SECTORAL SYSTEMS AND CATCH UP

Franco Malerba

Globelics Academy, Tampere, May 217

THIS LECTURE

PART I: Do sectoral differences matter?• Sectoral systems

PART II: Sectoral systems and catch-up

• Catch up• Changes in industrial leadership• Rise to market leadership• The dynamics of two vertically related systems

PART III: The challenges ahead

Catching up, lagging behind and forging ahead

The meso and micro view: the growth of local knowledge and the changing productive and innovative structure of the economy. Catching up does not mean imitation or cloning. Catching up means a process through which emerging countries learn and accumulate knowledge, and develop products, processes and technologies that may differ more or less from the ones of advanced countries. The focus on learning and knowledge implies the possibility of different trajectories of knowledge accumulation, innovation and production specialization with respect to the leading countries.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND CATCHING UP

TO DAY FOCUS ON MESO AND MICRO

The focus on meso and micro implies that development and catching up:

- may take place in industries that can be different from country to

country and that may change in importance over time

- means that the learning processes and the factors that affect the catching up may greatly differ from one industry to another

Why sectoral innovation systems?

1. Innovation in sectors is the result of different learning processes and capabilities, the use of different knowledge and different actors and their interaction

2. Major differences across sectors exist. Think for example of ICT, pharmaceuticals or textiles

What do we know about these issues ?

Various traditions have emphasised sectoral differences

• Case studies

• Innovation studies –Keith Pavitt at SPRU

• Industrial economics

• Management literature and Porter’s five forces

We can move forward…

… in two in steps.

• First, one may consider the learning and knowledge environment of firms in sectors. These learning environment may differ across sectors

• Second, we may consider non only the learning and knowledge environment, but also industries as systems

A first step:

Technological regimes:

The learning and knowledge environment that affects innovation

This environment may greatly differ across sectors

Technological regimes

• Opportunities (scientific and technological) - Level - Sources (R&D, universities, research institutes,…)

• Appropriability of innovations - Level - Instruments (patents, secrecy, …)

• Cumulativeness of technical advance

• Knowledge base underpinning innovative activity in a sector Nature of knowledge: some simple distinction - Complex / Simple

- Tacit / Codified - Independent / Part of a system

F. Malerba L.Orsenigo Industrial and Corporate Change 1997S.Breschi F.Malerba L.Orsenigo Economic Journal 2000Castellacci F. Industrial and Corporate Change 2007

But there are broader differences in innovation and production across sectors.

In addition to technological regimes:sectoral systems

• F. Malerba Sectoral systems of innovation and production Research Policy 2002

• F. Malerba How innovation differs across sectors: sectoral systems of innovation Handbook of Innovation Fagerberg, Mowery, Nelson (ed) Oxford University Press 2005

• F. Malerba and P. Adams Sectoral systems of innovation magement in Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management Oxford University Press 2013

The foundations

• Change and transformation in industriesIndustry life cycle

• Innovation systems Lundvall, Edquist

• Evolutionary theoryNelson and Winter, Dosi

SECTORAL SYSTEMS OF INNOVATION AND PRODUCTION

Innovation and production take place in sectoral systems that are characterized by:

• a knowledge base

• firms with learning and capabilities

• other actors relevant for generating or supporting learning and innovation in a sector such as suppliers, users, universities, public research organizations, the government, financial organizations;

• links and networks among the different actors;• institutions;• processes of interaction, cooperation, and selectionMajor differences exist among sectoral systems

Dynamics and evolution: key aspects of sectoral systems

• Sectoral systems: dynamics first !

• Dynamics and the role of:- knowledge, learning and capabilites- various actors- demand

• The redefinition of the boundaries of sectors

A sectoral system approach for the study of innovation in sectors:

-Is not a straight jacket, but it is a broad, flexible and adaptable approach: it points to a system view of sectors, to key variables and to fundamental relationships

-It leads to analyses done at different levels of aggregation, depending on the purpose of the research- It has a strong link with theory - It allows modeling - It enables quantitative analyses - It allows for comparative analysis across industries and across countries- It provides a framework for policy -

THE EARLY STUDIES: CASE STUDIES

Early studies regarding sectoral systems focused on the structure and characteristics of sectoral systems in both advanced and developing countries (Mowery and Nelson, 1999; Malerba, 2004; Malerba and Mani, 2009).

