgeandappropriatetheresultswithinanorganizationthanacrossorgani-zationalboundaries.Indeed,thisisanimportantpartofwhatinternationalizationofR&Disallabout.

Industryclustersandregionalinnovationsystemscanthusbeviewedasvehiclesforinternationalizationoftechnology.Thetechnologyflowscanobviouslygobothways,i.e.bothoutboundandinbound.MoweryandOxley(1997),forexample,discusstheroleofnationalsystemsofinnovationininwardtechnologytransferduringthepost-warperiod.Theyreachthreebroadconclusions:

(i)Themixofchannelsthroughwhichaneconomyobtainstechnologyfromforeignsourcesappearstobelessimportantthantheoverallefforttoexploitforeignsourcesoftechnology.

(ii)Thecontributionofnationalinnovationsystems

totheinwardtransferoftechnologyintheearlystagesofthisprocessoperatesmainlythroughthecreationofaskilledproductionandtechnicallaborforce.

(iii)Thecontributionofnationalinnovationsystemsto

inwardtechnologytransferandcompetitivenessiscriticallyaffectedbyoveralleconomicandtradepolicies,whicharemostsuccessfulwhentheyenforcecompetitivepressureondomesticfirmsinarelativelystablemacroeconomicenvironment(MoweryandOxley,1997,p.162).Mytelka(2000)alsodealswiththenotionofnationalinnovationsystemsasvehiclesforintegratingtheroleoftransnationalcorporationsandinternationalrulesanddisciplinesinlearningandinnovationindevel-opingcountriesandtransforminglocalclustersintoinnovationsystems.

Somecountries(especiallyTaiwanandSouthKorea)havebuilttheirdevelopmentstrategyonlearn-ingfromtheleadersinspecifictargetedareas.Theyhavebuilttheirinnovationsystemstobenefitfromspillovers.Forexample,Chang(1999)studiedhowSouthKoreaandTaiwanwereabletocatchupwiththe

internationalleadersinsemiconductorsinthe1990sbysystematicallybuildingtheirnationalinnovationsystemssoastotakeadvantageoftechnologyintheUnitedStatesandJapan.SungandCarlsson(2003)examinedasimilarstrategyinbuildingupcomputernumericalcontroltechnologycapabilityinKorea.Bothofthesestudiesshowhownationalpolicies(e.g.tradeandindustrialpolicies)andinstitutions(e.g.financialsystemandindustrialresearchinstitutes)werebuilttosupporttheactivitiesofprivatefirms.

Internationalizationofinnovationsystemsthroughstrategiesoftappingintoinnovationsystemselsewhereasnotconfinedtodevelopingcountriesinacatching-upphase,however.Forexample,Carlsson(1995)showsthatSweden,arguablytheworldleaderintheuseoffactoryautomationtechnologyinthe1980s,reliedonforeignsuppliersandnetworkingwithforeignfirmsforthree-quartersoftherelevanttechnology.Thisisunlikelytobeanisolatedandrarecase.Thefunc-tionoftherelevantinstitutionsatboththenationalandtechnology-specificlevelsisprimarilytoenhancetheabilityofentitieswithinthesystemtolearnfromtheleadersinthefieldregardlessoflocation.Onesus-pectsthatwheninnovationsystemsarestudiedatsub-nationallevels,theknowledgeandtechnologyflowsacrossgeographicboundaries(includingnationalbor-ders)willbefoundtobesubstantial.Butthusfartherearenotmanystudiesofthatsort.Studiesofinstitutionsthatmakeuptheinnovationsystemsatthenationallevelareunlikelytoprovidesuchevidence.

