Post-Schumpeterian innovations And grading the major challenges to them in Iran

Document Type : review paper

Authors

1 PhD Student of Science and Technology Policy making, Department of Information Technology Management, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

2 Professor, Department of Information Technology Management, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Information Technology Management, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

4 Assistant Professor, Management Studies Center, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Recent studies indicate that the topics and issues of innovation have moved away from a purely technical approach, and innovative concepts have gone beyond the common Schumpeterian approach that saw innovation in the product, process, market, and new organization. In this regard, some types of innovations have been highlighted, whose innovative drivers are no longer technology in the conventional sense of policy-making ideas, and they have distanced themselves from past innovations in a Schumpeterian sense; Therefore, in present research, post-Schumpeterian innovations have been addressed. Post-Schumpeterian innovations are suitable options for breaking the rigid technological regime of products and services by changing their technological path from Schumpeterian patterns. In this research, position and paradigm innovation, social innovation, design and redesign innovation, semantic and symbolic innovation, inclusive and universal innovation, and frugal and pro-poor innovation have been called post-Schumpeterian. In the first part of the research, in order to extract the challenges, after studying the subject areas, coding techniques were used to identify hidden categories and themes in the interviews and documents, and in the second part, the interpretive structural modeling (ISM) approach was used; Therefore, both qualitative and quantitative methods have been used to answer the research question. The newness of research in this field, path dependency, domination of economy-oriented ecosystems in the country, lack of legal infrastructure of industries and creative companies, policy-making institutions and multiple trustees, are some of the issues that have been identified as the challenges of this transition.

Keywords: Post-Schumpeterian innovation, Non-technological transitions, Innovation policy, Innovation management, Creative and cultural industries.

Keywords

References

[1] Ghazinoory, S., A. Bitaab, and A. Lohrasbi, Social capital and national innovation system: a cross-country analysis. Cross Cultural Management, 2014.
[2] Geels, F.W., Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research policy, 2002. 31 (8-9): 1257-1274.
[3] Geels, F., Co-evolution of technology and society: The transition in water supply and personal hygiene in the Netherlands (1850–1930), a case study in multi-level perspective. Technology in society, 2005. 27 (3): 363-397.
[4] Safarzyńska, K. and J.C. van den Bergh, Demand-supply coevolution with multiple increasing returns: Policy analysis for unlocking and system transitions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2010. 77 (2: (297-317.
[5] Borrás, S. The widening and deepening of innovation policy: What conditions provide for effective governance? 2008. Georgia Institute of Technology.
[6] Hanusch, H. and A. Pyka, Principles of neo-Schumpeterian economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2007. 31 (2): 275-289.
[7] Schumpeter, J.A., the Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capita I, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. 2017: Routledge.
[8] Miremadi, T., the Emerging Trends of STI Policy (Persian). Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 2019. 12 (2): 619-633.
[9] Smith, A., M. Fressoli, and H. Thomas, Grassroots innovation movements: challenges and contributions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2014. 63: 114-124.
[10] Tidd, J. and J.R. Bessant, Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and organizational change. 2020: John Wiley & Sons.
[11] Ghazinoory, S., et al., Why do we need ‘Problem-oriented Innovation System (PIS)’for solving macro-level societal problems? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2020. 150: 119749.
[12] Mobini Dehkordi, A. and M. Keshtkar Haranki, Social Innovation: An Exploration of Conceptualization Based on Content Analysis of Definitions (Persian). Innovation Management Journal, 2015. 4 (2): 115-13.
[13] Murray, R., J. Caulier-Grice, and G. Mulgan, The open book of social innovation. Vol. 24. 2010: Nesta London.
[14] Mulgan, G., et al., Social Innovation: what it is, why it matters, how it can be accelerated. 2007.
[15] YoungFoundation, Social innovation overview: A deliverable of the project: The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe, (TEPSIE), in European Commission-7th Framework Programme, European Commission. 2012.
[16] Parsons, G., The philosophy of design. 2015: John Wiley & Sons.
[17] Hauffe, T., Design: An illustrated historical overview. 1996: Barron's.
[18] Norman, D.A., Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. 2004: Basic Civitas Books.
[19] Dunne, A. Hertzian tales: Electronic products, aesthetic experience, and critical design. 2008: MIT press.
[20] Walker, S., Design for life: Creating meaning in a distracted world. 2017: Routledge.
[21] Dell'Era, C. and R. Verganti, Strategies of innovation and imitation of product languages. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2007. 24 (6): 580-599.
[22] Utterback, J. M., et al., Design-inspired innovation. 2006: World Scientific.
[23] Moultrie, J. and F. Livesey, Measuring design investment in firms: Conceptual foundations and exploratory UK survey. Research policy, 2014. 43 (3): 570-587.
[24] Verganti, R., Design driven innovation: changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean. 2009: Harvard Business Press.
[25] Symposium on Innovation and Inclusive Growth. 2014, OECD: Paris, France.
[26] Mobini Dehkordi, A., M. Amiri, and F. Kermanshah, Inclusive Innovation Structural Factors: Application in Public Policy Making for Inequality Reduction (Persian). Public Policy, 2018. 4.
[27] Hasan, M. R., et al., Analysing pro-poor innovation acceptance by income segments. Management Decision, 2020.
[28] Berdegué, J. A., Pro-poor innovation systems. Background Paper, IFAD, Rome, 2005: 1-42.
[29] Azar, A., F. Khosravani, and R. Jalali, Soft operational research: Problem structuring approaches (Persian) 2019, Tehran: Industrial Management Organization.
[30] Asef, T., Formulating Cultural Industries Development Vision and Starategy 1404 (Persian). 1391, Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution: Tehran.
[31] Ghazinoory, S. and S. Ghazinoori, Science, technology and innovation policy making: An introduction. Tehran: Tarbiyat Modares University Press. {In Persian}, 2012.
[32] Ghazinoory, S.S. and S.S. Ghazinoory, Extracting Strategies for Modification of the National Innovation System of Iran Based on a Comparative Study (Persian). Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 2008. 1 (1): 53-64.
[33] Ghazinoory, S., et al., Renewing a dysfunctional innovation ecosystem: The case of the Lalejin ceramics and pottery. Technovation, 96. 2020: 102122.
[34] Keyghobadi, M., et al., from cultural industries to creative industries (Persian) 2009, Asef ThinkTank Qom.
 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics