Patarapong Intarakumnerd

National innovation system in less successful developing countries: the case of Thailand

Abstract This paper, using Thailand as a case study, aims at understanding the national innovation system (NIS) in developing countries which are less successful in technological catching-up. In contrast to developed countries, the development level of Thailand’s NIS does not link to its economic structural development level. As Thailand moves from agricultural to an increasingly industrial economy, its NIS remains weak and fragmented. The mismatch between the two affected Thailand’s competitiveness and partially contributed to the recent economic crisis. Studies of NIS in countries like Thailand should focus on factors contributing to the long-running perpetuation of weak and fragmented NIS.

Asia's innovation systems in transition

The success of Asian economies (first Japan, then Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and, more recently, China and India) has made it tempting to look for ‘an Asian model of development’. However, the strength of Asian development lies less in strategies that reproduce successful national systems of innovation and more in the capacity for institutional change to open up new development trajectories with greater emphasis on knowledge and learning. The select group of contributors demonstrate that although there are important differences among Asian countries in terms of institutional set-ups supporting innovation, government policies and industrial structures, they share common transitional processes to cope with the globalizing learning economy.

Thailand’s National Innovation System in Transition

The success of Asian economies (first Japan, then Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and, more recently, China and India) has made it tempting to look for ‘an Asian model of development’. However, the strength of Asian development lies less in strategies that reproduce successful national systems of innovation and more in the capacity for institutional change to open up new development trajectories with greater emphasis on knowledge and learning. The select group of contributors demonstrate that although there are important differences among Asian countries in terms of institutional set-ups supporting innovation, government policies and industrial structures, they share common transitional processes to cope with the globalizing learning economy.

Coping with a Giant Challenges and Opportunities for Thai and Vietnamese Motorcycle Industry from China

This article focuses on how sectoral systems of innovation and production in the same industry but across countries may evolve differently after facing similar threats and opportunities caused by the same external factor. To elaborate on this, we will use the case of evolution of the automotive sectors in Thailand and Vietnam, and their dynamics and transformation when they are facing threats and opportunities from their fierce competitor, China. The findings illustrate that different sectoral systems of innovation and production evolve differently. The direction and the pace of evolution depends very much on existing absorptive capabilities of agents, strength of their linkages, and their process of collective learning to withstand the threats and exploit opportunities.

The roles of intermediaries in sectoral innovation system in developing countries: public organizations versus private organizations

This paper investigates the roles of intermediaries in the automotive sector of Thailand and observes how institutional settings affect the performance of innovation intermediaries. The study finds that intermediaries play a crucial role in compensating for the shortfall in social capital that hinders the functionality of innovation systems in developing countries such as Thailand. Organizational set-up and budgetary support are crucial for the effectiveness of sector-specific intermediaries. The study identifies a number of tensions with regard to the funding and governance structure of such organizations. To strengthen the role of intermediaries in developing countries, governments should pay attention to the issue of the division of labour and collaboration between public and private intermediaries. Public intermediaries should play an active role in producing public goods necessary for the technological upgrading of firms in the sector while private intermediaries should play active roles in industry and/or firm specific issues. Public and private intermediaries should collaborate and have a mutual understanding of which type of organizations should be leaders on what issues. This has serious implications on government policies that initiate and strengthen the roles and capabilities of intermediaries in the innovation processes.

Strategy versus practice in innovation systems policy: The case of Thailand

Summary The paper builds up on the pioneer work of Martin Bell, who started studying the Thai S&T policy already in the sixties. In one of his latest work (Bell, 2002) Martin strongly highlights the need to move from a traditional approach to science and technology policy to a broader system of innovation policy, that focuses on capability building and on the interactions between the different organizations responsible for the creation, acquisition and use of knowledge for innovation. The issue of the rationale for public intervention under the systems of innovation perspective has recently received an increasing attention among scholars and practitioners. However, with few exceptions, this literature has been based on the analysis of innovation policies and innovation systems in the industrialized countries neglecting almost completely the specific policy dilemmas arising from weak and fragmented innovation systems that characterize developing countries. In the last few years, a growing number of developing countries have adopted the system of innovation approach officially in their innovation policy. Yet, there has not been an adequate attempt to systematically analyze how (and if) this has been done in practice. This paper attempts to shed some light on this issue by analyzing the innovation policy of Thailand. Right after Bells latest report on S&T policy in Thailand and the Thai Innovation System was launched (Bell, 2002), the Thai government made official a new S&T five‐year Plan (2001–2006) in which the system of innovation approach was officially adopted. This paper enquires the extent to which the IS has been applied in practice. The paper suggests that while innovation system approach might have been officially adopted by a government, the practice follows old innovation paradigms and hardly addresses the profound systemic problems of the Thai innovation system.

Government Mediation and Transformation of Thailand's National Innovation System

This article focuses on how a major shift in government policies can transform the national innovation system (NIS) of a developing country. Thailands used to be a typical developing country NIS. It was quite weak and fragmented. Major change took place when Thaksin Shinawatra became prime minister in 2001. New policies and practices, which can be group together as ‘Thaksinomics’, transformed not only the government sector, but also two other leading actors of the NIS: private firms and university. Even though it is too early to draw final conclusions of the effects of Thaksin policies on Thai NIS, it is true that it became stronger and more coherent. The experience of Thailand demonstrates that a national innovation system of a latecomer country can transform from a long-standing character of a weak, fragmented and slow-learning one to a stronger, coherent and more-active-learning one, if there is a significant change in the behaviour of a key actor that can cause positive effects in other actors.

Innovation policies in Thailand: towards a system of innovation approach?

The issue of the rationale for public intervention under the system of innovation (SI) perspective has recently received increasing attention from scholars and practitioners. However, with few exceptions, this literature has been based on the analysis of innovation policies and innovation systems in industrialized countries neglecting almost completely the specific policy dilemmas that arise from the weak and fragmented innovation systems that characterize developing countries. In the last few years, a growing number of developing countries have adopted the SI approach officially in their innovation policy. Yet, there has not been an adequate attempt to systematically analyze how (and if) this has been done in practice. This study attempts to shed some light on this issue by analyzing the innovation policy of Thailand. It suggests that while the innovation system approach might be officially adopted by a government, the practice follows old innovation paradigms and hardly addresses systemic problems.

Government policies and measures in supporting technological capability development of latecomer firms: A tentative taxonomy

Summary This paper focuses on the significant issues of technological capability development of latecomer firms, and government policies enabling such firms to attain certain level of technological capability. The survey and case studies of manufacturing firms in Thailand were conducted to substantiate and investigate the process of technological capability development of latecomer firms. The analysis portrays a dynamic view of technological capability development that comprises three key elements namely strategic capability, internal capability, and external linkage capability. The paper, subsequently, discusses and suggests a tentative taxonomy of government policies and measures to support firms’ technological capability development.

Two Models of Research Technology Organisations in Asia

This article presents two models of research and technology organisations (RTOs) in latecomer countries undergoing technological catch-up. The RTOs in Model A tried to stimulate the accumulation of technological and innovative capabilities ‘within’ firms. In contrast, the RTOs in Model B attempted to create technological capabilities ‘on behalf of firms’. The models have produced different results. Case studies of Taiwan’s Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) and Thailand’s National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) are used as representatives of the two models.