7.Reflectionsandconclusions

Asshownintheprecedingsection,thereisamplesupportfortheclaimbyPavittthattheinnovativeactiv-itiesoffirmsaresignificantlyinfluencedbytheirhomecountry’snationalsystemofinnovation.Butthereisalsoevidencethatnationalinnovationsystemsthem-selvesarebecominginternationalized,eveniftheinsti-tutionsthatsupportthemremaincountry-specific.Althoughthereisalargeliteratureontheinterna-tionalizationofeconomicactivity(includingR&D)atthecorporatelevel,therearerelativelyfewstudiesofthedegreeofinternationalizationofinnovationsys-tems.Thehandfulofstudiesthathaveaddressedtheissueempiricallyuniformlyshowincreasinginterna-tionalization.Totheextentthatthefarmorenumerous

B.Carlsson/ResearchPolicy35(2006)56–6765

studiesofinternationalizationofcorporateR&Ddis-cussinnovationsystemsatall,theypointtothecon-tinuedimportanceofnationalinstitutionstosupportinnovativeactivity,eventhoughthatactivityisbecom-ingincreasinglyinternationalized.Severalstudieshaveshownthattherearebarrierstointernationalizationinherentininnovativeactivityintheformofspatialboundednessofknowledgespilloversaswellascer-tainfeaturessuchasnationalspecificitiesofintellectualpropertyrightsthatmakenationalinnovationsystemsunique.Nevertheless,thereareexamplesofstrategiesthathaveovercomesuchbarriers,especiallyinTaiwanandKorea.

Afewreflectionsonthesefindingsseemwarranted.Oneisthat,inviewofthefactthatmoststudiesofinnovationsystemsfocusonnationalinnovationsys-tems,itisnotsurprisingthatlittledirectevidenceisfoundthatinnovationsystemsarebecomingglobal.Themainfocusinthisliteratureisoninstitutionsatthenationallevel.Butnationalinstitutionsmayinfluenceinnovationsystemsatregional,sectoralortechnolog-icallevelsdifferently.However,attheselowerlevelstherehasbeenlittleworkdonewithaviewtowardinternationalizationofsystems(asdistinctfromcorpo-rateinnovativeactivity).Also,notallinstitutionsarenational.Forlargefirms,nationalinstitutionsmaybemostimportant,whileforsmallandnewfirms,sub-nationalinstitutionsmayalsobeimportant.

Anotherreflectionisthatinnovationsystemsmayhavebecomemore‘leaky’overtime.TheroleoftacitknowledgeandthespatiallimitsonknowledgespillovershavecausedfirmstolocateR&Dfacilitieswherenewknowledgeisbeingcreated.Astheirabsorp-tivecapacityincreasesandtheylearntotransferknowl-edgewithintheirorganizationsandinthenetworksandalliancesinwhichtheyparticipate,thesefirmsbecomevehiclesforinternationalizationofinnovationsystems.Itremainstobeseenwhethertheorganiza-tionalandinstitutionalbarrierstoknowledgetransferwillbereducedquicklyenoughforinternationalizationtocontinueorwhethernewbarrierswillarisesimilartothosethatreducedinternationalactivitiesinthe1920sand1930s.

Finally,itisworthnotingthatmoststudiesofinno-vationsystemsdealmainlywithgenerationandonlytoalimitedextentwiththediffusionofinnovations,i.e.theylookonlyatthesupplysideofinnovation.Inordertounderstandhowsuccessfulinnovationsys-

temsareingeneratingeconomicgrowth,onewouldhavetoincludethedemandsideaswell,includingentrepreneurialactivityandbusinessformation.

References

Andersen,E.S.,Lundvall,B.-A.,

˚1988.Smallnationalsystemsofinnovationfacingtechnologicalrevolutions:ananalyticalframe-work.In:Freeman,C.,Lundvall,B.A.(Eds.),SmallCountriesFacingtheTechnologicalRevolution.Pinter,LondonandNewYork,pp.9–36.

Archibugi,D.,Michie,J.,1995.Theglobalizationoftechnology—a

NewTaxonomy.CambridgeJournalofEconomics19(1),121–140.

Archibugi,D.,Michie,J.,1997.Technologicalglobalisationor

nationalsystemsofinnovation?Futures29(2),121–137.

Archibugi,D.,Howells,J.,etal.,1999.Innovationsystemsinaglobal

economy.TechnologyAnalysis&StrategicManagement11(4),527–539.

Bartholomew,S.,1997.Nationalsystemsofbiotechnologyinnova-tion:complexinterdependenceintheglobalsystem.JournalofInternationalBusinessStudies2(2),241–266.

