IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eti/dpaper/15065.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Institutional Arrangements in the National Innovation System Affect Industrial Competitiveness: A study of Japan and the United States with multiagent simulation

Author

Listed:
  • KWON Seokbeom
  • MOTOHASHI Kazuyuki

Abstract

The Japanese national innovation system (JP NIS) and that of the United States (U.S. NIS) differ. One of the differences is that firms in the JP NIS are likely to collaborate with historical partners for the purpose of innovation or rely on in-house research and development (R&D), approaches that form a "relationship-driven innovation system." In the U.S. NIS, however, firms have a relatively weak reliance on prior partnerships or internal R&D and are likely to seek entities that know about the necessary technology. Thus, U.S. players acquire technologies through market transactions such as mergers and acquisitions (M&A). This paper primarily discusses how this institutional difference affects country-specific industrial sector specialization. Then, by using a multiagent model of the NIS and conducting simulation, we examine what strategy would help Japanese firms in industries dominated by radical innovation. The results show that the JP NIS provides an institutional advantage in industries with fast-changing consumer demand that require incremental innovation. However, the U.S. NIS benefits industries that require frequent radical innovation. Our analysis reveals that extending the partnership network while keeping internal R&D capability would be a beneficial strategy for Japanese firms in industries driven by radical innovation. Therefore, the present research suggests that policymakers need to differentiate policy that emphasizes business relationship and market mechanism importance according to industrial characteristics in order to improve overall national industrial competitiveness. At the same time, Japanese firms need to strengthen their R&D capability while trying to extend their pool of technology partners in order to improve the flexibility of their responses to radical changes in an industry.