Detailed case studies regarding the features, dimensions and structures of sectoral systems of innovation from a learning, capability and system perspective were done.

These early studies conclude that major differences exist in the features and structures of sectoral systems of innovation.They also identify the ways in which these features and structures affect the nature, amount and direction of innovation in a sector.

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSES

In parallel, quantitative analyses of sectoral systems have also been conducted based on extensive micro surveys (such as CIS) or micro data such as patents, scientific publications, new firm formation or cooperative agreements

Examples are Castellacci (2007); Castellacci and Zheng (2010), Adams, Fontana and Malerba (2013); Caloghirou et al. (2915)

The analyses have advanced the measurement and the quantitative assessment of the role of specific sectoral system elements - such as technological regimes, universities or demand - in affecting innovation, firm performance and sectoral growth.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SECTORAL SYSTEMS AND NATIONAL SYSTEMS

Other studies have examined the relationship between sectoral systems and national systemsThere is a dynamic interplay between national-system variables and sectoral-system variables in explaining why some sectors in some countries emerge, grow (and eventually catch-up in the case of emerging countries), while other sectors do not (Mowery and Nelson, 1999) National systems and institutional frameworks positively affect the development and growth of those sectors whose dimensions correspond and fit the national ones (Malerba and Nelson, 2011 and 2012; Gu, Lundvall et al. 2013) But also the growing sectors may shape and affect national systems (Dodgson; 2008). This is indeed a two-way relationship.

THE DIVERSE AND DIFFERENTIATED ROLE OF PUBLIC POLICY

In a sectoral system framework, policies for innovation and diffusion may be different for different sectors, because knowledge, actors, networks and institutions may differ across sectors.Not only the types and instruments of policies may differ across sectors, but there is also the need for systems of policies that take into account the importance of interdependencies, links, and feedbacks.Edquist et al. (2004); Caloghirou et al. (2015)

Recently, quantitative analyses concerning the different sectoral impacts of policies - such as R&D tax credits - have been conducted Bodas Freitas et al. (2016)

MOVING FORWARD….

CATCH UP

1. A broad view

Sectoral systems and catch up

Broad view of catching up in different sectorla systems:

• Malerba and Nelson: Catching up in different sectoral systems Industrial and corporate change, 2011

• Malerba and Nelson: Economic development as a learning process Elgar 2012

Pharmaceuticals: India and Brazil S.Ramani and S.Guennif

Agro-food: China, Brazil, Nigeria and Costa Rica S.Gu, J.Adeoti, A.Castro , J.Orozco

Software: India, Brazil, Russia, Philippines... G.Niosi, S.Athreye, T.Tschang

Telecommunications: Korea, China, Brazil K.Lee, S.Mani, Q.Mu

Auto: Korea, China, Brazil R. Quadros, Y. Huyn, Y. Wang

Semiconductors: Korea, China, Malaysia R. Rasiah, X. Kong, Y.Lin

COMMON FACTORS ACROSS SECTORS AFFECTING POSITIVELY CATCH UP

1. Accumulation of domestic capabilities

2. Access to foreign knowledge and international links

3. Development of advanced human capital

4. Active government policy

In successful countries, these factors work together in a dynamic complementary way: learning and capability building, knowledge access, advanced human capital

SECTOR-SPECIFIC FACTORS (1)

a) INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE - Scale and large size vs entry of new small firms- Presence of local clusters- Role of multinational corporations (global value chains vs licences to

local firms vs competent local branches)