Bijker,W.E.,Hughes,T.P.,etal.(Eds.),1987.TheSocialConstruc-tionofTechnologicalSystems:NewDirectionsintheSociologyandHistoryofTechnology.MITPress,Cambridge,MA.

Bowers,D.A.,Mitchell,C.R.,etal.,1981.Modellingbicommunal

conflict:structuringthemodel.Futures13(1),31–42.

Breschi,S.,Malerba,F.,1997.Sectoralinnovationsystems:tech-nologicalregimes,schumpeteriandynamics,andspatialbound-aries.In:Edquist,C.(Ed.),SystemsofInnovation:TechnologiesInstitutionsandOrganizations.Pinter,LondonandWashington,pp.130–156.

Cantwell,J.,1995.Theglobalizationoftechnology:whatremainsof

theproductcyclemodel?CambridgeJournalofEconomics19(1),155–174.

Cantwell,J.,1997.Theglobalisationoftechnology:whatremainsof

theproductcyclemodel?In:Archibugi,D.,Michie,J.(Eds.),TechnologyGlobalisationandEconomicPerformance.Cam-bridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,pp.215–240.

Cantwell,J.,Santangelo,G.D.,2000.Capitalismprofitsandinno-vationinthenewtechno-economicparadigm.JournalofEvolu-tionaryEconomics10(1–2),131–157.

Cantwell,J.,Piscitello,L.,2000.Accumulatingtechnologicalcom-petence:itschangingimpactoncorporatediversificationandinternationalization.IndustrialandCorporateChange9(1),21–51.

Cantwell,J.,Gambardella,A.,Granstrand,O.,2004.TheEco-nomicsofManagementofTechnologicalDiversification.Rout-ledgeStudiesintheModernWorldEconomy,London.

Carlsson,B.,Stankiewicz,R.,1991.Onthenature,function,and

compositionoftechnologicalsystems.JournalofEvolutionaryEconomics1(2),93–118.

Carlsson,B.(Ed.),1995.TechnologicalSystemsandEconomicPer-formance:TheCaseofFactoryAutomation.KluwerAcademicPublishers,Boston.

66B.Carlsson/ResearchPolicy35(2006)56–67

Carlsson,B.(Ed.),1997.TechnologicalSystemsandIndustrial

Dynamics.KluwerAcademicPublishers,Boston.

Carlsson,B.(Ed.),2002.TechnologicalSystemsintheBioIndus-tries:AnInternationalStudy.KluwerAcademicPublishers,Boston.

Carlsson,B.,2003.InnovationSystems:ASurveyoftheLiterature

fromaSchumpeterianPerspective.PaperfortheElgarCompan-iontoNeo-SchumpeterianEconomics,June.

Carlsson,B.,Mudambi,R.,2003.Globalization,entrepreneurship,

andpublicpolicy:asystemsview.IndustryandInnovation10(1),103–116.

Chang,S.M.,1999.InstitutionsandEvolutionofCapability:theCase

ofTechnologicalCatching-UpinSemiconductors.Ph.D.Disser-tation.CaseWesternReserveUniversity.

Cooke,P.,1992.Regionalinnovationsystems—competitiveregula-tionintheNewEurope.Geoforum23(3),365–382.

DelaMothe,J.,Link,A.N.,2002.NetworksAlliancesandPartner-shipsintheInnovationProcess.KluwerAcademicPublishers,Boston.

Dosi,G.,Freeman,C.(Eds.),1988.TechnicalChangeandEconomic

Theory.Pinter,London.

Foray,D.,1995.Theeconomicsofintellectualpropertyrightsand

systemsofinnovation:thepersistenceofnationalpracticesver-susthenewglobalmodelofinnovation.In:Hagedoorn,J.(Ed.),TechnicalChangeandtheWorldEconomy:ConvergenceandDivergenceinTechnologyStrategies.E.Elgar,Aldershot,Eng-land,pp.109–133(Chapter5).