Suggested Citation

  • KWON Seokbeom & MOTOHASHI Kazuyuki, 2015. "How Institutional Arrangements in the National Innovation System Affect Industrial Competitiveness: A study of Japan and the United States with multiagent simulation," Discussion papers 15065, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
  • Handle: RePEc:eti:dpaper:15065
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/dp/15e065.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ardichvili, Alexander & Cardozo, Richard & Ray, Sourav, 2003. "A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 105-123, January.
    2. Gian Luca Clementi & Berardino Palazzo, 2016. "Entry, Exit, Firm Dynamics, and Aggregate Fluctuations," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(3), pages 1-41, July.
    3. Cristiano Antonelli & Gianluigi Ferraris, 2011. "Innovation as an Emerging System Property: An Agent Based Simulation Model," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 14(2), pages 1-1.
    4. Ki H. Kang & Jina Kang, 2009. "How Do Firms Source External Knowledge For Innovation? Analysing Effects Of Different Knowledge Sourcing Methods," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(01), pages 1-17.
    5. Utterback, James M & Abernathy, William J, 1975. "A dynamic model of process and product innovation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 3(6), pages 639-656, December.
    6. Jadbabaie, Ali & Molavi, Pooya & Sandroni, Alvaro & Tahbaz-Salehi, Alireza, 2012. "Non-Bayesian social learning," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 210-225.
    7. Lopolito, A. & Morone, P. & Taylor, R., 2013. "Emerging innovation niches: An agent based model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1225-1238.
    8. Bengt Holmstrom & John Roberts, 1998. "The Boundaries of the Firm Revisited," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 73-94, Fall.
    9. Christine Greenhalgh & Mark Rogers, 2010. "Innovation, Intellectual Property, and Economic Growth," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, volume 0, number 9221.
    10. Motohashi, Kazuyuki, 2005. "University-industry collaborations in Japan: The role of new technology-based firms in transforming the National Innovation System," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 583-594, June.
    11. , G. & , & ,, 2008. "Non-Bayesian updating: A theoretical framework," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 3(2), June.
    12. Oerlemans, L.A.G. & Meeus, M.T.H. & Boekema, F.W.M., 1998. "Do networks matter for innovation? The usefulness of the network approach in analysing innovation," Other publications TiSEM b5b01e96-86f7-4fdf-95c0-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    13. Faber, Albert & Valente, Marco & Janssen, Peter, 2010. "Exploring domestic micro-cogeneration in the Netherlands: An agent-based demand model for technology diffusion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 2763-2775, June.
    14. Motohashi, Kazuyuki, 2008. "Licensing or not licensing? An empirical analysis of the strategic use of patents by Japanese firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1548-1555, October.
    15. Mark Lehrer & Andrew Tylecote & Emmanuelle Conesa, 1999. "Corporate Governance, Innovation Systems and Industrial Performance," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 25-50.
    16. Arora, Ashish & Fosfuri, Andrea, 2003. "Licensing the market for technology," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 277-295, October.
    17. Kim B. Clark, 1989. "Project Scope and Project Performance: The Effect of Parts Strategy and Supplier Involvement on Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(10), pages 1247-1263, October.
    18. Taylor, Curtis R & Wiggins, Steven N, 1997. "Competition or Compensation: Supplier Incentives under the American and Japanese Subcontracting Systems," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(4), pages 598-618, September.
    19. Larry G. Epstein & Jawwad Noor & Alvaro Sandroni, 2008. "Supplementary Appendix for ‘Non-Bayesian Updating: A Theoretical Framework’," PIER Working Paper Archive 08-017, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    20. Akkermans, Dirk & Castaldi, Carolina & Los, Bart, 2009. "Do 'liberal market economies' really innovate more radically than 'coordinated market economies'?: Hall and Soskice reconsidered," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 181-191, February.
    21. Nigel Gilbert & Andreas Pyka & Petra Ahrweiler, 2001. "Innovation Networks - a Simulation Approach," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 4(3), pages 1-8.
    22. George Baker & Robert Gibbons & Kevin J. Murphy, 2002. "Relational Contracts and the Theory of the Firm," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(1), pages 39-84.
    23. Kitschelt, Herbert, 1991. "Industrial governance structures, innovation strategies, and the case of Japan: sectoral or cross-national comparative analysis?," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 453-493, October.
    24. Timothy Dunne & Mark J. Roberts & Larry Samuelson, 1989. "The Growth and Failure of U. S. Manufacturing Plants," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 104(4), pages 671-698.
    25. Ki H. Kang & Jina Kang, 2009. "How Do Firms Source External Knowledge for Innovation? Analyzing Effects of Different Knowledge Sourcing Methods," TEMEP Discussion Papers 200907, Seoul National University; Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program (TEMEP), revised Aug 2009.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Geissinger, Andrea & Laurell, Christofer & Sandström, Christian & Eriksson, Klas & Nykvist, Rasmus, 2019. "Digital entrepreneurship and field conditions for institutional change– Investigating the enabling role of cities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 877-886.
    2. Datta, Surja & Saad, Mohammed & Sarpong, David, 2019. "National systems of innovation, innovation niches, and diversity in university systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 27-36.
    3. BHARADWAJ, Ashish & KANG, Byeongwoo, 2018. "How does innovation occur in India? Evidence from the JIRICO survey," IIR Working Paper 18-05, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    4. MOTOHASHI Kazuyuki, 2021. "Progress of Digital Platforms and their Impact on Japan's Industrial Competitiveness," Policy Discussion Papers 21001, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    5. KAINOU Kazunari, 2021. "Regression Discontinuity Design As a Policy Impact Assessment Methodology - Assumptions, Key Points of Interpretation and Limitations for Practical Application - (Japanese)," Policy Discussion Papers (Japanese) 21001, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    6. Ratinho, Tiago & Amezcua, Alejandro & Honig, Benson & Zeng, Zhaocheng, 2020. "Supporting entrepreneurs: A systematic review of literature and an agenda for research," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kwon, Seokbeom & Motohashi, Kazuyuki, 2017. "How institutional arrangements in the National Innovation System affect industrial competitiveness: A study of Japan and the U.S. with multiagent simulation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 221-235.
    2. Oliver Gürtler, 2010. "Haggling for Rents, Relational Contracts, and the Theory of the Firm," Schmalenbach Business Review (sbr), LMU Munich School of Management, vol. 62(4), pages 359-377, October.
    3. A. Lasagni, 2011. "European SMEs, external relationships and innovation: some empirical evidence," Economics Department Working Papers 2011-EP04, Department of Economics, Parma University (Italy).
    4. Sergio G. Lazzarini & Danny P. Claro & Luiz F. Mesquita, 2008. "Buyer–Supplier and Supplier–Supplier Alliances: Do They Reinforce or Undermine One Another?," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 561-584, May.
    5. De Chiara, Alessandro, 2020. "Precontractual investment and modes of procurement," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    6. Kani, Masayo & Motohashi, Kazuyuki, 2012. "Understanding the technology market for patents: New insights from a licensing survey of Japanese firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 226-235.
    7. Ki H. Kang & Jina Kang, 2009. "Does Partner Type Matter in R&D Collaboration for Product Innovation?," TEMEP Discussion Papers 200906, Seoul National University; Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program (TEMEP), revised Aug 2009.
    8. Spagnolo, Giancarlo & Blonski, Matthias, 2002. "Relational Contracts and Property Rights," CEPR Discussion Papers 3460, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Nagaoka, Sadao & Motohashi, Kazuyuki & Goto, Akira, 2010. "Patent Statistics as an Innovation Indicator," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1083-1127, Elsevier.
    10. Giacomo Calzolari & Leonardo Felli & Johannes Koenen & Giancarlo Spagnolo & Konrad O. Stahl, 2021. "Relational Contracts and Trust in a High-Tech Industry," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2021_316, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    11. Patrick W. Schmitz, 2006. "Information Gathering, Transaction Costs, and the Property Rights Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(1), pages 422-434, March.
    12. Hideshi Itoh, 2006. "The Theories of International Outsourcing and Integration : A Theoretical Overview from the Perspective of Organizational Economics," Microeconomics Working Papers 21891, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    13. Ye Jin Lee & Kwangsoo Shin & Eungdo Kim, 2019. "The Influence of a Firm’s Capability and Dyadic Relationship of the Knowledge Base on Ambidextrous Innovation in Biopharmaceutical M&As," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-17, September.
    14. Cowan, Kelly R. & Daim, Tugrul U., 2011. "Review of technology acquisition and adoption research in the energy sector," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 183-199.
    15. Nguyen Thi Canh & Nguyen Thanh Liem & Phung Anh Thu & Nguyen Vinh Khuong, 2019. "The Impact of Innovation on the Firm Performance and Corporate Social Responsibility of Vietnamese Manufacturing Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-14, July.
    16. Carolina Castaldi & Bart Los, 2008. "The identification of important innovations using tail estimators," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-07, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Feb 2008.
    17. Andreas Pyka & Uwe Cantner & Alfred Greiner & Thomas Kuhn (ed.), 2009. "Recent Advances in Neo-Schumpeterian Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12982.
    18. Deffains, Bruno & Demougin, Dominique M., 2006. "Governance: Who controls matters," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2006-053, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    19. Meyer, Marc H. & Utterback, James M., 1941- & International Center for Research on the Management of Technology., 1992. "Core competencies, product families and sustained business success," Working papers #65-92. Working paper (Sl, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    20. de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Marsili, Orietta, 2006. "The fruit flies of innovations: A taxonomy of innovative small firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 213-229, March.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eti:dpaper:15065. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: TANIMOTO, Toko (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rietijp.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.