Configurational differences of national innovation capability: a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis approach

ABSTRACT Building on the national innovation system perspective, this study proposes an improved framework including five dimensions: institutions, human capital and research, infrastructure, market sophistication, and business sophistication. Based on the Global Innovation Index report, we use a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis approach (fsQCA) to determine the configurational differences of high innovation performance between countries with different income levels (high income, upper-middle income and lower-middle income). The results show that a same core configuration of conditions exist between high income and upper-middle income countries. These conditions are a good institutional environment, a high level of human capital research, supporting infrastructure and a mature business environment, which can drive high and upper-middle income countries to achieve high innovation performance. However, in lower-middle income countries, there are three configurations of conditions that are completely different from that of the high income and upper-middle income groups. These results suggest that the policies for improving national innovation levels need to be different for each income group. The significance of the results for theory and practice is also discussed.

[1]  C. Standing,et al.  The Systems Perspective of National Innovation Ecosystems , 2018 .

[2]  A. Woodside.  Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory , 2013 .

[3]  Shuaihe Zhuo,et al.  National innovation system, social entrepreneurship, and rural economic growth in China , 2017 .

[4]  Nuno Fernandes Crespo,et al.  Global innovation index: Moving beyond the absolute value of ranking with a fuzzy-set analysis , 2016 .

[5]  Ruth V. Aguilera,et al.  Corporate Governance and Investors' Perceptions of Foreign IPO Value: An Institutional Perspective , 2014 .

[6]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Which are the best innovation support infrastructures for universities? Evidence from R&D output and commercial activities , 2014, Scientometrics.

[7]  Túlio A. Cravo,et al.  The Impact of Business Support Services for Small and Medium Enterprises on Firm Performance in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Meta-Analysis , 2016 .

[8]  L. Leydesdorff,et al.  The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and , 2000 .

[9]  Graham Bell,et al.  A Comparative Method , 1989, The American Naturalist.

[10]  Richard R. Nelson,et al.  Economic Development from the Perspective of Evolutionary Economic Theory , 2008 .

[11]  Yasser Al-Saleh,et al.  Towards a functional framework for measuring national innovation efficacy , 2013 .

[12]  Victor Konde,et al.  Internet development in Zambia: a triple helix of government-university-partners , 2004, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[13]  M. Jaklič,et al.  National Innovation Policies in the EU: A Fuzzy-Set Analysis , 2014 .

[14]  Vanessa Ratten,et al.  ICT, Innovation and Firm Performance: The Transition Economies Context , 2017 .

[15]  S. H. Lee,et al.  Innovation policies of Cyprus during the global economic crisis: Aligning financial institutions with National Innovation System , 2018, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

[16]  R. Ramlogan,et al.  Innovation systems and the competitive process in developing economies , 2008 .

[17]  S. Arvanitis,et al.  Investigating the effects of ICT on innovation and performance of European hospitals: an exploratory study , 2014, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[18]  Charles C. Ragin,et al.  Set Relations in Social Research: Evaluating Their Consistency and Coverage , 2006, Political Analysis.

[19]  S Chung,et al.  Building a national innovation system through regional innovation systems , 2002 .

[20]  J. Mathews.  China, India and Brazil: Tiger technologies, dragon multinationals and the building of national systems of economic learning , 2009 .

[21]  Anis Khedhaouria,et al.  Configurational conditions of national innovation capability: A fuzzy set analysis approach , 2017 .

[22]  Barbara Vis,et al.  The Comparative Advantages of fsQCA and Regression Analysis for Moderately Large-N Analyses , 2012 .

[23]  M. Porter,et al.  National Innovative Capacity , 2001 .

[24]  Mike W. Peng,et al.  Towards an Institution-Based View of Business Strategy , 2002 .

[25]  C. Freeman.  Technological infrastructure and international competitiveness , 2004 .

[26]  B. Lundvall.  Dynamics of Industry and Innovation: Organizations, Networks and Systems National Innovation Systems -analytical Concept and Development Tool National Innovation Systems -analytical Concept and Development Tool National Innovation Systems -analytical Concept and Development Tool , 2022 .

[27]  Na Zhang,et al.  A foot in two camps or your undivided attention? The impact of intra- and inter-community collaboration on firm innovation performance , 2020, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[28]  Lili Wang,et al.  The Unexpected Convergence of Regional Productivity in Chinese Industry, 1978–2005 , 2013 .

[29]  J. Fagerberg,et al.  National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development , 2008 .

[30]  K. Green.  National innovation systems: a comparative analysis , 1996 .

[31]  Thomas J. Chemmanur,et al.  Entrepreneurial Finance and Innovation: An Introduction and Agenda for Future Research , 2014 .

[32]  Jeffrey L. Furman,et al.  The Determinants of National Innovative Capacity , 2000 .

[33]  D. Kale,et al.  National innovation systems and the intermediary role of industry associations in building institutional capacities for innovation in developing countries: a critical review of the literature , 2015 .

[34]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Measuring the expected synergy in Spanish regional and national systems of innovation , 2017 .