These differences are the result of the working of -different technological regimes, of different scale, scope and

modularity of production and of different demand -dynamic elements such as industry life cycle and the time of catch-up

b) DEMAND CONDITIONS: -Different role of exports, domestic demand, demand segmentation

and user-producer links. -Often a dynamic relationship between demand and economic

performance has been present

c) OTHER SECTORAL SYSTEM ELEMENTS- Universities and public research organizations (pharma and

telecom)- Finance: venture capital vs internal finance (software vs telecom

and auto)- Diversity in the types of government policy (relevant in telecom vs

software vs pharma), with different dynamic effects over the short run and the long run

SECTOR SPECIFIC FACTORS (2)

AGAIN, THESE FACTORS ACT TOGHETHER IN COMPLEMENTARY WAYS

SOFWARE: entrepreneurship, local clusters, links with customers TELECOM: large firms, active government support for domestic

firms R&DSEMICOND: entrepreneurship, specializationPHARMA: university research, relaxation of IPRAGRO-FOOD: development of market institutions, diffusion

policies, development of a knowledge infrastructure

A KEY ISSUE: THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL INNNOVATION SYSTEMS

The role of national systems in terms of national institutions and government policy has been significant across sectors

For example: government policy in Korea has supported learning and capability accumulation by large firms, in Taiwan new small firms and in Brazil has been favorable to multinationals

This has affected also the sectors of a country catching up. There has been a two-way dynamic relationship between national

and sectoral variables: national policies have affected specific sectors that in turn have pushed for specific national policies

2. A More focussed view:

Changes in industrial leadership in sectoral systems

Lee and Malerba RP 2017

In several sectors there have been successive catch-ups and changes in industry leadership. And often companies come from the same country, therefore supported by the same national innovation system

• Mobile phones: Motorola -> Nokia -> Samsung and Apple• Steel: U.S. Japan Korea (partly) China

• Automobile: Germany U.S. Japan Korea partly China• Shipbuilding: U.S. Britain Japan Korea partly China• Semiconductor (memory chips): US-> Japan -> Korea

Franco Malerba

Three questions:

• Why do successive catch-up cycles occur? What are the factors that lead to successive changes in industry leadership in a sector ?

• Is it possible to model these cycles?

• And understand the public policies that affect them?

Franco Malerba

Industry Catch-Up Cycles

Factors affecting catching up: emerging views

• Capabilities: Key role of domestic firms in catching up: learning, capabilities and strategies are fundamental for catch-up

L. Kim, K.Lee,

• National innovation systems: Importance of institutions and the relevance of national innovation systems for catch-up

C. Freeman; B.A. Lundvall; R.Nelson

• But major differences across sectors exist. Evidence from:-Sources of industrial leadership: Mowery and Nelson (1999); -Sectoral systems and economic development: Malerba and Nelson

(2012)

Franco Malerba

Initial idea

• Leapfrogging and Window of Opportunity (Perez and Soete 1988)

“Techno-economic paradigm changes can be windows of opportunity for late-comers. They may bypass the old paradigm and jump into the new paradigm and thereby leapfrog”

Three windows of opportunities at the sectoral level for catch-up

1) Radical changes in the knowledge base and technologiesa. New Techno-Economic Paradigms (Perez and Soete 1988)b. Generations of new technological trajectories, disruptive

innovationsAnalogue Digital: Korean Digital TV (Lee, Lim and Song, 2005)

2) Changes in Demanda. Changes in demand conditions Emergence of Chinese market with specific demandb. Business Cycle Downturns TFT-LCD Industry (Mathews, 2005)

3) Changes in government intervention/regulationExamples: Indian pharmaceutical industry (Guennif and Ramani, 2010)

- Telecom in China, India, Brazil and Korea (Lee, Mani and Mu, 2011)Franco Malerba

Downturns in business cycles as windows of opportunityMathews, 2005

Downturns provide a time for economic cleansing and entries• Brake on incumbents• Release of resources provides opportunity for challengers –

newcomers and latecomers • Technology Transfer and Knowledge - Access become easier

and cheaper

Downturns provide opportunity for fast followers to create supply chain and to move up in rankings