Fransman,M.,1999.Isnationaltechnologypolicyobsoleteina

globalizedworld?In:Fransman,M.(Ed.),TheJapaneseVision.VisionsofInnovation:TheFirmandJapan.OxfordUniversityPress,OxfordandNewYork,pp.167–201,Chapter6.

Freeman,C.,1982.TechnologicalInfrastructureandInternational

Competitiveness.DraftPaperSubmittedtotheOECDAdhocGrouponScience,TechnologyandCompetitiveness,August.Freeman,C.,1987.TechnologyPolicyandEconomicPerformance:

LessonsfromJapan.Pinter,London.

Freeman,C.,1988.Japan:anewnationalsystemofinnovation.In:

Dosi,G.(Ed.),TechnicalChangeandEconomicTheory.Pinter,London,pp.330–348.

Freeman,C.,Lundvall,B.-A.

˚(Eds.),1988.SmallCountriesFacingtheTechnologicalRevolution.Pinter,London.

Freeman,C.,1995.Thenationalsystemofinnovationinhistorical-perspective.CambridgeJournalofEconomics19(1),5–24.Granstrand,O.,Sj¨olander,S.,1990.Managinginnovationinmulti-technologycorporations.ResearchPolicy19(1),35–60.Granstrand,O.,Sj¨olander,S.,1992.Internationalizationanddiver-sificationofmulti-technologycorporations.In:Granstrand,O.,

H˚akanson,L.,Sj¨olander,S.(Eds.),TechnologyManagementandInternationalBusiness:InternationalizationofR&DandTech-nology.JohnWiley&Sons,Chichester,pp.181–208.

Gregersen,B.,1988.Public-sectorparticipationininnovationsys-tems.In:Freeman,C.,Lundvall,B.A.

˚(Eds.),SmallCountriesFacingtheTechnologicalRevolution.Pinter,LondonandNewYork,pp.262–278.

Gregersen,B.,Johnson,B.,1997.Learningeconomiesinnovation

systemsandEuropeanintegration.RegionalStudies31(5),479–490.

Hughes,T.P.,1983.NetworksofPower:ElectrificationinWestern

Society,1880–1930.JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,Baltimore.Krupp,H.,1984.Overviewofpolicyissues:panelreportonthefunc-tionsofNon-UniversityResearchInstitutesinNationalR&DandInnovationSystemsandthecontributionsofUniversities.In:Fus-feld,H.I.,Haklisch,C.S.(Eds.),University-IndustryResearchInteractions.Oxford,PergamonPressinCooperationwithNewYorkUniversity,GraduateSchoolofBusinessAdministration,CenterforScienceandTechnologyPolicy,NewYork,TorontoandSydney,pp.95–100.

LeBas,C.,Sierra,C.,2002.‘Locationversushomecountryadvan-tages’inR&Dactivities:somefurtherresultsonmultinationals’locationalstrategies.ResearchPolicy31(4),5–609.

LeBas,C.,Patel,P.,2005.DoesInternationalizationofTechnology

DetermineTechnologicalKnowledgeDiversificationinLargeFirms?SPRUWorkingPaperSEWP128.UniversityofSussex.

List,F.,1841.DasNationaleSystemDerPolitischenOkonomie.

¨Basel,Kyklostranslatedandpublishedunderthetitle.In:Long-mans(Ed.),TheNationalSystemofPoliticalEconomy.GreenandCo,London.

Lundvall,B.A.,

˚1985.ProductInnovationandUser-ProducerInter-action.AalborgUniversityPress,Aalborg.

Lundvall,B.A.,

˚1988.Innovationasaninteractiveprocess:fromuser-producerinteractiontothenationalsystemofinnovation.In:Dosi,G.(Ed.),TechnicalChangeandEconomicTheory.PinterPublishers,London,NewYork,pp.349–369.

Lundvall,B.A.,

˚2003.NationalInnovationSystems:HistoryandTheory.WorkingPaper.AalborgUniversity.

Mayntz,R.,Hughes,T.P.(Eds.),1988.TheDevelopmentofLargeTechnicalSystems.WestviewPress,Boulder,Co.

Metcalfe,S.,1997.Technologysystemsandtechnologypolicyinanevolutionaryframework.In:Archibugi,D.,Michie,J.(Eds.),Technology,GlobalisationandEconomicPerformance.Cam-bridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,pp.268–296.

Meyer-Krahmer,F.,Reger,G.,1999.Newperspectivesontheinnovationstrategiesofmultinationalenterprises:lessonsfortechnologypolicyinEurope.ResearchPolicy28(7),751–776.

Mowery,D.C.,Oxley,J.,1997.Inwardtechnologytransferandcompetitiveness:theroleofnationalinnovationsystems.In:Archibugi,D.,Michie,J.(Eds.),TechnologyGlobalisationandEconomicPerformance.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cam-bridge,pp.138–171.

Mytelka,L.K.,2000.LocalsystemsofinnovationinaglobalizedworldEconomy.IndustryandInnovation7(1),15–32.

Nelson,R.R.,1988.InstitutionssupportingtechnicalchangeintheUnitedStates.In:Dosi,et,al.(Eds.),TechnicalChangeandEco-nomicTheory.Pinter,London,pp.312–329.

Nelson,R.R.,1992.Nationalinnovationsystems:aretrospectiveonastudy.IndustrialandCorporateChange1(2),347–374.

Niosi,J.,Bellon,B.,1994.Theglobalinterdependenceofnationalinnovationsystems—evidence,limits,andimplications.Tech-nologyinSociety16(2),173–197.

Niosi,J.,Bellon,B.,1996.Theglobalizationofnationalinnovationsystems.In:DelaMothe,J.,Paquet,G.(Eds.),EvolutionaryEconomicsandtheNewInternationalPoliticalEconomy.Pinter,NewYork,pp.138–159(Chapter6).

B.Carlsson/ResearchPolicy35(2006)56–67

67

Niosi,J.,Manseau,A.,etal.,2000.Canada’sNationalSystemof

Innovation.McGill-Queen’sUniversityPress,Montreal.

Patel,P.,Pavitt,K.,1991.LargefirmsintheproductionoftheWorlds

technology—animportantcaseofnon-globalization.JournalofInternationalBusinessStudies22(1),1–21.

Patel,P.,1997.Localizedproductionoftechnologyforglobalmar-kets.In:Archibugi,D.,Michie,J.(Eds.),TechnologyGlobali-sationandEconomicPerformance.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,pp.198–214.

Patel,P.,Vega,M.,1999.Patternsofinternationalisationofcorpo-ratetechnology:locationvshomecountryadvantage.ResearchPolicy28(2-3),145–155.

Pavitt,K.,Patel,P.,1999.Globalcorporationsandnationalsys-temsofinnovation:whodominateswhom?In:Archibugi,D.,Howells,J.,Michie,J.(Eds.),InnovationPolicyinaGlobalEconomy.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,pp.94–119(Chapter6).

Pavitt,K.,1998.Thesocialshapingofthenationalsciencebase.

ResearchPolicy27(8),793–805.

Pavitt,K.,2001.Managingglobalinnovation:uncoveringthe

secretsoffuturecompetitiveness.ResearchPolicy30(1),176–177.

Pavitt,K.,2002.Theglobalizinglearningeconomy.Academyof

ManagementReview27(1),125–127.

Pelikan,P.,1988.Cantheinnovationsystemofcapitalismbeout-performed?In:Dosi,G.(Ed.),TechnicalChangeandEconomicTheory.Pinter,London,pp.370–398.

Piscitello,L.,2004.Corporatediversificationcoherenceandeco-nomicperformance.IndustrialandCorporateChange13(5),757–787.

Saviotti,P.P.,1986.Systemstheoryandtechnologicalchange.

Futures18(6),773–786.

Sung,T.K.,Carlsson,B.,2003.Theevolutionofatechnological

system:thecaseofCNCmachinetoolsinKorea.JournalofEvolutionaryEconomics13(4),435–460.

Tidd,J.,Bessant,J.,etal.,1997.ManagingInnovation:Integrating

Technological,MarketandOrganizationalChange.JohnWiley&Sons,Chichester,UK.