Innovation Systems: A Survey of the Literature from a Schumpeterian Perspective

s are available only for journal articles. Therefore, it has not been possible to review this whole literature in detail. Beyond the statistical summary and classification presented here, there are many topics to explore in further research; some of these are indicated in the analysis that 7 follows. But the analysis of the more specific content of the literature remains somewhat impressionistic and superficial at this time; much more could be done. National Innovation Systems (NIS) Of the 381 publications classified as NIS studies, 147 (38 %) are focused on individual countries. 55 of these study European countries, 47 Asian countries, 22 Latin America, 14 North America, and 9 the rest of the world. Japan is the most frequently studied country (17 studies), followed by China (11), Finland and Germany (9 each). The most common orientation of these studies is toward policy discussion (66), general description of national innovation systems (21), and focus on a particular sector or industry (19). About one-third of these studies deal with developing or transition economies. 51 NIS-studies are comparative in nature (comparing one country or set of countries with another). 164 (43 % of NIS studies) are not focused on any particular country or group of countries but discuss concepts/theory (56), policy (43), issues having to do with globalization (42), or other issues without reference to country. These could also be classified as general innovation system studies. Regional Innovation Systems (RIS) 201 studies are focused on regional innovation systems (RIS). Slightly more than half (103 studies) are empirically oriented, focusing mostly on a particular region (62) or on multiple regions (24). More than half of these studies deal with regions within Europe. The other empirical studies are case studies of various sorts involving innovation surveys, patent analyses, 8 globalization issues, or innovation policy. Of the 93 non-empirical RIS studies, 70 are conceptual in nature and 11 are policy-oriented. Sectoral Innovation Systems (SIS) There are 49 published studies of sectoral innovation systems (SIS). 30 of these focus on individual sectors or industries (the service sectors and the biomedical/pharmaceutical industry being most heavily represented). 9 studies are conceptual, three are comparative, four are policyoriented. The remaining three fall into a miscellaneous category. Technological Innovation Systems (TIS) The technological innovation system studies differ from others not only in that they are more narrowly focused (being defined by a particular technology or set of technologies rather than a geographic region or industry) but also in that they are more conceptual/theoretical in nature. This is largely a result of the need to establish both the core and the boundaries of the systems before the analysis can take place. These issues are much less problematic in other approaches. Also, technological innovation systems have three dimensions (cognitive, institutional/ organizational, and economic – see Carlsson 2002), while other approaches focus primarily on institutions. Thus, of the 149 studies of technological innovation systems, more than one-third (57) are conceptual in nature. The remaining two-thirds are either case studies of various sorts or otherwise classified. The biotech/biomedical/pharmaceutical sector is the most frequently studied (17 studies), followed by agriculture (8), factory automation (6), and information technology (5). 9 Other Innovation Systems The ‘Other innovation systems’ category contains 30 publications. 19 of these are conceptual in nature without specific reference to any of the types of innovation systems previously mentioned, or refer to innovation systems in general. 11 focus on corporate innovation systems and related management issues. As shown in Figure 1, the number and focus of innovation studies have varied over time. After the first few studies on NIS (Freeman, Lundvall, Nelson et al.) and technological innovation systems (particularly focused on agriculture) in the late 1980s, the numbers increased dramatically in the early 1990s, peaking at 175 in 2000, and then declined sharply. Regional and sectoral innovation system studies began to appear in the late 1990s. The large number of studies published in 2000 appears to be a coincidental result of several books being published in the same year. The number of publications of RIS and SIS studies was particularly large that year compared with other years. Several books on RIS were published by Dunning, Holbrook, Boekema and others. Similarly, half of the SIS studies published in that year are chapters in books on the service sector (edited by Metcalfe & Miles, Boden & Miles, and Andersen et al., respectively). Overview of Topics and Themes 206 (27 %) of all the innovation systems publications are conceptual/theoretical in nature. As indicated already, the definition of boundaries and core activities is more problematic in regional and technological innovation systems than in others. This is reflected in the fact that a larger share of the regional (36 %) and technological (34 %) innovation system studies are conceptual 10 than is the case for other systems. The corresponding numbers for SIS and NIS are 21 % and 16 %, respectively. Of all the innovation system publications, 11 % have a sector focus. As one would expect, the SIS studies are the most sector-oriented: 58 %. (Other SIS studies are primarily conceptual in nature.) It is perhaps more surprising that as many as 9 % of both NIS and TIS studies and only 4 % of regional studies are focused on a particular sector or industry. To some extent this reflects difficulties of appropriate labeling. For example, studies of the role of particular sectors in a national innovation system are generally classified as both NIS and SIS. They are often parts of edited volumes focusing on a particular national innovation system and its components. In other cases the terminology used in the studies refers to national innovation systems, even though a sectoral designation would be more appropriate. Similarly, some TIS studies use the term ‘technological’ when ‘sectoral’ would be more appropriate. These difficulties are an unavoidable result of the procedure used to identify entries into the database. It is interesting to note, however, that the sector focus has shifted markedly over time. All innovation system studies have become much more sector-oriented (18 % in 2000-2002, compared with only 11 % in 19871999). The shift has been particularly dramatic in NIS studies: from 6 % in 1987-1999 to 16 % in 2000-2002. This suggests that as more has been learned about innovation systems at all levels (and especially at the national level), there is a greater need for more detailed, micro-based studies. Only a small subset (about 60 studies) can be considered ‘dynamic’ in the sense that they focus on a historical process or development over time rather than on a snapshot of a system in a 11 particular time period. There are even fewer studies dealing with new system formation, leaving an as yet wide open area for future research. It is tempting to conclude that Schumpeter’s vision of the dynamics of what he called the “economic system” is not yet fully developed: most studies still adhere to a static view of the world. Schumpeter distinguished sharply between invention (the original idea for a new product or process), innovation (its conversion into a commercializable product), and the diffusion of innovations. The innovation systems literature is heavily oriented to the earlier (invention) stage and to some extent diffusion, with relatively little emphasis on the innovative (entrepreneurial) stage. This is somewhat surprising, given the prominence of entrepreneurship in Schumpeter’s work, and the Schumpeterian origin of innovation system studies. Only about 20 studies address entrepreneurial issues. Thus, it appears that innovation systems are more deeply rooted in Schumpeter’s later work (Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy) than in his earlier work (The Theory of Economic Development) that features the individual entrepreneur more prominently. It also appears that to the extent that entrepreneurial activity is necessary to convert innovation into economic growth, there is a missing link in the innovation systems literature. This is reflected also in the discussion and analysis of public policy in the literature. 190 of all the publications (25 %) deal with policy issues. The NIS studies tend to be the most policyoriented (34 %), while 24 % of RIS and 13 and 12 % of sectoral and technological innovation system studies, respectively, have a policy focus. Again, this state of affairs is no surprise. To a large extent it reflects the fact that it is easier to identify the relevant policy makers with respect 12 to nations and regions than in sectoral and technological systems. It is also easier to identify policy measures at the national level than at other levels. As one would expect, the policy discussion in the NIS studies tends to focus on national policies with respect to the technology infrastructure: promotion of R&D, intellectual property rights (especially, patent laws), the role of public and private research and technology institutes (particularly university-industry collaboration, technology transfer, and the role of science parks), as well as trade policy and the role of foreign direct investment. This reflects the fact that public policies in all these areas form an important part of the infrastructure for all innovation systems within nations (including regional, sectoral, and technological innovation systems). The lower the level of aggregation, the more qualitative and specific the policy analysis becomes, focusing more on interaction among actors and on institution building. It is therefore difficult to summarize briefly. However, it can be safely said that throughout the inno