نقش وابستگی به مسیر در ناکارآمدی نظام‌های ملی نوآوری

نویسنده

استادیار، رشته سیاست‌گذاری علم و فناوری، گروه سیاست اطلاعات، پژوهشکده جامعه و اطلاعات، پژوهشگاه علوم و فناوری اطلاعات ایران (ایرانداک)، تهران، ایران

چکیده

نوآوری فرایندی است که اجزای متعددی با روابط پیچیده با یکدیگر در آن دخیل‌اند. کلیه اجزای نوآوری و روابط میان آنها، تحت تأثیر محیط پیرامونی قرار می‌گیرند. بنابراین مباحث نوآوری، مستلزم دیدگاهی سیستمی است که با جامعیت لازم همراه باشد. نزدیک به سه دهه است که به منظور مواجهه سیستمی با پیچیدگی‌های نوآوری، راهکار نظام ملی نوآوری مطرح شده است. نظام‌ ملی نوآوری، مجموعه‌ای از نهادهای به هم پیوسته است که دانش، مهارت‌ها و خلاقیت‌هایی که منجر به فناوری‌های جدید می‌شوند را خلق، انباشت و انتقال می‌دهد. بخش عمده‌ای از ناکارآمدی و فقدان اثربخشی نظام‌های ملی نوآوری، ناشی از وابستگی آنها به مسیر حرکت گذشته و به اصطلاح قفل‌شدن آنها در مسیر گذشته است. بنابراین جلوگیری از بروز این پدیده در هر اقتصادی ضروری است. لازمه این امر، شناخت ابعاد و جنبه‌های مختلف این پدیده است. در همین راستا، این مقاله با روش مطالعات کتابخانه‌ای و از طریق بررسی متون و ادبیات این حوزه،‌ به تفصیل به این موضوع می‌پردازد و کلیه ابعاد آن را شناسایی می‌کند. نتایج این مطالعه نشان می‌دهد که وابستگی به مسیر1 در نظام‌های ملی نوآوری را می‌توان به دو نوع وابستگی به مسیر فناورانه و وابستگی به مسیر نهادی طبقه‌بندی کرد. هر یک از انواع وابستگی به مسیر می‌تواند ناشی از تاریخ و یا‌ بازخورد مثبت باشد. در این مطالعه ضمن تشریح انواع وابستگی به مسیر در نظام‌های ملی نوآوری منبع و دلایل هر یک از آنها تشریح شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Role of Path Dependency in the Inefficiency of National Innovation Systems

نویسنده [English]

  • lila namdarian
Assistant Professor of Science and Technology Policy, Information and Society Research Department, Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology (IranDoc), Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Innovation is a process in which multiple components with complicated relationships are involved. All components of innovation and the relationships between them are influenced by the peripheral environment. Thus, Innovation should be considered with a holistic and systemic approach. For nearly three decades, the national innovation system approach has raised to confront the complexities of innovation. The national innovation system is an interconnected set of institutions that create, accumulate and transfer knowledge, skills, and creativity and lead to new technologies. Much of the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the national innovation system is due to its path dependency, so-called lock-in the past path. Therefore, it is necessary to prevent this phenomenon in any economy. Understanding the various dimensions and aspects of this phenomenon is essential for this. In this regard, this article studies this concept in detail by reviewing the related literature and identifies all its dimensions. The results of this study show that path dependency in national innovation systems can be classified into both technology path dependency and institutional path dependency. Any type of path dependency can be due to history or positive feedback. In this study, in addition to describing the types of path dependency in the national innovation system, the source and reasons for each are described.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • National Innovation System
  • Inefficiency
  • Technology Path Dependency
  • Institutional Path Dependency
[1]      Zahra SA, George G. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of management review; 2002, 27 (2); pp.185-203.

[2]    Chauvet V. Absorptive capacity: scale development and implications for future research. Management international/International Management/Gestiòn Internacional; 2014, 19 (1); pp. 113-129.