Strategy for latecomers – timing of entry, making use of released resources and knowledge;

Example: 2008/9 Global Crisis window for China

Windows are always doomed to open sooner or later but firms and countries may or may not be able to catch them

Windows are always doomed to open as new technologies may be introduced, demand may change and government may start playing a major active role in catching up

Leadership change and success in catch-up depend on a combination of windows of opportunities with capabilities and strategies of incumbents firms and of catching up firms

THE RESPONSES TO A WINDOW BY INCUMBENTS AND LATECOMERS

• Levels of capabilities

• System response

Learning and Capabilities

For Catching up Firms: learning and capabilities are key drivers of catching up• This process is gradual and may take a long time• It is based on production and R&D investments and on human

capital investments • See the work of L. Kim (1997), K. Lee and others • Learning and the accumulation of capabilities by firms may be

affected by system factors (education, public policy of support, diffusion policies….)

For incumbent firmsWinners’ curse/ trap (not necessarily mistakes): the leaders tend to be complacent and entrenched with current success. They do it also by an obvious choice, given the uncertainty of new technologies or nee markets and given fixed investments whose life cycles have not finished yet

Franco Malerba

Lee and Lim (2001)

Path of the Forerunner: stage A --> stage B --> stage C --> stage D

1. Path-Following Catch-up: stage A --> stage B --> stage C --> stage D

e.g. PC, some consumer goods, and machine tools industries in Korea

2. Stage-Skipping Catch-up: stage A -----------------> stage C --> stage D

e.g. Hyundai's fuel-injection engine development (cf. carburator engine)

Samsung’s 64K DRAM prod. technology; 256K DRAM design technology

3. Path-Creating Catch-up: stage A --> stage B --> stage C' --> stage D'

e.g. Korea’s CDMA and digital TV development

C and C‘ represent different or competing technologies

Also the strategies of catching up firms may prove quite important

System factors

• Level of education

• Supporting policies

• Financial system

• Universities and PRO

Industry Catch-Up Cycles

In a sector: 3 possible Windows of Opportunity and 3 possible Cycles

In a sector, each cycle is that of a leading firm or a collection of firms in a nation. A new cycle replaces an old cycle

The empirical evidence of successive catch-up cycles

Successive catch up cycles have occurred in several sectors.

8 sectors have been examined by a group of researchers.

In all the 8 cases examined, catching up firms have developed advanced capabilities through a continuous learning process and deployed successful strategies. In addition, windows of opportunities opened up and allowed a change in leadership.

Franco Malerba

• Mobile Phones (Claudio Giachetti and Gianluca Marchi) •  Aircraft (Daniel Vertesy)• IT Services (Sunil Mani) • Cameras (Hank Kang and Jaeyong Song)• Semiconductors (Shin Jang-sup)• Steel (Jehoon Ki and Keun Lee)  • Wine (Roberta Rabellotti and Andrea

Morrison) • Games (Yuko Ahoyama and Hiro Izushi)

Successive changes in industrial leadership: the 8 sectors examined

• Steel industry: Keun Lee and Jeehoon KiTechnological windows (basic oxigen furnace and continuous casting) allowed a leadership change from US to Japan. A demand window (global steel industry downturn) plus a government window generated a leadership change from Japan to Korea• Camera industry: Jaeyong Song and Hoyseok KangA technological window (rangefinder/portable camera) allowed a leadership change form Germany to Japan. A new technological window in terms of a radically new trajectory (compact system camera) generated a change from Japan to Korea • Semiconductors (memory chips) Shin Jang-supIn the various generations of DRAM chips, demand windows (business cycles) plus stage skipping strategies allowed a first leadership change from US to Japan, and then a second change from Japan to Korea

• IT services Sunil Mani, Aborted catch up from US to Ireland and then sustained catch-up from US/Ireland to India • Mobile phones Claudio Giachetti and Gianluca MarchiA technological window (digital phones/GSM) and a regulation window allowed the shift from US (Motorola) to Europe (Nokia). A new technolological window (smart phones) allowed the shift from Europe to US (Apple) and Korea (Samsung) • Regional jets Daniel VertesyGovernment windows allowed a change in leadership from UK to Netherlands (Fokker), then to Canada (Bombardier) and then to Brazil (Embraer)

Franco Malerba

• Wine Roberta Rabellotti and Andrea MorrisonDemand windows and technology windows allowed first the catching up of US and Australia and later on the change in leadership from France to Italy• Games Yuko Ahoyama and Hiro IzushiA demand window (market crash) allowed a change in leadership from US to Japan (Nintendo and Sony). Later on a technology window (new ICT and software) and a demand window allowed a leadership change from Japan to US again

Franco Malerba

Finding 1: Windows are different • Technology windows: Camera: Japan SLR camera replacing German RF; Cell phone: shift from analogue to digital (from Motorola to Nokia) Steel: innovations of BOF and CC: US -> Japan

• Demand Windows India IT service: Y2K and dot.com boom Korean steel: downturns after oil shocks New World Wines: rise of new inexperienced consumers from the UK, the USA and the Scandinavian countries; then lately rise of Asian markets

• Government Windows: Korean steel, Brazilian mid-size jets; Nokia (EU standard)

Finding 2 : Incumbent Traps are frequent Likelihood of leadership change increases when the technology windows are combined with ‘incumbent/winner trap ‘ behavior

In their early days, new technologies are often more costly, less productive, and less reliable. Thus, the incumbents who command the highest productivity from the existing technologies feel no reason to adopt new technologies. They are complacent with the current success and dominant technologies.

It is not certain whether the choice by the incumbents is simply a mistake or an ex ante rational decision-making, given uncertainty of new technology or the new market, and given their fixed investments in technologies and products whose life cycle has not finished

Examples: Motorola tried to improve further the existing analogue telecommunication technologies despite arrival of digital technologies.

Steel: American steel firms did not adopt the BOF; because they constructed many mills with the old method and thus the useful economic life of them did not end yet when the BOF started to be put into commercial operation in the 1950s

A first understanding of successive catch-ups

• Successive catch-up cycles are a combination of (a) windows of opportunities coupled with (b) responses by latecomers in terms of domestic firms capabilities and strategies and by systems

• More than one window can be relevant for catching up in a specific stage.

• Entry by latecomers often takes the form of public-private partnership, SOEs or OEM/sub-contracting, often induced by public industrial policy

• Gradual catch-up led by cost advantages, associated with lower wage costs and to the adoption of new capital equipment. It tends to be concentrated in low-end segments (path-following strategies)

• Rapid catch-up is triggered with a shift of technology and demand conditions, combined with strategy of a path-creation or stage-skipping

Finding 1: Windows are different • Technology windows: Camera: Japan SLR camera replacing German RF; Cell phone: shift from analogue to digital (from Motorola to Nokia) Steel: innovations of BOF and CC: US -> Japan

• Demand Windows India IT service: Y2K and dot.com boom Korean steel: downturns after oil shocks New World Wines: rise of new inexperienced consumers from the UK, the USA and the Scandinavian countries; then lately rise of Asian markets

• Government Windows: Korean steel, Brazilian mid-size jets; Nokia (EU standard)

Finding 2 : Incumbent Traps are frequent Likelihood of leadership change increases when the technology windows are combined with ‘incumbent/winner trap ‘ behavior

In their early days, new technologies are often more costly, less productive, and less reliable. Thus, the incumbents who command the highest productivity from the existing technologies feel no reason to adopt new technologies. They are complacent with the current success and dominant technologies.

It is not certain whether the choice by the incumbents is simply a mistake or an ex ante rational decision-making, given uncertainty of new technology or the new market, and given their fixed investments in technologies and products whose life cycle has not finished

Examples: Motorola tried to improve further the existing analogue telecommunication technologies despite arrival of digital technologies.