[3]    Chen YS, Lin MJ, Chang CH. The positive effects of relationship learning and absorptive capacity on innovation performance and competitive advantage in industrial markets. Industrial Marketing Management; 2009, 38 (2); pp. 152-158.

[4]    Cassiolato JE, Lastres H. (1999 Jun 9). Local, national and regional systems of innovation in the Mercosur. InDRUID Summer Conference (pp. 9-12). 1999.

[5]    Freeman C. Technology policy and economic performance. Great Britain: Pinter Publishers. 1989.

[6]    Lundvall BÅ. National systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. The Learning Economy and the Economics of Hope; 2016, p. 85.

[7]    Nelson, R. R., & Rosenberg, N. Technical innovation and national systems. National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. Oxford University Press; 1993, 7; pp. 1-18.

[8]    Furman JL, Hayes R. Catching up or standing still? National innovative productivity among ‘follower’countries, 1978–1999. Research Policy; 2004, 33 (9); pp. 1329-1354.

[9]    Hu MC, Mathews JA. National innovative capacity in East Asia. Research Policy; 2005, 34 (9); pp. 1322-1349.

[10]    Niosi J. National systems of innovations are “x-efficient” (and x-effective): Why some are slow learners. Research policy; 2002, 31 (2); pp. 291-302.

[11]    Edquist C, Johnson B. Institutions and organizations in systems of innovation. Denmark: Aalborg University. 1996.

[12]    Edquist C. (2001 Jun 12). The Systems of Innovation Approach and Innovation Policy: An account of the state of the art. InDRUID conference, Aalborg (pp. 12-15). 2001.

[13]    Edquist C. Systems of innovation perspectives and challenges. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development; 2010, 2 (3); pp. 14-45.

[14]    Hekkert MP, Suurs RA, Negro SO, Kuhlmann S, Smits RE. Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological forecasting and social change; 2007, 74 (4): pp. 413-432.

[15]    Martin R, Simmie J. Path dependence and local innovation systems in city-regions. Innovation; 2008, 10 (2-3); pp. 183-196.

[16]    Liebowitz SJ, Margolis SE. Path dependence, lock-in, and history. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization; 1998, 11 (1); pp. 205-226.

[17]    Fagerberg J, Verspagen B, von Tunzelmann GN. The dynamics of technology, trade and growth. Edward Elgar Publishing. 1994.

[18]    OECD. (2007). Innovation and growth: Rationale for an innovation strategy. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/science/inno/39374789.pdf (Accessed on 2019 October 23).

[19]    Lundvall BÅ. National innovation systems—analytical concept and development tool. Industry and innovation. 2007; 14 (1); pp. 95-119.

[20]    Loasby B. J. Institutional stability and change in science and the economy. In Rationality, institutions and economic methodology. Australia: Routledge. 1993, pp. 214-232.

[21]    Sydow J, Schreyögg G, Koch J. Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of management review; 2009, 34 (4); pp. 689-709.

[22]    David PA. Clio and the Economics of QWERTY. The American economic review; 1985, 75 (2); pp. 332-337.

[23]    Rodrigues, M. J. (Ed.). The New Knowledge Economy in Europe: a strategy for international competitiveness and social cohesion. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. 2002, pp. 7-42.

[24]    Metcalfe S. The economic foundations of technology policy: equilibrium and evolutionary perspectives. Handbook of the economics of innovation and technological change. Oxford [u.a.]: Blackwell. 1995, pp. 409-415.

[25]    Hannan MT, Freeman J. Structural inertia and organizational change. American sociological review; 1984, 1; pp. 149-164.

[26]    Martin R, Sunley P. Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of economic geography; 2006, 6 (4); pp. 395-437.

[27]    Arthur WB. Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The economic journal; 1989, 99 (394); pp. 116-131.

[28]    Ansari, R., Tayebi, H.R. Investigating and Explaining Research and Technology Organizations in Iran's National Innovation System: A Case Study of Academic Center for Education, Culture and Research. Journal of science& Technology parks and Incubators; 2013, 37 (2); pp. 13-21.