Steel: American steel firms did not adopt the BOF; because they constructed many mills with the old method and thus the useful economic life of them did not end yet when the BOF started to be put into commercial operation in the 1950s

Finding 3: Sectoral Specificities of Windows and Leadership Dynamics

• Sectors differ in terms of the type of windows that most frequently open up and in the type of catch-up cycle.

1) In sectors with technology windows (semiconductors and mobile phones)

a high probability of radical replacement of incumbent by new entrants.

2) In other sectors (wine and auto) with demand windows. new firms often co-exist with old incumbents rather than replace them completely

Finding 4: Are windows endogenous ?• Windows may also endogenously created by actors

• the current leaders may try to innovate in the direction of competence-enhancing way.

-> If the leaders succeed, they are more likely to maintain their leadership in the next generations. -> persistence in leadership

• Ex 1) Samsung’s memory chip business: leader since the 1992 ; while industry had several leadership changes before the rise of Samsung.

• Ex 2) Canon’s continued leadership in cameras

3. Moving at the firm level

“THE RISE TO MARKET LEADERSHIP” Malerba, Mani and Adams Elgar 2017

The major questions: What do we know of those leading domestic firms that emerged as market leaders in some industries?Were they affected by capability and by system factors (sectoral, national and local) in their rise to market leadership?

THE METHODOLOGY: FIRMS IN THE SAME SECTOR ACROSS COUNTRIES

• Automobiles and autoparts: China : Geely cars Bin Guo Brazil: Marcopolo Body work Ricardo Cavalcante India: Tata Motors Small cars and Mahindra Sunil Mani

• ICTIndia: HCL Arun MadhavanBrazil : Totus ERP and Positivo PC Bruno Arraujo

• Pharmaceuticals China: Sinovac Vaccines, WuXi Pharmtech CRO and BGI Gene sequencing Song HongIndia : Heterodrugs Active ingredients and Suven Life Drugs for central nervous disorders Sunil Mani

In RISE TO MARKET LEADERSHIP Market success can be seen as:

- a process taking place in a market environment with specific type of competition (MNC, ….)

- of learning and capability building through factors • internal to the firm (production, R&D, marketing, …) • and external to the firm (services, alliances, mergers and

acquisitions…)

And affected by system factors at the sectoral, local and national levels

The Sources of Market Leadership

Firm Level Factors Vibrant Entrepreneurship

Learning, Capabilities and Strategies

Country Level Factors Active Public Policies in support of specific sectors

Policies to unleash private entrepreneurship

Strong Education Systems

Untapped Local Markets

Sector Level Factors Mastering the sectoral knowledge base

Presence of capable actors and links with advanced networks

Effective sectoral institutions

• In analysis of the evolution of sectoral systems, the effects of international links and and demand/vertical linkages have not extensively explored.

• A first extensive exploration of the joint dynamic effects of these types of links on the long term evolution of an industry is the analysis of the Chinese semiconductor and the telecommunication industries between 1978 and 2011 (Jiang Yu et al. 2016).

• International links and demand/vertical linkages contributed to the different evolution of the two Chinese industries which were quite similar initially, were part of the electronics macro-sector and belonged to the same national context.

4. VERTICAL LINKS AMONG SECTORAL SYSTEMSIN A DYNAMIC PERSPECTIVE

Related Yet Diverging Sectoral Systems: Telecommunications Equipment and Semiconductors in China, Yu, Malerba, Adams and Zhang Industry and Innovation 2017

• The key factor underlying the increasing divergence of the telecommunications and semiconductor industries was related to international links: for Chinese telecommunication it was the access, first, and the mastery, later, of advanced foreign knowledge and technology. This was followed by the opening of international agreements and the participation to international standard setting organizations. For Chinese semiconductor it was the opposite.

• The other key factor was demand/vertical linkages: during the early phases of development, demand linkages played a positive role (for Chinese telecommunications) and a blocking role (for Chinese semiconductors) in the determining the trajectories of the two Chinese industries. Here demand refers not only to the size of the market, but also to the characteristics of the different market segments in each industry and the levers of control over these markets.

• In sum, the evolution of the two Chinese industries were a combination of: (a) international links and demand linkages; (b) sectoral system specificities; (c) dynamic interdependencies and self-reinforcing mechanisms.

They had very different effects on growth, innovation, and competitiveness of the two Chinese industries

IN CONCLUSION

For catch up “One size does not fit all”.

The same “learning/knowledge/industrial structure/ interaction/ innovation/ institutions/ dynamics” link does not fit all sectors in the same way

Diversity is relevant across SECTORS.

Major DIFFERENCES exist across sectors in the learning processes, knowledge accumulation, structure, dynamics and transformation.

The sectoral dimension mediates between the MICRO analysis of learning and knowledge within firms and by firms and the MACRO relationship between knowledge and economic growth.

Sectors affect the MICRO dimension of firms learning and capability accumulation because of sectors’ specific knowledge base, structure and institutional context and the MACRO analysis of knowledge and economic growth in terms of the changing structural base of knowledge accumulation.

SUMMING UP

CHALLENGE FOR RESEARCH - 1CONTINUE TO ENLARGE THE SECTORS EXAMINED IN NEW

LEADING AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIESIn particular:ServicesTraditional or low tech sectors

CHALLENGE 2DEVELOP TAXONOMIES OF SECTORAL SYSTEMS

CHALLENGE 3UNDERSTAND THE DYNAMICS AND EVOLUTION OF SECTORAL

SYSTEMS IN THE PROCESS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT For a sectoral system: is there a unique structure, path,

trajectories across countries? Or not?Key themes: understanding the emergence of new sectors, the

transformation of existing sectors, the possible trajectories of a sector, the lock-ins, competence destruction within sectors, self reinforcing mechanisms in sectors

Examine the specific co-evolutionary processes at the base of change and growth in sectors

CHALLENGE 4PROGRESS ALONG COMPLEMENTARY METHODOLOGICAL

TRAJECTORIES THAT FEED ONE WITH THE OTHER1. Case studies on actors, structure and evolution of sectoral

systems2. Appreciative theorizing3. Quantitative-econometric analyses4. ModellingLink 1-2-3-4 together !

tTAXONOMIES OF SECTORAL SYSTEMS

• A first challenge is to move from studies of the features and structures of single sectoral systems to the identifications of commonalities among several sectors and to the grouping of sectoral systems into distinct typologies along a few key dimensions

• Early examples: • Pavitt taxonomy• Technological regimes and Schumpeter Mark I and Mark II

TAXONOMIES OF SECTORAL SYSTEMS

• One proposal for a taxonomy of sectoral systems is made in Fontana, Malerba and Marinoni (2015).

• This taxonomy is not related to innovation, but to new innovative firms and to the sectoral factors that affect their innovation, performance and growth.

• The analysis is based on data coming from the AEGIS survey of 4,004 newly established firms in 2001-2007 in 10 EU countries.

TAXONOMIES OF SECTORAL SYSTEMS

• Using the AEGIS survey the analysis was carried out in four steps.

1. First, specific questions in the survey which could be used to capture the main characteristics of sectoral systems were selected.

2. Second, on each question a factor analysis has been performed in order to pinpoint the main characteristics of the sectoral systems. The factors were extracted using the principal components method.

3. The third step aimed at constructing profiles of sectoral systems on the basis of the factors identified in the previous step. Homogeneous groups were built with the purpose of minimizing the distance in scores of firms within a given cluster and maximizing the distance in scores among companies from different clusters. The outcome of this step was a profile of sectoral systems.

4. The final step was aimed at making sense of the profiles, associating the profiles with the actual sectoral distribution of the firms in the sample based on the NACE (Rev. 1.1) classification. The approach used was the 'simple correspondence analysis’.

TAXONOMIES OF SECTORAL SYSTEMS

Starting from the sectoral system framework, four dimensions have been isolated:

• knowledge and its sources

• benefits coming from relationships and networks

• type of participation in formal agreements

• instruments of IP protection.